This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:02 Right. >> Very chatty. It's very chatty. >> Yeah, it's No, it's busy. >> I'm gonna I'm gonna start sharing. That's I'm just going to when >> All right. Good morning. All right. All right. Say good morning. Good morning. Let us begin begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning cheer to thank our 0:44 for the month of the Shfeld family for dedicating this month. Mr. Mayor Ben Mosha, Justin Navmore for dedicating the Sherman Josh this month with tremendous gratitude to the entire and may be answered over the le for dedicating all this month in 1:09 recognition of the entire Ben with tremendous gratit for a year family may bring about the ultimate and our sponsors and Sarah Steinberg for dedicating the DA this morning in for an ultimate with that let us begin we have a lot to 1:39 do today is 113 we are picking up on B 112B and we left off we left of which is four lines up from the bottom on 112B. This is an interesting case. So had gone ahead and had gone I will say just if we have time if we have time we'll come back. So obviously very interesting that 2:10 he's known by his mother's name by his mother. So this this story ultimately again of where his his mother was taken captive violated by her captor ultimately again her captor subsequently converts marries his mother's biological father ultimately again was not Jewish at the time of his conception as such ultimately again he's known by his mother's name pretty incredible I will 2:33 say you know what's fascinating just to see each and every day and and when I guess it's it's when you look at anything in life through this lens you see this message reinforced every day. No matter what your backstory is, right? No matter what your challenge is, no matter what your difficulty is, no matter what your family is, no matter where you come from, no matter what set of circumstances life visits upon you 2:57 that you would have never chosen for yourself. If you want to make the most of your life and you want to self-actualize, you can do so. The pages of the gimar are filled with people who just had difficult circumstances but yet their names are on the pages of the gimar which tells us that if you put your mind not necessarily to overcoming your obstacles because you can't necessarily overcome every single obstacle but you can absolutely maximize 3:22 all of life's circumstances and not allow anything to hold you back from becoming the person you need to become. Incredible. He was salting kosher meat together with non- kosher I should say together with tra meat. Trafa meat. So the said the obvious sh is what what's what's the issue? The issue is does the presence of the tra meat being salted together with the kosher meat. Does that have a 3:49 negative impact on the kosher meat comes before? So the says the says this this is these are all of the things that are tummy for you and it's talking over here about creepy creepy crawly things creepy crawly creatures. So the extra teaches us something very important. 4:16 This comes to go ahead and include not only the itself but its juices, its gravy, its sediment. Ash says the idea over here is since anything essentially any juices that come out of something that is tame is going to be tame as well. As such, the assumption is that the traa emits some type of juices while it's being salted together with 4:55 the kosher animal and therefore the presence of the meat will in fact go ahead and trafe up the kosher meat as well. So top of bottom lineer no real surprises no real surprises over there. It's just that again remember me say understand what's happening over here in this case what is doing is he's salting the kosher meat 5:20 dka that he's salting the tray for meat so I would have thought like this what does salt do remember again what does salt do it extracts it draw so I would have thought like this if only the kosher meat is being salted the tray for meat is not being salted that means stuff's coming out of the kosher meat maybe nothing's coming out of the tray for meat so the gor answers you might be right except there's always something coming out of the non-cooser meat there. 5:44 There's juice, there's gravy, there's whatever whatever whatever stuff is oozing out. So, and and that by definition has the same status as the tray of meat as well. So, therefore, again, no surprises over here. Hello, the presence of the tra meat even if it's not salted is going to go ahead and negatively impact the kosher meat. I top of 113. 