This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:00 Morning such to be able to learn with everyone. Begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning to thank our sponsors for the month of Karen dedicating all this monthly Dr. Joseph Miller Yseph friends of Mayor Benoa 0:31 week learning sponsors Nathan and Beth Adler increation of the artite of Benjamin Mai Ben Wolfish Ben Hersburg in the source of and for an ultimate I will say with that let us begin today's 0:56 98 we are picking up at the two dots on 97b four lines up on the bottom of non kosher egg gets mixed in with a whole bunch of other eggs. So the egg the non kosher egg is ble but the egg itself is not part of the tally of shishim. Some more about that in just a moment. 1:22 So now obviously this is telling us that when a non-coosher egg falls into falls into a mixture with kosher eggs that the non-coosher egg emits flavor. Is that true? There's a famous expression. I guess it's famous if you know it. But it's a famous expression like water like egg like water of an egg which in other words when somebody wants to go ahead and convey that something does not give 1:45 off flavor they say ah it's like water from an egg which see which seem to indicate that an egg does not emit flavor. So what's going on over here what's the case herea ultimately we're talking about an egg that has a chick inside of it. So again as Rashi points out remember we saw the say that essentially the chick inside of the egg is considered to be in the and therefore the Mishna speaks about an egg 2:12 getting mixed in a prohibited egg getting mixed in with with kosher eggs. We're not talking about an egg from a non-coo. We're talking about an egg with a chicken. In that case it becomes ana emits flavor. But inami if a if a non-coosher egg were to get mixed in with kosher eggs that non-cooser egg would not go ahead and inhibit the other eggs. Incredible 2:36 ace maracho bin toos but yet says that if you've taken out bin toos sounds like sounds like kosher eggs that got mixed together with non-coosher eggs. If the non-coo kosher eggs infuse flavor then everything is which once again sounds like non-coosher or eggs do infuse flavor 3:00 is here it's case when it says non-coosher egg what is it referring to bas and tomatoes it's talking of bas and tomatoes it's talking about an egg with a chick inside of it if it has the chicken inside of it then we have a potential issue of iikimar says I'm sorry about my car tomato but why is it calling that a bait to in other words a baited really means a non-cosher egg. If it's 3:24 talking about that it just has a chick inside of it, why do you call that? Says since it has a chicken inside of it, that's why it's called a but look at the end of that says that if you cooked eggs together and you find the chicken, one of the eggs time. If the egg that had the chicken 3:52 inside of it has the ability to infuse flavor into the other eggs, then everything is now. So the explicitly talks about an egg with a chick inside of it. This would seem to indicate that the is talking about a case where the egg does not have a chick inside of it. To which the says, "No, no, no. Both cases are talking when when the Mishk says over here non-coosher egg. It doesn't mean an 4:17 egg from a non-coo rather it means an egg with a chicken inside of it. The second part of the rice is coming to go ahead and explain the first part and to again now we're just reading through the rice again. If you cooked tahar eggs with eggs, if the eggs have the ability to infuse 4:42 flavor into the tar eggs and everything is what's the case, you cooked the eggs and it turns out that there was a chick in one of them. Therefore, again, if the egg with the chick has the ability to infuse flavor into the other eggs, then the whole thing is going to be awesome. 5:05 because if you think that is talking about a case where that doesn't have a chick inside of it then according to the ratio about an egg without a chick an egg without a chick could go and ask the other eggs then certainly an egg with a chick could the other eggs says no no no if you're talking about that that that's actually not a good legal 5:32 because it's quite possible that the T mentioned the SA in order to go ahead and expound upon the ratio. You might have thought like this maybe it's only if it has a check that it assers but if there's no check ultimately again it's therefore again the talks about a case where it does have a chick 5:58 which would then indicate that is talking about a case where it doesn't have a chick and yet despite that even in that kind of case ultimately again it would not go ahead and have it would still create. So it's interesting. 6:16 So the suggesting that it is possible it is possible that even if the egg doesn't have a chick but rather again it's a non-coosher animal perhaps could still go ahead and prohibit as well. But the gimmar is supposed but but clearly what's happening over here is seems to indicate that the case of the quote unquote non-cooser egg that infuses flavor into the other 6:40 eggs is actually talking about a case of talking about a case of where there's an ultimately again of where there is where there is a chick. Now the shila is the open-ended question is what about a non-coosher animal? Does that have the ability to go ahead and asser a mixture as well? So that is kind of leaving open. 7:02 Just just hold on to that piece of information. There was a fat fat that fell into a pot of meat. So says so wanted to say look wanted to say that there must be more there must be more there must be well actually take a look at 7:35 so actually we mentioned this in yesterday's d as well wanted to say like this ra wanted to say when measuring the shiju when measuring