This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:02 Say good morning. Good. Good morning. It is a great to be able to learn with you all of you this morning virtually, but still a great begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning. Share to thank our sponsors for the month of Melon Karen Ram for dedicating all the month and Iris Miller and Adam and Dr. and Dr. 0:24 Leslie Rosenish Dr. Joseph Yseph Ben Ruin of Mayor Cohen Beno learning sponsors Nathan and Beth Adler of the Benjamin Sarah Steinberg continued health in memory of Mark's mother and is today Mark and Sarah 0:59 for Mark's father who is having heart surgery this morning at the time of the year have a completed enduring together with let us begin forgiving forgiving on Sunday Joshua yesterday and clearly had you guys must have started like 4:30 in the morning because I don't know how he got up to 1:21 the Mishna on a 96 6A with such a big blot. But okay, shame on me. But a little less a little less ground to cover today. There's never less ground to cover today. There's always a lot of ground to cover any given day. A little less we have to do. So today's 96 we are picking up at the Mishna 1:46 at the Mishna. Actually, let's let's just go back if that's okay to actually we'll pick up at the mirror. It's mission says as follows actually it's all right. We're just going to go back just we have a complete a complete us let let's just let's just begin very quickly just a few quick lines literally second line 2:11 now ultimately again that we've gone over remember again was talking about the power of visual identification says now that ultimately again we know how powerful and how important is now that we learned all these previous rulings I know the ability to ocular identification identify something by sight by recognition is so powerful I think it's even more powerful because if 2:37 you don't say this how is it that how is a blind man able to go ahead and live with his wife and how is a man able to be with his wife in the middle of the night when it's dark and ultimately he can't see her so the over here is not talking about ocular recognition rather vocal whole recognition. The idea over here is that recognition itself could somehow be more 3:03 powerful than a simmon than a simmon. Right? This is the idea because again remember a blind man isn't able to see his wife in the middle of the night dark at night a man might not be able to see his own wife. How is he able to be intimate with her? How does he know that it's his wife? Maybe it's someone else. So again because he could recognize her voice. 3:23 So again what the imm is highlighting is this idea that this ability to recognize someone or something outside of the common use of a sin beforehand it was again ocular recognition here it's vocal recognition says it's a very powerful to again I'll give you just another proof to this betray 3:49 for example if two witnesses show up in basin and the two witnesses say you know we saw We saw a guy kill Ruvane. The guy we saw kill Ruven had uh I don't know you know dark hair, dark hair and uh whatever uh you know blue eyes said. Yet we would not so let's say we find someone who was in the area who had dark hair and blue eyes. Obviously we would not go ahead and kill we not execute a 4:13 person based on that type of testimony. Yet if witnesses were to show up and they were to say that guy That guy we saw that guy recognition that's the guy who killed and ultimately again we would execute him based on that incredible say let's say I send and I tell listen I need you to go ahead and get from me a guy and the guy he has again dark hair 4:46 and blue eyes so the says again so the could go out the could find the guy with dark hair, blue eyes. Is that the guy that I meant, you know, to to to identify? Is not that not the guy I meant to identify? So again, yes, no. But again, if I go ahead and I give somehow I'm able to recognize him. I say to the I say to the to the that guy over there like I can able to recognize him 5:14 then right if I say to the you'll recognize the guy by so and so or for that matter if the himself recognizes the individual then of course the could be affected it turns out over here that in the world of recognition there's really three different vehicles there's of course classic sim which for many of us you know from our earliest yeshiva days learning about the alits learning about 5:38 sim the idea that something can have something visible or recognizable in itself that allows it to be recognized. Now we also see again ocular recognition and ultimately which is vocal recognition the ability to recognize someone by their voice I'll just say that the concept you know it's it's interesting by the way that if you think about those three probably the 6:02 weakest one out of all of them is vocal recognition right in other words a sitman is something that is that is embedded in the ka you can see in the ka itself even again ocular recognition you know you're able to see something vocal recognition is very interesting If you notice again uses it again for a blind person or for a man you know in the middle of the night with his wife. So it's fascinating just to see but it 6:25 might be interesting to note that that simmon which may be weakest in may actually be strongest in hashkaf because if you think about it right we use vocal recognition all of the time. When do we use it? It's it's when I dive into what I'm saying is do me a favor. Don't look at what I 6:48 do but just hear my voice because my voice is pure. My voice is untainted. When I come and I dab to you, I'm just I'm coming like a son before a father. Just asking you, just loving you, just talking to you. who says, "I recognize you. I I recognize that voice that 7:10 sometimes again the on me on me maybe they're a little bit eroded because of the negative activity that I've got gotten into visual recognition. Sometimes I'm not happy with the way that I look and I'm not referring to my personal grooming habits. I'm referring to I'm not happy with the spiritual way that I look." At the end of the day, my co the thing of a Jew that never the part of a Jew that never gets a road that 7:34 never gets tarnished is my voice. That's the power of allows to recognize me just through my voice and not through anything else. Incredible. Incredible. I will say that's I had to start from the beginning of the D because that that that is that is just so profoundly overwhelming. Okay, let's get to the Mishna Mishna. 