6:06 But there's another issue over here. say that it's problematic. We saw this in yesterday's daf, right? What was yesterday's daf? We saw which means there's something the process of salting, right? Heavy salting has the effect of roasting and therefore you're telling me that there's tra meat in the same as the kosher meat and the kosher meat is salted and when you salt 6:33 obviously there's a good amount of salt that's there. Therefore, this is just like roasting which means you're effectively roasting kosher and non-coosher meat together. So that's that's problematic also to which the says no no no says you're right you're right but I'll tell you why we didn't bring this up because if we would have brought up I would have thought when do we say when 6:58 is that true with blood with blood however but perhaps again when we're just talking about let's say the juices the gravy perhaps we don't say the says we Kamashan again says you're right there could also be a potential we're just concerned that if we would have led with that you would have assumed that's only an issue if there's 7:21 blood it's possible in this tra there's no blood why is there no blood because if the traam meat is not being salted that might mean that blood is not flowing out the point that the is introducing us to us over here is that even if there's no blood flowing out from the tray it's still problematic why because there's always something oozing out of the tray for meat And whatever is oozing out itself, excuse me, is going 7:44 to be problematic. And therefore, we'll trace up the kosher meat. Okay. 113a four lines down from the top. Interesting case. If you have a kosher fish and you co and you and you salted that kosher fish in the same clea as a non-coosher fish. 8:08 Okay. So what is what is the I want to point out over here something amazing Rashi Rashi points out that these cases where you're salting kosher and non-coosher together has to be in what Rashi termed as a cle manukov a perforated utensil right which makes sense because if there's not perforated then the truth is everything is stewing and sitting in the blood or the other so 8:32 so obviously we're talking about a situation where things may be salted together but there's a perforated cle so nothing is pulled pooling everything everything is flowing out. Okay. So the says you salted a kosher fish together with a non-cooser fish is soar says one second. 8:54 Are we talking about a case where both of them were salted? Now look at last white line on the top. Now again now here's what's interesting. Now, if they're both salted, it could very well be what the Gimmer is teaching me is as follows, which is when something is salted, what is it doing? 9:13 What is it doing? It's it's it's it's emitting, right? Stuff is being extracted. So, the item itself is expelling. The gimmar is operating or trying to operate based on a based on a um principle which is when when a food item is expelling, it can't absorb. That's no food item could do the same the same two things simultaneously which again you know we keep on making distinctions 9:38 between meat and man here's another good one right so again some meat or fish in this in this respect can only go ahead and expel or absorb can't do both simultaneously but says well man could do both right so much of life is figuring out what to expel Well, what what what do I not want in my life? What do I not want in my 10:03 persona? And ultimately, again, simultaneously, what do I want to absorb? So, meat can't do both things simultaneously. Men must learn to do both things simultaneously. So, the says, okay, so they must both be salted, right? They must both be salted. In which case, remember again, we'll say, what do the Bes say? You're salting kosher and 10:26 non-coosher fish together in a cle in the utensil. says motor. Okay, sounds interesting. Why is it mutter? Well, if they're both being salted, therefore they're both expelling. If they're both expelling, neither is absorbing. We're obviously talking about a perforated utensil because all these kids are perforated utensils. That's then we're good to go. 10:44 to which the low not necessarily. You could be talking about a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-coosher fish was not because well remember again I don't really care about the non- kosher fish. What do I care about? What what am I focus on over here? What do I not want to happen in this case? I don't want the kosher fish to absorb from the non-coosher fish. Therefore, the gimar says I don't need both salted. All I 11:10 need is the kosher fish salted. If the kosher fish is salted, that means it's not absorbing. And right, it's just expelling. It's not absorbing. But one second. One second. Take a first of say. So now what according to actually answering is as follows. They're saying like this the cases where the kosher fish is salted the non-cooser fish is 11:44 not salted. I switched gears a little bit beforehand. We were saying that when something is expelling it's not absorbing. Here the is saying something a little bit different. When there's no salt the item is not expelling. If the item is not expelling so if the kosher fish is not expelling then what? Then what? Then there's no problem. I What about the fact that we just said before? Okay, it's not expelling blood, but it's 12:08 expelling the gravy, the juices, the other stuff. Someone says, "Oh, what do you see from here? Those other juices are not problematic." That apparently it's only blood that's problematic. The other juices are not problematic. says look at the of that where it said that if the kosher fish was salted and the tummy one was not that was seemed