the 60 times more permitted food we should also take into account any amount of permitted food which was absorbed into the walls of the pot, right? Because again, even though there's there's less now, clearly it started out with more. So, we should take into account the measuring 16, the 7:56 amount that was absorbed. If you're going to do that, remember the pot didn't just absorb from the permitted material. It also it also absorbed from the prohibited material. Therefore, if you're going to take into account what the pot absorbed from the heater, you also have to take into account what the pot absorbed from the to which again I say. So, this actually 8:21 goes back to what Rashi said. This this was Rashi. This was Rashi already again on Saddic V. This Rash and Saddv maybe Sadd I'm not sure. I think it was on Rashi explained that's why contemporarily we only look at the the ratios as they are when they present themselves. So we 8:44 don't start taking into account what the pot absorbed it absorbed because remember again absorbed from it also absorbed from and then how do you measure how much it absorbed in general in there's a concept literally a judge can only adjudicate that which his eyes see him at the time at the time of adjudication. Other words you can only look at the facts as they 9:09 are in front of you. So therefore again essentially suggests posit when judging these these ratios of 60 to1 we don't try to take into account well when it was first mixed together it was x and then again minus y because of absorption into the path and no we look at the ratios as they are when they present themselves and that's what we judge based on 9:34 a judge can only adjudicate based on the facts which are presented to him or before him at the time of the adjudication, which by the way is also a tremendous Musra skill because in life we're often faced with opportunities and faced with decisions and we often find ourselves plagued with doubts of what if, what if this, what if that, what if this occurs, what if that doesn't occur. 9:56 And again, as we know because we all go through it in life, even there's no end. When you start weighing all the different possibilities about what could, should, may occur, there's no end. So there's really a den in life of when you make decisions, you have to make decisions based on the information that is in front of you at the time of the decision making process. That's all because if you try to accumulate all the information you know of past, present 10:20 and future, you try to weigh all the possible scenarios of you know you know it's and again when sometimes when a person tries to analyze through that vein of taking into account all different scenarios that creates what we often what you often refer to as analysis paralysis. If you try to overanalyze, you try to take into account every single scenario possible, 10:44 there's only one logical conclusion, which is don't do anything. Don't do anything. Just paralyze yourself into a profound and persistent state of inactivity. And therefore, again, says you have a mixture of kosher, non-coser, and a pot. What does it look like right now? Is there 60 times more heter than is good to go? There's not then it's us or I but what about the absorb? No. Just make decisions based on the information 11:09 that is in front of you at the time you have to make the decision and that's it. It's true for a mixed it's true for a for a pot of mixed food and it's true for life as well. Incredible. So the goes back I'm sorry the fat again remember again referring to fat talking about that fell into a pot of meat 11:40 that fell into a pot of meat said okay so we'll do we need 30 times the So my braashi marashi essentially was having was having having cutting in half the whereas normally you need 60 times the amount of riveted material in order to go to make it make it. So here you have half. They said, 12:09 "Oh, you only need 30 times more meat than the father said to him." I told you many times number one, don't be disparaging. Don't be disparaging of the shim of so ultimately interestingly enough soashi his fatherashi felt that perhaps again he was being just a little bit 12:37 disparaging in general about the concept of and here he was just being even more disparaging. Furthermore, furthermore, we pass even less than a half a still going to be right. So in other words, it's true. Whereas there can't necessarily be punishment or liability for less than the but less than the is still. So even though again you have a you still need 13:03 60 times that half. So they said this is very interesting. So when it comes back to eggs, back to eggs, when it comes to an egg, an egg essentially if there's a 60 to1 ratio, it's user, but rather again it needs 61 to1. So you need 61 permitted eggs ultimately again to the one prohibited egg. You have that 13:46 ratio then ultimately again it's going to be mut. But interesting a classic 60 to1 will not work. Very interesting. So brother. But interesting he he chastised a little bit for how he presented the 14:10 says disputed this matter and ultimately again they did not come to resolution. They both said Both of them said that an egg right if it's just a ratio of 60 it's 61 it's going to be when we asked that was end the first white line. 14:44 So interestingly enough and their question was okay so the egg requires a 61 to1 ratio but what's the sha is the egg the probed egg included in the 61 or not in other words is it 61 parts to one part is or no again you need a total of 61 including the egg but he was chastising a little bit 15:07 because ultimately again kind of said this a bit flippantly flippantly just without qualification. Therefore, without qualification, I could just assume that the egg is included