7:57 96A says when you remove the from the leg of the animal from the thigh you have to remove the entire G. We've spoken about this concept before it says so this is an ongoing that we've seen by holds that if you look at that not only you have to remove the git but you have to like like dig in because again as we saw when I posted the picture at the beginning of the parak so 8:27 you can see again like like the g has like these tentacles that spread out off the primary grid. Therefore, when you remove the gan, you also really have to dig in in order to go ahead and remove the rest of the G. Rabi says no says we'll see exactly what means, but we've seen this and 8:52 holds. You have to dig in holds really you just have to smooth it out. They just have to remove the G so that it's even all the areas even with the flesh. Again, we'll get more into that says if you go and you eat, you get 40. 9:14 What happens if there wasn't the wasn't ultimately again you're still now? Why is that? If you look at remember again we had this back in the concept of a burial that as much as whenever we come to usually if something is a burial if something is its own self-defined entity 9:46 then one is going to be for its consumption as well. So although again if you eat a kaz of g you're going to get malus in reality even if you don't eat of git you're also going to get malus why because the g itself is a complete entity incredible says um good what happens if a person goes ahead and eats twoas one from the right leg of the animal one from the left leg of the 10:18 animal okay violations you get two sets of malus says no says no you only get 40 malus this is so because remember again holds that only applies to the right side not to the left points out here only applies to one side one leg 10:46 incredible says This is very interesting. So the says sorry was he was tribering right? He was removing the ganosha he was removing the the sciatic nerve from the animal. This he was means he was removing he was removing the gid from the leg of the animal. And how was he doing it? 11:17 Now look at he was smoothing it over. He was removing the visible but he was not digging in to get out the gid tentacles. He was like this is perhaps one of the most fundamental says you got to dig in and you got to remove the the g tentacles right says no you just have to remove the g and smooth 11:46 it out together with the flesh. So the tells the story so was tribering he was doing he was removing the gan but he was doing it in accordance with he was removing the primary gid and he was not he was not getting into the g tentacles. Okay. See, he was doing this in front of sees this ultimately dig in there. Little Rashi says over here, dig in there more. What? 12:13 What are you doing? You got to you got to get the tentacles. Had I not seen you tribbering? Have I not seen you doing the the way you would have ended up feeding me something prohibited? Said, "What are you doing?" said, "You got to get in there more like like Mayoris." So was very overwhelmed by the knife fell out of his hand. 12:39 So says, "No, no, no. Don't be afraid. Whoever taught you taught you in accordance." In other words, kind of backtracked a little bit. Said, "Okay, I'm sorry. Maybe I came off a little bit strong." I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. I'm saying, "Oh, you did kind of say he was doing something wrong." And I'm I don't mean to significantly wrong. Obviously, whoever whoever whoever you learned by taught you like I'm saying the proper approach is like therefore you need to get in 13:06 there and remove the g tentacles as well. Must have tremendous skill as well which is that you know sometimes you have to say something difficult. Some speak this all the time. You have to say something difficult to someone. It is so important to try to say the difficult thing in the nicest most pleasant way possible. Sometimes when the rebuke is abrasive so just the person doesn't 13:30 necessarily know how to handle it. See, see again Baruli, he was receptive. He was just trying to do the right thing. But really came out came out swinging. He got scared. There's two things. He got scared and he dropped his knife. And obviously dropping your knife a knife is obviously not a good thing. Although a trade knife doesn't have to be the knife. Again, just a tremendous skill. 13:50 Sometimes there are difficult things that have to be said, but make sure to try to say them in a way that is appropriate. The ways of the Torah always appropriate and therefore the way we speak is to always be calm and gentle with the other as well. Incredible. So now comments on the story and he said this the way in which conducted himself was in accordance ultimately again with 14:20 okay. In other words, when he was removing the he was removing the biblically mandated part according to which is the primary good without the tentacles says one second is that they say that requires something additional as well. 14:38 So if that's the case you never heard that according to the only thing we heard according just requires you to take out the primary it doesn't require you to take out the tentacles we'll say first wide line on the bottom may rather is like this took it was like and therefore and holds all you need to do is take out the primary gid right smooth it together