to indicate that is 12:37 talking about where both where where both items are where both items ultimately again are salted and therefore again the B is teaching me that as long as they're both salted They're both expelling. They're both expelling and ultimately again nothing is being absorbed by the kosher fish even just the gravy of the non-coosher fish to which says no no no 13:02 ultimately again is coming to explain what's the explanation here we go. So this is what the bison needs to say. If you have a kosher fish that was salted with an uncoser fish ultimately the kosher fish is how the what's the case in which the kosher fish is kosher is where the kosher fish was salted and the tummy fish was not the fish was not the non-coosher fish 13:28 was not which therefore means which means ultimately again the reason why that works is because as long as the non-coosher fish was not salted. Therefore, what it's not emitting anything. Salt is what causes fluorite expulsion. So, as long as the non-coosher fish is not is not salted ultimately again it is not it is not 13:53 problematic. Incredible. They will say even by the way even the gravy even anything else. So this seems to be the right explanation because if you would think that of the salted so in a case where both are salted kosher fish is going to be permitted then of course if the kosher fish is salted and the non-cooser one is not of 14:19 course it's going to be kashai again when it's everyone is agreeing that when the non-coosher item is not is not salted then of course It's expulsatory abilities are much are are incredibly limited. Right. Right. So therefore again so that that goes without saying. 14:36 So in other words, if you're going to tell me that even when both of them are salted that say the kosher fish is all the more so when the kosher one is and the non-coosher one is not that it's going to bear says no no no if that's your point says sometimes say the will go ahead and frame a that the is written in such a way in order to go ahead and shed light 15:00 on the rat malak I'm sorry. Don't say just in a case where the kosher fish is salted and the non- kosher fish is not that's where it's but perhaps if both of them were salted it is therefore therefore the tan goes ahead and writes in the even if the kosher fish was 15:33 salted the non-coosher fish was not which teaches us that even the is talking about a case where both were assaulted and even at the end of the day both will be mut incredible. So the says let's from the says the says sorry 16:03 if ultimately again the non-cooser fish was salted and the kosher fish was not the kosher fish is going to be asser which makes sense because the non-coosher fish is emitting is expelling and the non-coosher fish and the kosher fish will be absorbing maly vitar If the kosher fish is salted and the non-coosher one is not that's the case but I confer from that that if both of 16:29 them were salted it should be permitted says no no no wrote in the case of the that's salted and the non-coosher one that's not salted therefore again he aligned the as as well as dealing with the opposite case of the and the incredible therefore what comes out from this whole conversation is the following. So first 16:57 of all the way we are understanding over here is that although salt does absolutely serve to draw out to draw out blood there are definitely other things in the animal or in the fish that will seep out by itself. We see this even even without even without salt. So therefore again if you're going ahead and you're salting 17:21 a non-cosher item with a kosher item that is going to be problematic. Even if you're only even if you're only salting the kosher item because again there's still other stuff that is seeping out of that non-cooser item and that is going to be problematic. Okay. Good. All right. So we're not finished. I'm okay. 17:38 This is very interesting. Now back to salting. Let's go remember again. So let's take a step back. So we were really introduced to in yesterday's gimmar was this idea that in order to extract blood there's a number there seems to be two ways to extract blood. One way to extract blood is to cut the piece of meat. Now how much you have to cut it crisscross or just once but cut the piece of meat put it in the stove or 18:01 put it over the fire incision facing down and allow the blood to drain out like that. That's one way the spoke about drainage of blood. The way the spoke about it was salting and that really we were introduced to in yesterday's that for the false for the first time salting. What the did not tell us is ultimately again how exactly do you effectively salt a piece of meat 18:24 in order to go ahead and drain out the blood. So here we go. says is in order to properly salt an salt salt a piece of meat which means salt it generously. Salt it generously. A lot of salt. A lot of salt. And then interestingly enough after you go ahead and you salt the meat 18:52 then what? Then rinse it off. So it's it's salting and rinsing. So is adding over here is really two pieces of information. Number one, generous salting, which sounds like you cover the piece of meat in salt. And number two, the rinsing off of the salt. Good. Which say makes sense because the blood is absorbed into the salt. So ultimately, again, I don't want that salt remaining 19:16 on the piece of meat. So let's analyze this a bit more. So again, like said, you salt it and you're rinsed. Listen to this. But yet again said there's another opinion. Another opinion says first you rinse it then you salt it and then you rinse again. So they're not arguing. 