ultimately again in the shear of 61 as well. Okay, just by the way on that egg idea. So again, we're going to see the by exactly how Bittle works by eggs. What does it mean? Is it only a 15:32 egg with a chick that's problematic? What about a egg from? We're going to get to [clears throat] all of that. But I just want to point out something very interesting. What is this idea that an egg would be governed by a different model than a 60 to1 ratio? So what's interesting is the Russian others point out eggs are a little bit different because by an egg you have all different shapes and sizes. In order to ensure could be could be that in order to 15:54 ensure that you have a proper 60 to1 BL ratio perhaps in order to do that we just add in a little extra. So it should be 61 to one. That way again you have some bigger eggs, some smaller eggs. If you've thrown in the extra egg for purposes, you're good to go. Again, we'll have to see the on that. But that's just the interesting wide line. 16:23 If the egg if it's just a 60 to1 ratio ultimately the egg is but if it's right if it's sorry if it's 60 including the egg itself ultimately again it's going to be if it's 60 to1 61 parts altogether ultimately again ultimately the egg will be 16:48 here really when it comes to eggs you also use shishim 60 times but it's 60 units of ultimately again to one unit of so really in a total it's 61 parts incredible okay so this is an interesting way to phrase this story so the game talks about the following situation that 17:19 happened over here someone came before meal by Rebi with a Shil. Now apparently what we see from the answer what had happened is that a prohibited item fell into a mixture of permitted items and there were 40 time 45 times more than Iser. So so Rabio I'm sorry. So Rabbi said my father wouldn't permit in a 17:44 ratio in a mixture of 47 to one and I should permit in a mixture of 45 to one which is another way of saying you need shin. Okay, who does? So again, same case there was someone who came up for and apparently again we see from the end what happened is there was a mixture and prohibited item fell into a mixture of permitted items with a ratio of 43 to1. 18:09 So he said my father wouldn't permit with 45:1 and I would permit with 43 to1 which again they required but he was just phrasing in a different way. So says so another case someone came and with the mixture said ultimately again is there 30 times more. 18:36 So again that makes it sound like so really was saying that would be enough is not enough either [clears throat] was being hyperbolic. In other words he was Guzma means an exaggeration point is of course not even had there just been even had there just been 30 times that wouldn't have been enough but rather he was just playing a bit of hyperbole. 19:00 Incredible. All these general again whenever you have a forbidden mixture the way we assess the mixture is 60 if there's 60 times more than then ultimately again it's going to be motor here's what's interesting is that true do you Actually, do you actually see this? 19:36 Do you actually hold this way? After all, again, all in the Torah are measured by a ratio of 100 to one. So, fascinating. When you have a mixture of prohibited and permitted items ultimately again, what is the ratio for nullification? The first opinion said it's 60. Second 20:00 opinion said it's 100. Interesting enough the says interestingly enough they both learned this from the same source. What's the source? Now what is if you look at the last on the she says over here. 20:28 So again this is talking about the Nazar's offering that he brings at the conclusion of his so of this of this offering is the which means that it's part of it is consumed by the owner part of it is consumed by the coin and part of it is offered up on the mak. Now the part that the part that's given to the coin is the is the for points out over here. 20:56 Okay. So that's what's called and we'll see what that word means in just a moment. So again everyone is learning out there ultimately again from the offering of the year. What is that? We'll say last line. 21:13 So the Torah says the coin will take and we learned what does the word mean. So the so means that it's whole that it's again we'll see what that means in just a moment in this context says no means it was cooked. It was cooked. 21:42 So meaning when you go ahead and you cook this you cook the cohen's portion together with the isel's portion. Now watch this feel before we get to actually here's what's interesting everyone say so just to understand we have a fundamental in terms of the definition of a word the Torah calls the Torah 22:05 calls the coins portion this what does mean first opinion says says meansma that we don't cut up the coins's part into pieces but rather we cook it whole says means that it's cooked together with the rest of the isle with the rest of the ram. Okay, now watch this. 22:29 Everyone agrees that we cook the coin's portion together with the Isel's portion and this is very important. That's right because remember the of the word is from so therefore means we cook the coins's portion together with the Israel's portion. 22:51 So one opinion says that first we cut off the coins portion and then we cook it all together and that's the hold that first we separate the four leg but then we end up cooking it all together. look at. So ultimately again we go ahead and we first cut off the coins portion and then we go ahead and then we go ahead and we cook it. 23:26 says, "No, first we cook the whole animal together and then we cut off the portion." Okay. So, Rashi says over here, so going to first we separate the fourlegg, the coins portion, but then we cook everything together. Torah is coming to tell you that before you cook everything together, don't cut the coins portion into small pieces. 