over together with the flesh move out the part of the g 15:07 that extends smooth it out with the flesh. You don't have to go over after the g tentacles. What he quote unquote left over was in accordance with what Rabime mayor holds. One has to do in other words agrees with you just have to take out the primary gid and you need not take out the tent agrees with that principle 15:30 just holds that you have to get out the tentacles as well. So when Barb was conducting himself conducted himself in accordance with rabihuda what he didn't do was that according to Rabi mayor says according to there's no den of taking out the tentacles there's there's no den 15:54 in other words all you have to do is take out the primary gid and that's all one is obligated to do incredible next so remember again so then the Mishna said if you go ahead and you eat from the eat you getus but in reality even if you don't eat you getus so the says the Torah only prohibits the part of the 16:19 the part of the gid that is on the calf c means the rounded part of the thigh bone so the the English translation is the spoon right the spoon of of the thigh bone okay says over here So what what what is coming to say is that even though the is very big, right? 16:42 The g is very long. It extends from the spinal cord all the way to the bottom of the foot of the animal for the animal. Yet the only part that is prohibited ultimately is the part that is on the rounded part of the thigh bone, the spoon of the thigh bone. Rashi says because the itself says it says it says you're only obligated right should not eat the g which part of the g the part that's in the the part 17:18 that's on top of the so the spoon of the thigh bone the rounded part of the thigh bone incredible papa says no no In fact, this is so now how much of the itself is how much of the is actually prohibited for consumption. 17:38 signal ultimately again if you ate the ultimately one is still liable and says we saw what that sounds like is because it's okay natural you're only liable if you consume a time so why did say even if you don't So because it's a barrier as we said before 18:10 because a burial means any self-contained entity or organism right so remember again Rashi pointed out in makis the big thing over here was like if you eat an ant you're you're in violation of like multiple prohibitions I but it's tiny it's not a kizayas it's a barrier a remember k what just appreciate this just a moment why why kizayas represents a significant 18:34 unit but If something could be significant even in a smaller amount than a kaz then ultimately again that creates liability so an ant is significant because it's its own self-contained living organism. So too again the suggesting over here that according to the right so again remember say why because it's a burial it's a self-contained entity and therefore 19:00 again that makes it makes it important independent of of okay so 96 but why does hold that you do require ultimately again because it says because it says okay because the Torah says so because it's 19:23 therefore it requires so what did that ultimately say what do it you said to teach us the following that if let's say you go and eat a ganosha and let's say the ganosha has four or five in it. It's a It's a big It's a big uh It's a big It's a big It has four or five 19:54 and you end up going ahead and eating one that ultimately in other words saying I might have thought that according to the see watch this just so again that you're going to be why because it's a barrier. 20:15 No, you have to eat. Why? Because the Torah frames the prohibition as a prohibition of consumption and consumption is usually I according to the according to why does the Torah frame it as an teaching a very important that if you have a very large let's say four or five you only eat one one of it. I might have thought that I'm not going to be liable 20:38 until I eat the entire Torah says where there's liability even after you consume incredible learn that even if the G is a very large and you only eat a part of it. He learns it out ultimately again from that phrase of he says in other words will say of course you 21:12 don't have to eat the whole thing that's Torah says the the on the rounded part of the thigh the spoon of the thigh will teach you that even if you just eat that part smaller part of the g you're going to be so we're going to both say it's actually very interesting both will agree that even if you don't eat the whole gan you're still going to create liability ever required that you have to eat at least a and say no not true even less than a it's a burial therefore 21:36 you're going to be so what do they what do they do that they need again according to the what does say that it's not the entire that It is only the part of the gan that is on the spoon of the thbon the round the 22:02 part of the thbon that's going to be it's going to be liable if there's no liability for the rest of the says ultimately again it says it means the entire of the entire leg of the entire leg will say what what do they do with says say no teaches me again there's two different like there's the outer one 22:34 there's the there's the inner one we've seen that so the gimar says the the teaches me that the prohibition of gan only applies to the gid that runs throughout the entire length of the leg of the animal that comes to exclude the outer gid which ultimately again does not the olam However, again, so it is only the GD that runs the entire length of the leg 22:58 of the animal for which one is liable, but it is only the part of the g that is on the rounded part of the thigh bone that ultimately again you have liability if you eat it. But one second, we already used that. That cuff comes to exclude a bird because a bird doesn't have the rounded part of the thigh bone. teaches me that does not apply to a bird to which the Gimar says the less leg 23:25 sorry says the