19:45 So one is where one is where it was initially rinsed at the butcher and one ultimately again is where it wasn't rinsed in the butcher. So say interestingly enough on the stands over here that apparently it was just common the butcher would rinse the meat initially which I guess makes sense but there is apparently in this process you need to first rinse which means rinse off whatever is there 20:10 on the meat salt it heavily salt it and then rinse it a second time. some rinsing, salting, rinsing. So the goes so would go ahead and salt the meat with salt from the galo. What was unique about is very interesting. Galina mel gas gassa big salt, kosher salt, right? 20:37 what we call kosher salt today we'll say that larger I don't know I call larger grain or larger granle salt ultimately and that's what was say again all of this is makes a lot of sense because remember again the goal is that the blood is being absorbed into the salt itself so he would go ahead and da salt with this kosher salt and she says 21:10 So afterwards he would shake it off. He would shake it off. So in other words, again what's interesting about this is that there's a little bit of in the process. Is it rinsing? Is it shaking? It may also depend on the type of salt that you are using. But again, use larger granle salt and therefore shake it off. 21:32 says so just an associated so again we don't assume about the presence of blood in in what we call means like in the kishkas in the internal organs now what does this mean if you look at rashi rashi says over here rashi says this is very interesting so you know we'll say we let's take let's say you 21:59 take a piece of meat right you sh to the cow You take a steak, you carve out a steak from there and you realize that you did not you did not drain the blood. You can't eat it because we assume that there's blood in there. The gim says for certain internal organs, we do not assume that they're saturated with blood and therefore if you prepared it without salting it, you could still eat it. 22:19 Okay, what are we talking about over here? The says, so the explains what are we talking about over here. Kakash the rectum the stomach and the large intestine. So apparently again these are internal parts of the body where we do not assume that they're saturated with blood internal blood. And therefore if you prepared it without salting it you can eat it. Incredible 22:42 says so this will say is intuitive and we understand this. You do not salt a piece of meat unless you're doing it on a perforated utensil. prefer a utensil, right? Again both say logic is is obvious. Remember again out of concern you don't you never want you never want a kosher piece of meat sitting and and kind of like in any in its own blood and 23:06 bless you in other blood in other juices from other animals. Okay. See very interesting would only salt one piece of meat at a time. Now if you look at Rashi Rashi says not yet not yet. So he would only go ahead and salt one piece of meat at a time says trade my time alone. What's the reason why he would not salt two pieces of meat 23:29 together? So the mishumai this is very interesting. What was he concerned about? He was concerned that the blood would come out of piece A and be absorbed into piece B. So therefore again he only went ahead and salted one piece of meat says one second. If that's what you're concerned about, sorry, one second. But you should have that concern with one piece of meat. In other words, we'll say if you're salting a 23:58 piece of meat and you have a non-perforated utensil and that piece of meat is is literally sitting in its own blood. So, it's very nice that you've extracted the blood with salt, but if it's sitting there, then what's going to happen? It's going to reabsorb. So, therefore, the Gimra says, "You're right. You're right." The Gimmer says Ella Ella. Rather, the Gimra says, "You're right. We do not make this distinction and and this is very important. So you could salt two pieces 24:19 of meat together in the same in at at the same time. I now again I will say it would seem to be based on everything we learned that put it in a perforated utensil, right? We don't want it sitting in blood. What's interesting over here is the seems to say that even if it's not in a perforated utensil, it's still going to be mut. Why? Look what Rashi says. 24:52 So say this is incredibly important because at the end of the day the comes around to a very core principle. What's the core principle that when something is busy expelling it does not absorb. So therefore, what's interesting, the Gimra says if you're