23:54 on the other hand holds that we cook the animal first and then we go ahead and we separate off the coins portion. Okay. Another possibility is other possibility is that no everyone agrees that first we go ahead and we cut off the coins portion cut off the four leg and then you go ahead and you cook it. 24:22 Oh, and maybe the ultimately again is how you cook it. We'll say in the first version of this everyone is agreeing that you're cooking the four leg together with the rest of the rest of the rest of the ramp. The sha is at what point in time is the coins's portion separated separated before cooking and then cooked together. 24:44 Cooked together and then separated. second version of the gimar but says no maybe everyone agrees that first you detach the coins portion and then you go ahead and you cook everything together sorry everyone agrees that you detach the coins portion first one opinion holds ultimately again that we cook it together with the aisle and 25:07 the other opinion holds that we cook it in a separate pot okay so now watch this here we go according to the First approach. Now again remember the first approach was that the point of the point of contention was at what point in time do you separate out the coins portion said before cooking or after cooking but everyone is agreeing that you cook everything. 25:31 according to the first approach. So again, according to the first approach where everyone agrees that you're cooking everything together, it makes sense then that everyone is again both. Remember, what's the problem that we're going to run into with cooking the coins portion together with the rest of the carbon? It's very simple. The coins's portion is ushered to me, but I'm a nauseier, so I'm cooking my part of the carbon together with the coins's 26:06 part. Isn't there a taste infusion? So again, according to the first approach, it makes sense now what we said before that everyone learns out the hos of taste infusion from zero, right? Because what you have happening over here is essentially something permitted being cooked with something prohibited. Now again to qualify the permitted is the part that the owners can eat. The 26:30 prohibited is the part that only the coin is going to eat. But according to the first approach everything is being cooked together and yet everything is mut. The coin could eat his part. That's obvious. But more importantly I could eat my part which apparently means that there's no concern about taste infusion from the coins's cooked for leg right from the coins from from the coins portion. So therefore again this makes sense according to the opinion that say 26:52 now remember we had a previous do you need 60 times more do you need 100 times more but leaving that aside everyone is learning the paradigmatic example that ble works right that nullification works is this case of zero because here literally you're cooking the coin's portion and the owner's portion in the same pot yet the owner still allowed to eat his food this is the source therefore of bit of nullification 27:20 But according to the second approach in the second approach, second approach, everyone agrees that you are that you are cutting off the coins's portion before before you cook. Is are you cooking them together or you cooking them separately? 27:39 Right. You're cooking everything together. So again, if you hold then that makes sense because the truth is remember what goes into shishim includes the meat and the bones and everything else, right? 28:06 So then again you'll have 60 times more in the rest of the animal than you will have perhaps in the four leg. That makes sense. Interestingly enough the one who says 100 ultimately again he'll say that 100 just refers to the meat. There's 100 times more meat in the rest of the animal that in the forleg itself. Okay. 28:29 point of that is making is that this concept of 60 or 100 right so remember everyone is agreeing that there's a concept of BL says that at a certain ratio at a certain number so prohibited matter is going to be but it's going to be nullified in a mixture of of permitted matter and interestingly enough the source for that is going to be zero it's going to be the Nazer's 28:54 case which is quite interesting yeah depend but again depending on which version you learn it's going to help you understand ultimately again how we're learning out these fine bottom line again what should we take from this always what should we take from this so remember what we have is like this up until now we've been focusing on the concept of operating with the conish 60 just introduced us by 29:18 the way there's a new construct or a new opinion and the new opinion says no no no it's not 60 it's 100 it's 100 okay So where is this all being learned out from? So the explains it's being learned out from ultimately again from the because you have this concept over here of the con portion being cooked 29:42 together with the Israel's portion. There clearly must be some level of taste infusion yet we are not concerned about. Therefore again this is the mak this is the source for nullification. Incredible. One second. Is that true that we learn out that we learn out the concept of from we learned? 