This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:12 [panting] All right. Say good morning. Good morning. Let us begin by thanking our sponsors for this morning. Sh to thank our Torah sponsors for the month of Habali Schfeld family for dedicating all this month. us Mr. Howard Hessfeld mayor. 0:33 May his legacy of living each day inspire us to find joy in every day. Appreciate the blessings around us and see the goodness in all that life has to offer. Beautiful. And of course, we welcome back our after getting up from Shiva yesterday, the family and many in the years ahead. 0:51 >> Amen. Justin Abigail Rosemore for dedicating over Josh this month with tremendous gratitude to the entire Kilo and we miss the Rosemore. We we wish the Rose Moors incredible in their new move to Boca Raton in Florida. Leia soul for dedicating this month in recognition of the entire flea for Elana Basina 1:21 and with tremendous gratitude to Hashem for a year filled with beautiful family. May bring about the ultimate coming of Mashia. Amen. And our week of learning sponsors may bury Samuel as for Mosha Ben. And our sponsor for today and Sarah Steinberg in the continued health and for an ultimate 1:43 with that let us begin. Is that rain? >> Wow. It's rain. >> Okay. Incredible. Incredible. It's not rain. >> Rain. Okay. Good. All right. With that, let us begin. Let's begin. Today's daff is bay 112. We are picking great daff today. We are picking up on 111b 2:08 and we are picking up at the first wide line the two dots. So let's go a lot to do today a lot of fascinating tremendous tremendous here is the case. You have fish and you put fish in a fleshic plate. But again the plate is very important to understand. If you look at So here's the here's the case. I have a plate in which I ate hot fleshix. Hot 2:39 fics. Okay. Then so again, what's the status? What's the status of that plate in which I ate hot fleshics? What's the status? Fleshix. Now I take a hot piece of fish and I put it on that plate. So the shila is the shila is has the fish absorbed meat flavor or not. So 3:05 remember again fish we we have to talk about fish right like in other words fish with meat the says you can't eat fish with meat because ultimately again it causes saras whatever whatever that exactly means fish with milk is its own discussion as well but again the issue over here is like this the question is can I eat that 3:27 fish with milkix Right? I want to sit down and I want to have a good meal of fish and kusak, but the fish itself was placed on a fleshic plate. So, can I go ahead and eat fish, hot fish that was placed on a fleshic plate with milk? So, Rav said absolutely not. 3:49 Absolutely not. At the end of the day, why? Because that fish has meat flavor since it went on a plate. Therefore, it has meat flavor. Says no. No, it's motor. It's motor again. Mo says, "What's going on over here?" Watch. Here we go. Raf. No Saint also. 4:05 Ra says, "What are you talking about?" No Saint say, "What does no Saint mean?" No Saint means there's a flavor infusion. What happened over here? The meat infused flavor into the plate. Hot fish was then placed into the plate. And then again, the plate infused flavor into the fish. So again, the fish is edible. The fish is fine. But I can't eat that fish with because again that 4:28 fish has meat infusion meat flavor says this is very important says this is what's called say no time which means literally again a secondary flavor infusion. Now what does this mean? See what would say what what would be a classic flavor infusion? A classic flavor infusion you cook a piece of fish together with a piece of meat. That's a direct flavor infusion. This, if you 4:54 think about it, is a secondary infusion because what's happened over here? The meat infused flavor into the plate. And then technically speaking, if you put a hot piece of fish on the plate, the plate infuses flavor into the fish. This is what's called no saint flavor infusion. The son of a flavor infusion. 5:12 It's a secondary infusion, a flavor as opposed to a primary flavor. In the simple way we refer to this is not not just an acronym for no not. So again both say this is a major major. So what one more time even would agree that of course if you're cooking fish together with a piece of meat leaving aside the 5:37 impact on the fish can you eat that fish with kusak? Can you eat the fish with kusak? No. Why? primary flavor infusion that's called no saint right the issue over here is if you think about it the flavor infusion is a bit removed it goes from the meat into the plate then from the plate into the fish so this is a secondary flavor infusion not 5:59 says not a problem not a problem take a look at rash just a moment Rashi says remember again even schm would agree that of If you were to go and actually cook the fish together with meat, that would be a primary flavor infusion and then you could not eat the meat the the fish together with the same time. Now again I will say one more 6:36 piece. The other piece to consider in this is like for example Rashi says would also agree that if you were to put hot milk onto this plate that it would be assur there that would be hot milk deriving a flavor infusion from that plate used for fleshix. The interesting part over here is that ultimately again the meat infusion is going into something which technically speaking remains permitted 7:00 right because fish with a meat infusion is going to be fine. The issue then becomes what about eating that fish with the kusak. So according to this is so many steps removed from a primary flavor infusion that is totally fine. 7:16 So this is a major major not is going to say is going to say motor. Here we go. Again ra's idea that what we call iser was not said explicitly rather it was gleaned ultimately from a story. What happened? 7:41 Sorry. Um Rav went to the house of what happened? He had some type of eye eye problem. So what did they do? They made for him a very strong eye ointment. 