salting multiple pieces of meat together, those pieces of meat are busy are busy expelling. And because they're busy expelling, by definition, they're 25:17 not going to absorb. Again, should you use the perforated utensil? Absolutely. But apparently, even if you didn't, says that the pieces of meat would still be motor. Okay. Incredible. First wide line. 25:35 It's an interesting case. So listen to this. If you break the neck of an animal before it fully dies. Now this must be a case where the neck is being broken in a way that doesn't make the animal a tra or perhaps again right immediately like after the you're break like like precision precision exact moment. The idea over here is Rashi 26:05 points this out. When you sh an animal, the animal lets out a lets out like a a moan with that craft. The animal pushes out a significant amount of blood. If you break the neck, the crest is gone. 26:21 If the cracks is gone, then what happens? More blood remains absorbed in the animal. Now the Gimar says, okay, in other words, it's it's rectified. You're going to assault it anyway. says, "We have a kosh mishbat issue over here. This is a this is a this is a this is a a commerce issue." What's the commerce issue? You're going to sell a pound of meat, right? A pound of meat, if the animal doesn't have the ability 26:43 to expel its blood properly, is not a full pound of meat. Rather, what is it? It's a pound of meat with whatever blood got absorbed because it wasn't expelled. That's the Gimra says, if you break the neck of the animal before it fully dies, you cause the meat to be heavier and you're stealing from people. You're stealing from people because When I go and I buy a pound of meat, I'm not really getting a pound of meat. I'm getting a pound of meat minus minus the 27:06 absorbed blood that really should have been expelled through the okay. So let's understand this. Okay. So I understand I can't do this if I'm selling the meat to other people, right? Because like I said, we don't have a kash issue here or at least it doesn't appear. So rather we have overbut issue. 27:34 So is that is that what this is? And therefore this only applies if I'm selling the meat. However, however, but again whatever the reason I want to do this, I want to do this ultimately again it's fine. It's fine or maybe not. Maybe for myself I can't do this. Why? Because 27:58 maybe as Rashley points out over here maybe there's really two here. Issue number one is a is a issue that I'm going to end up stealing from people because I'm not really selling them selling them a pound of meat. I'm selling them a pound of meat minus the absorbed blood. But maybe there's also a kash issue over here that when I cause more blood to be absorbed in the animal that blood doesn't go anywhere and can't be properly extracted 28:27 and therefore I end up eating blood. So therefore that's the sha is this just a problem the other visa the other it's a issue or it's a problem you know to which the says take. So therefore most like bottom line is don't break the neck. Right? That's the takeaway message of this that if you're don't go at Thank 28:50 you. If you're don't take don't break the neck of the animal even in a way that doesn't make it a traa because it has a negative impact whether it's a negative impact in terms of commerce whether it's a negative impact ultimately again in terms of in terms of blood. Don't do it says the Mishna say now interestingly enough we're back to the says as follows. 29:18 statement. If you put chicken and cheese on the table together, you are not in violation of a prohibition. You're not in violation of a sass. The says, "Okay, now what that sounds like is if you ate them together, you would be in violation of a loas." The says, "Now that's interesting. What does that show you? 29:42 Says that shows you that what says what do you see from here? That chicken and milk is no no that's not what it means. It means what it means is like this. If you put chicken and milk on the same table together, it will not even lead you to a potential lo. Meaning what? that even if you eat how we pass we'll see this more in the next but the way we pass is chicken and 30:14 milk is not it's only concern what's the concern the concern is that people confuse chicken and meat and if we allow you to eat chicken and milk together one may come to assume that you can eat meat and milk together therefore it's so therefore the Mishna is saying over here that again say for our purposes is we treat 30:38 chicken and milk on the table the same way we treat meat and milk on the same table. And we saw these last week's da that again you can't eat them. Two people who know each other and would be able to share food cannot eat milk and meat at the same table without some type of hecker right some type of recognizable distinction or some type of recognizable doesn't have to be a barrier but just it's going to give a person pause before reaching over to the 31:02 plate of the other applies with meat and milk and it applies with chicken and milk as well. Incredible say now watch this this Mishna this is like the it's