30:05 This is a case. This is a case ultimately again that remains even though it was cooked together with something. Maybe this is an exception. Maybe this is not the rule. Maybe Torah in this case the Torah tells me that the owner's portion is mut. Okay, so the Torah tells me it but who's to say it applies in every other case? Maybe this 30:32 is the unique case in which ultimately again mixtures remain permitted to which the says when it says that this is a right that this is a case of ultimately of a mixture that's going to be maybe it's may again you're looking at like create a rule [clears throat] to create a paradigm maybe not maybe it's the exception maybe this is the one case 31:00 where Even though there is an infusion of taste says it's fine and says it's fine. It's fine. But who says it's meant to create a rule for everything else. And again what is pointing out over here is the of the right because the says this is a case of even though it was mixed with it doesn't mean this is a 31:28 case. So it sounds like it's saying this is the case but there are other cases where a mixture will be prohibited. So maybe this is the exception and not the rule to which the says no no no the price employs that for a very specific reason. The says and we saw mention we're going to get more into this as well which means 31:57 is a concept of only when the mixture is made up of dissimilar items but where the items are the same non-coosher meat with kosher meat non-coosher fish with kosher fish it's just status-wise they're different but but they're the holds there's no there's no nullification no nullification so therefore the suggesting even holds 32:24 even he will agree that in this case ultimately again there is incredible look at Rashi says over here. This is very important. According to normally hold in a bottle of course will agree that in the case of the of the nause that ultimately any taste infusion is bottle. But again this is the only 32:56 case of that ultimately again is going to be and normally is not but even will agree that two dissimilar items in a mixture ultimately will be where do we learn that from what the ratio is 60 to1 100 to one but ultimately again that lion that specific lion of the bright this is a case where 33:20 there's no problematic mixture is because this case of of Nazir is minim right it's it's it's again coin meat with meat mixed together normally holds minimino is not bottle he'll have to agree that it is bottle but it doesn't create a rule for the rest of minino but will create a rule for minino dissimilar items of a mixture incredible 33:43 incredible but one second so why don't you do that but why not why not say that just is ultimately again is going to be is going to be. So why not go ahead and say that all cases will be as well is incredible because ultimately again reference almost 34:12 getting us ready. So when it comes to the blood service on remember again the coin takes from the blood of the par and the blood of the soy now it's interesting because it calls it the blood of the par the blood even though what they're mixed together even though they're [clears throat] mixed together at the end of the day the Torah still calls it the blood of the par what does that show you 34:36 bottle that two similar items mixed together are not going to be bottle they're both mixed together and ultimately again they're still not they're still not so from here you see is not this this is again we'll see but for who holds so you see watch what's happening over here's source for saying 35:01 two similar items they're not actually from the blood service of because even once the bloods are mixed together it still calls it which indicates that even in a mixture they both retain their own individual identity in a bottle in a bottle. But again, but yet Torah tells us by where it's also that it is bottle and that's why the that's why the 35:25 owner could still eat this piece of meat even though there may be infusions from the coins piece of meat says okay but that's that's unique but doesn't apply everywhere else one second says I don't understand well actually let's pause for just a moment so again I just want to point out this is really quite fascinating So according to 35:49 is in learn from yet interestingly enough also this in the case of the is because the is allowed to eat his piece of meat even though it has been cooked ultimately again with the meat of the coar says so 36:13 I don't understand why are you learning it out ultimately again from you right is not learn it out from that is not that let that create the paradigm to which the says because at the end of the day at the end of the day says this is actually very interesting 36:40 says that the case why is it case because in general we'll see this as well When it comes to bit, you cannot proactively demato something. In other words, a classic case of this would be let's say I have a chicken soup recipe or a cholin's recipe and my chin's recipe made with tons of meat also calls for one drop of milk. One drop. Say no problem. It's bleish. That's not how ble 37:05 works, right? Ble works retrospectively. Does not work prospectively. So in other words, you can't you can't purposely set up a B case. by is that you are intentionally setting up a BL case which is quite interesting right in other words I'm purposely cooking everything together and yet Torah still tells me it's bottle so that's because that's ultimately again 37:27 it cannot serve as a paradigm if that's the case one second then if if if the case of then how can you learn out whether 100 parts to one 60 parts how can you learn that out from there if that's which says one second. No, no, no. Because we're using not as a using it as it's 37:58 because ultimately again remember remember is going to be is going to be motor. So therefore again stop for today. We'll pick up with this last piece tomorrow. Tremendous everyone. A lot more to say on these in Yon, but we'll have to stop over here for today. I know I went through that last piece. So, I'll pick up with that last piece of rahuda from Noir doesn't 38:20 ultimately again from from Nazir or from um or from Kipper and some resolution tomorrow. Have a wonderful day.
Expand transcript 5,382 words