Torah writes the word calf twice and therefore again on one cath comes to exclude birds that don't have the rounded part of the thigh bone and the other calf comes to teach you that is only the part of the gan ultimately again that is on that is on the rounded part of the thigh bone for which there is going to be liability incredible incredible so says as follows 23:50 The point that is trying to make over here is this idea. So there's two major well three major number one is in the removal of the gish in the removal of the g how much do you have to remove ultimately again which is holds you have to remove the g and all of its tentacles. Rabi Huda says you only have to remove essentially the 24:13 exterior outer part of the gid and make it flush with the flesh that you have to get into the the gid tentacles which is why which is why the removal of the g of is really a complicated process. So that was number one number two in the is do you have to eat the to incur liability or ultimately again do is there liability even with 24:38 just any amount because the ganosha is is so once again we ask him even if is less than ultimately again there's going to be liability for that incredible and then the third guess was which part of the does the prohibition apply to does it apply ultimately again to the entire 25:02 or is it only the part on the round the spoon of the thigh that is so we're not going to resolve that yet today because that's going to be ongoing but those are the three major Number one, removing the G. How much of the G do you have to remove? That's number one. 25:17 Got to get the tentacles. Just a general number two. Do you have to eat a kazay of the g for there to be liability or any amount? Number three. So what what part of the g is prohibited? Is it the entire g throughout the entire throughout the entire leg or is it only the part of the g that's unc? 25:38 Those are our three major. Just keep track of again. We're going to circle back for the rest of it as well. base namely six says the so now this is quite fascinating because now we're going to get into a lot of the of what we call the power of flavor in 26:01 again obviously I know that if I have something prohibited mixed in that obviously creates prohibition but even if the forbidden item is not there but it flavor is there what does that do we're going to analyze now a little listen to this if let's say What happens if you have the leg of the animal and you cooked the leg of the animal with the still in still in the leg? You didn't remove it. So now essentially what I've done is I cooked the leg of 26:26 the animal with something prohibited inside of it. So now what what does that do? So says so again if the g is powerful enough to infuse flavor the is operating with the concept which we'll discuss which is called means that flavor is like the item 26:50 itself I might have thought that if the item itself is not there again it's fine but flavor is impactful now this case is different because here the git is actually in the leg of the animal so I did not remove the I did not remove the git I cooked the leg with the gate in it Is the is the is the leg also the says it depends did did the g in infuse flavor into the meat? If it did then the 27:13 meat will be prohibited. If it didn't then the meat will be permitted. So the says fine kids how do we how do we how do we measure that ultimately again like meat with turnips. 27:27 What's this mean? Take a look at we view as if imagine for a moment right the is the meat imagine for a moment the thigh of the animal the meat it's treated like turnips if you were to cook this together right if the gid were to be the meat and the leg were to be the turnips and you were to cook this together essentially what we look at like this we look at the ratio look at the size of the Imagine for a moment this kid was a piece of meat. Now the the leg of the 28:01 animal you had that you had that volume of turnips. If you were to cook a piece of meat that size with this turnipss with the turnipss have meat flavoring and say this is very specific. We're going to see the turnipss is not just like happen stance. This is very specific. Again if we look at the ratio if there would be enough flavor in the meat to infuse flavor in the turnipss with this ratio of gid to thigh meat to leg meat then 28:24 ultimately again it's going to be user. It's going to be user. And if not, in other words, if the if this if in this case the meat would not be powerful enough, large enough to infuse flavor into the turnips, then ultimately again it would be mut. So fascinating. So again, remember there's no way for us really to tell whether or not by just tasting the meat or even giving to a guy to taste the meat whether or not the gid infused flavor into the meat. So what we 28:48 do is we look at it as if the gid was a piece of meat, the leg of the animal were turnips. If in this gid leg ratio right which we now transfer over to meat turnip ratio the meat would have infused flavor into the turnips then it is going to be if not it's going to be motor what happens if the was so now in this 29:12 case the was removed you accidentally cook the githan with other permitted gen other permitted senus so now obviously again what what do I do in this case if you recognize the no problem. Take it out. Take it out. And once again, what what we do essentially is we 29:35 measure is it possible in this ratio for the to have infused into the other? How we do that? We're going to see. We're going to see. So the says but if you can't recognize the gan now again so therefore case one is what's the case I accidentally cooked the gdan with other permitted so case one is I recognize the gdan get it out once I 30:00 take it out now what do I have to be concerned about is flavor infusion so essentially what we say is if at the end of the day the gdanosha could have infused flavor again I was saying and you could