just fascinating again that it's kind of a little bit a lot of times you see this a little bit farther into this discussion says the says sorry the paradigmatic case of biblical is kosher meat kosher milk kosher meat 31:32 kosher milk that is the isa is da And therefore again say if you have kosher meat and kosher milk what can't you do? You can't cook it and you can't get benefit. Now again obviously you also can't what you can't eat it but obviously that's included in Hano. So again the biblical the biblically paradigmatic case of kosher meat kosher milk that triggers all three prohibitions. Can't cook it can't eat it 31:57 can't get benefits from it. Next what about kosher meat in non-coosher milk? kosher meat to non kosher milk says so sorry or or so again these cases are interchangeable either kosher meat with non-coosher milk or non-coosher meat with kosher milk 32:24 what's you're allowed to cook it and you're allowed to get benefit obviously you can't eat it can't eat it because it's not kosher but Again, you can go ahead and get benefit from this is very important because people often don't don't recognize this. They think basal is any milk and meat. Any milk and meat combination. Not true. Only kosher meat. 32:46 Kosher milk. I'll tell you this comes up a lot. Um in Shil is dog foods. A lot of dog foods interestingly enough. I'm tempted to just say it's just say it's just because right but again might be for a whole variety of other reasons. 33:03 Right. But the dog food there is no issue of again just while we're on the topic is a different discussion because again pet owners know that pet ownership over pes again you have to be careful with what you're feeding your animal over but issues that's a different discussion but it's not it's not usually a problem. So 33:27 the says as follows. So this is a very important a very important paradigm over here. So biblical bos kosher meat kosher milk anything else anything else is not now is it is it we'll see all that but it's not says as follows says as follows okay or 33:52 now says explicitly and of interesting he includes is a non-domemesticated animal and of birds fell are not user So both say we're going to talk about this. Torah goes out of its way to frame the prohibition of with a gi with a gi is a kid. So why does it say it three times ultimately again it comes to incl 34:22 exclude and non-coosher animal fascinating according to again no issue that's says so interesting enough says he notes ultimately again the juxiposition between the prohibition ultimately again of 34:50 now what's a kosher animal that even died without soar listen to this what's the position that which you can't eat because of is subject to now again what type of animal can't you eat if it's an what type of animal can't you if it's an kosher animal right Because again non-coosher animals I can't eat anyway. Doesn't matter if it's an aa or a or a na 35:20 applies to a kosher animal that died without properly says look at the justosition between the veil and any animal that is subject to the prohibition is subject to say. 35:38 Anything subject to is subject to therefore using that logic now again say of course is arguing of course that includes so therefore again says of course what about right remember again the veil applies to as well so therefore I would think that it's also subject to listen to this 36:04 the Torah when it when it goes ahead and it frames the prohibition Ultimately says you can't cook the kid in its mother's milk. It doesn't say in milk. It says in mother's milk. What does this come to teach me? It only applies to animals which produce their own milk. But a bird which does not produce milk ultimately again is not subject to. So therefore we come out with a number of very important 36:28 principles from this mission. Principle number one is that the prohibition of only applies to kosher meat and kosher milk. says that ultimately and o are not included in the biblical prohibition ultimately again of it says gad three times once to exclude wants to exclude and one to is is to exclude a non-coosher animal 36:55 says there's a josition between and any item subject to which essentially is any kosher item is subject to basal so therefore he'll include back into the category I what about oath is excluded for a different reason because the Torah says you can't cook the kid in its mother's milk only an animal which produces milk is subject to the prohibition ultimately 37:19 of incredible say let's analyze so so from from where do so so here's what's interesting what's fascinating about this is as follows that everyone has agreed that even though the Torah says don't cook a kid No one says that giddi just means giddi which is really interesting. Everyone says that giddi means animal. Now again which animals is 37:45 it but but here's one thing. What does everybody agree with? Everyone agree with all behemoths. All behemoth. Everyone agrees with okay which is intriguing because when you read this I don't know I would say the prohibition of applies to is pretty explicit. Someone says, "How do you know that everyone agrees that it applies to all to which the 38:08 says the says that Yehuda send this is after the episode with Tamar, right? Where Tamar dresses up as as a harlot. Yehuda has relations with her. He wants to pay her afterwards. He sends her a sheep. He sends right and by that point in time, she had already left." Now, if you notice, by the way, there's a modifier. There's a modifier. It could 38:32 have just said instead. So, what do you see from here? So, the fact is over here. So, here's what's interesting. When we want to mean a kid, the Torah will actually say it. It says gad which tells me that in every other place in the Torah it just says what does gade mean? What does gade mean? 39:03 I the says one second. So why don't you go ahead and understand why not say no just the opposite. learn out from Yehuda that always means maybe that's the modifier right that means there's another ultimately because the says ultimately again so this is by this is when Jacob was 39:30 dressing up ultimately when Rifco was dressing Jacob up as so once again she put on him the skins once Again, what do you see from here? That is modified by. So when is modified by ultimately that's when it means a kid. 39:55 But any other time where the Torah just says Gad means means once again understand why not learn out from this over here that in fact means to which the says it's now we we see this concept before means when the Torah says something once 40:20 it's there to create a rule. If the Torah says something twice, it's there to go ahead and do what? And say these are the exceptions and don't create an overarching principle. So, and anytime the Torah says something twice ultimately again, it's meant to apply to those two particular contexts and is not meant ultimately again to become an overarching rule. Says, okay, 40:46 that's fine if you subscribe to that principle. say but according to the opinion that says that you can learn not from it then what is there to say in other words if that's the case then I should say that the fact that the Torah says twice indicates to me that what wherever the Torah says means kid and not anything else to which the says 41:10 the Torah is writing two limiting statements or two limiting phrases what are they so is very this is very important the Torah could have just said, but it says so that he ultimately like that hey idea that that definitive article is telling me that it's dka in these cases that gi means that it means a kid but in every 41:35 other case ultimately means animal say fascinating fascinating fascinating okay let's go back to says the word also comes to include that if you cook in ultimately you're in violation comes to include me said this is very interesting that 42:02 if you take if you take meat from a kosher animal that died it just died and you go ahead and you cook that animal so it comes from a kosher animal but it died That's okay. We'll talk about why this is in just a moment. Good. And also comes to include the fetus that if you take the fetus of an animal, right? The animal you open up, you take the fetus and you 42:33 cook it in milk, you're in violation. On the flip side, gad comes to exclude blood. If you cook blood and milk, you are not in violation. It comes to exclude the placenta. If you cook placenta in milk, you are not in violation. 42:52 And comes to exclude a non-coosher animal. You cook a non-coosher animal in milk. You are not. So furthermore, again, it's in it in its mother's milk, not in a male's milk. We'll say let's say the animal has some type of an anomaly some the genetic anomaly that it produces milk the prohibition of would not apply to 43:16 that male milk incredible says furthermore again this is very interesting the prohibition of only applies to milk that comes from a living animal but not milk that comes from a dead animal which makes sense because we saw already this week that what's the status of milk inside of a of a dead animal ultimately It's not milk. It's not milk. 43:41 Furthermore, again, the prohibition only applies to its mother's milk, not milk from a non-cosher animal. So says, okay, that you just unpacked a lot there. The Torah, listen to this, Torah only says the word gad three times, but you just made six dras from three words. So what's like what's what's up with this? to which the 44:04 holds number one. So number one holds that one could devolve upon another even if something is already in existing state of another is could devolve upon it says and ultimately again and ultimately right and and sorry and are both out from one 44:30 furthermore itself is not that's automatically excluded the placenta Ultimately again it's also just considered to be something that is just exuded from um not ex like means expelled from the animal. Thank you. 44:46 That leaves me with two one ultimately again comes to include the fetus and the other comes to exclude ultimately again. Okay. Well, we have to stop over here for today a little bit in the middle of the we'll unpack the rest of tomorrow everyone. 45:09 Have a great day. Good chabas. Good chas. Good chabas.
Expand transcript 6,597 words