use the same potentially use the same meat turnip idea look at the gdanasha as the meat Look at the other as the turnip. There's turnips. If there's enough ratio there for flavor infusion, it's going to be assur and if 30:23 not it's going to be mut. However, again, but this is all presupposing you could identify the remove it. What if you can't identify the what if you can identify it then everything is going to be everything is going to be again say we'll see. 30:44 So we're going to see why this is we're going we're going to see exactly what they shows over there. But the idea is that if you can't identify the gan in the mixture, the whole mixture is going to be the gravy right the gravy or the soup the soup part of it ultimately again is going to be means when it comes to the gravy itself comes gravy itself then we look at that as like in the meat turnup scenario 31:10 and by the way this is not just the in this is like laws of mixtures 101 One say, "Watch this case. Let's just take a more common case. You have a piece of kosher meat, excuse me, non-cooser meat that fell into a pot of kosher meat. 31:31 What do I do? What do I do?" Or examples are a piece of non-coosher fish that falls into a pot with kosher fish. So, what do I do now? Everything's cooking together once again. If I recognize the non-coosher piece, that case is much easier. Says, "What do you do?" Take it out. And now again, means we judge this based on a case 31:56 ultimately again of flavor infusion. So if we deem that the kosher piece of meat was significant enough to have infused flavor into the kosher pieces of meat, then the whole the whole mixture is user. If we could assess that it wasn't powerful enough to infuse flavor, then the rest of the kosher meat will be mut. But again, this all presupposes that you are recognizing the non-cosher piece of the non-cooser item, right? 32:21 You're removing the piece of non non-coosher piece of meat, the non-coser piece of fish. So again, then all I have to deal with was was there flavor infusion? If I could assess that there wasn't flavor infusion, then ultimately again the kosher meat, the kosher fish is going to be mut. If there was flavor infusion, it's going to be problematic. 32:41 So when you recognize the prohibited matters. So again therefore again how do you assess flavor infusion? Well, the Mishna gave us the Mishna gave us the meat turnip model, right? That if we essentially look if we look at the prohibited item as the piece of meat and we look at the permitted items as the turnips in this ratio, would meat infuse 33:09 flavor into turnips? It sounds like that's the model. If the answer is yes, then it's problematic. If the answer is no, then it's fine. However, remember now this is all presupposing you recognize that prohibited item. If you can't recognize the prohibited item ultimately again then everything is going to be offered. 33:31 So again if the non-coosher piece of meat falls into the pot of kosher meat if I'm able to recognize the non-coosher piece of meat great take it out and then use the meat turn it model to assess flavor infusion. If however you can't identify the non-cooser piece of meat then the mixture is asser mixture is asser. Now the one salvageable piece now say we're gonna get 33:55 the one salvageable piece of a piece of this will be the gravy right because gravy is reckoned kind of separately and with the gravy it sounds like you could still use the meat turnip model let's just finish up I left off in the middle there being again remember just points out over here why is it that when you can't identify the non-co kosher piece of meat and a non- kosher piece of fish that fell into the pot of kosher items. Why? Why? Why 34:24 does it make the whole mixture? So, says because I know that there's a non-coosher item in there and I don't know which one it is. So, in any given bite, maybe that's the non-cooser piece of fish. That's the non-cooser piece of meat and therefore I'm not allowed to eat it. Incredible. The gravy, however, is going to be reconcepted. This is incredibly important. So again essentially what the Mishna now introduces us is to the concept ultimately again of flavor and assessing 34:48 flavor flavor is problematic but when there is flavor infusion what's the definition of flavor infusion if there's enough prohibited matter to infuse flavor into the permitted matter then the permitted matter is going to be user the Mishna gives us a metric for this and it's the meat turnip model we view the prohibited item as if it's the piece of meat we view the permitted items as if it's the turnips if the prohib inhibited I say if the meat is strong 35:13 enough to infuse flavor into the turnips then ultimately again the whole thing is going to be muster and if not it will be mut the Mishna then went on to go ahead and speak about cases of like items remember again cooked with other permitted senus non-coosher piece of meat falls into kosher meat non-coosher piece of fish falls into kosher fish this is what we call 35:37 like items that are mixed together and essentially what the mish said was as follows If you could recognize the prohibited item, you could grab it out. Then we could assess was there flavor infusion using the meat turnip model. If you can't identify the permitted prohibited item, excuse me, the dove als item, then the whole mixture is going to be assur everything is going to be assured that's because since I know 36:01 there's a non-cooser item in there and I don't know what the non-cooser item is, the whole thing is user. The exception of course of the gravy. The gravy will be potentially salvageable if there's no flavor infusion. How do you judge flavor infusion? Ultimately again, the meat turnip model say incredible. Incredible. 36:19 Such learn with you. I I it would be wonderful to learn together in person together in person. Have a great day everyone in cult of
Expand transcript 5,704 words