8:01 So they made it for him in a plate. After he used up the eye ointment, what happened? They made him dinner. They made him dinner. So after he finished using the eye ointment, they cleaned off the plate and they made for food in that plate. As he was eating, he said, "Oh my gosh, I taste the ointment. 8:25 The ointment is giving such a strong flavor." So what do you see from here? You see from here that Rav holds that a secondary flavor is still prominent and ultimately is still significant. And therefore Rav holds that if you have a meat a plate that was used for hot fleshik and then you go ahead and you put a hot piece of fish in there the fish absorbs the flavor and therefore the fish cannot be used with milk. To 8:50 which the says no that is not a good can't bring a from there. Why? because that ointment was very bitter. So because the ointment was very bitter, that's why it had such a lasting flavor. Okay? By the way, I just want to point out just so you understand this. This situation over here is probably one of the most common things that come up. 9:15 I'll just take classically where this comes up. I have a fleshic pot. I made spaghetti in the pot. Can I put cheese on that spaghetti? That's this case. That's this case. Spaghetti in a fleshic pot. Again, no fleicks in there, but the pot was used for flehiks. Right now, I want to put cheese on spaghetti. Again, I'm not putting cheese on the spaghetti in a pot. Right? In other words, I'm 9:39 going out and putting some I'm putting I'm putting I'm putting the the spaghetti on my plate, a regular paper plate. Can I put cheese on that spaghetti? So, again, there's no question. You cooked in a flake pot. What happens in a flake pot? There's a meat infusion into that spaghetti. Can the spaghetti be used for milk? that would say yeah totally fine totally fine would say absolutely not you can't do it 10:03 so that's our case so goes the says so ultimately again he served him fish which was hot fish remember again heat is always what allows for transference of taste so he gave him hot fish which was placed on a fleic hot and yet again yet he ate it with ate it with so again this is in front of so 10:34 ultimately again he ate it with ultimately I gave it to him and he would not eat it sobbie eats it eats it but you're not going to eat this so again so essentially they were telling him that Rav his ate this fish with. 10:58 Did you retract your position that now? So he said that literally I get it for the offspring of that they should feed me something that I don't believe in which is another way of saying no. You got wrong intel. Fake news. Fake news. 11:21 Someone told you that I ate this fish with kusak. Absolutely not true. I did not retract from my previous position. So let's listen to this. So tells a story. We're both sitting on opposite ends of a bridge across the river in surah. Okay. 11:53 Say watch this. Great story. So both of these rabanim are sitting at opposite ends of the bridge across the river in Sura. To one of them they brought fish which fish which was placed on a hot fleshic plate and he ate it. The other one they brought him figs and grapes in the middle of a suda and he ate it without making an additional. 12:13 All right. So listen to this. So we'll say they both they both got angry at each other right? They both g and gave each other. What do they say to each other? They say to each other, you orphan, would your rebi ever do this? Say what that means like this. When you call someone an orphan, what are you saying? 12:33 In other words, you don't have a rebi. You don't have a rebi orphan. What your reby's gone? You have no idea what to do. Would your rebi have conducted himself this way? The other one said to his friend, you orphan would have conducted it this way. So, they're each giving each other pretty intense. What's the problem over here? 12:55 So one said to his friendish, why are you giving me a hard time about eating the fish with I hold like what does holds not is mut. And therefore again when you take a hot piece of fish and you put it on a fleic plate ultimately again you could go ahead and eat that fish with kusak because it is a 13:19 secondary flavor infusion. Say I want to add in one more one more um one more piece over here. It's also what we call in not de which means it's a secondary permitted flavor infusion. Right? 13:36 Because remember again we're not talking about over here anything non-cooser. Remember again it's a fleshic plate a kosher fleshic plate that absorbed from kosher meat a kosher piece of fish right that was placed on that plate. So according to this is what we call a not a secondary flavor infusion all permitted items. So one of the said I hope like says 13:59 is totally fine and therefore again I'm allowed to eat this piece of fish with a piece of kus. Okay. The other one said to his friend remember again what was the problem? One one of these raon ate figs and grapes during a meal. Now again both say generally when generally a meal constitutes things that are normally eaten in the course of a meal. People 14:30 did not generally eat fruit in the middle of a meal. So therefore one RV was giving the other one mus saying I don't understand how do you eat something again I'll give you like a simple example if you go ahead and you're having you're having your meal and you decide in the middle of your meal you want ice cream right enjoy it enjoy it but you need to make another braha on that why because the 14:54 consumption of ice cream in the middle of a meal is not considered to be a normative thing so yet so this other of so one of these raan and eight grapes and eight figs in the middle of a meal without making a supplemental. So he said don't give me what does say when you make covers all of your food and covers all 15:20 of your drinks. So therefore I did not have to make another because I was covered. Okay. Point over here as you see in practice people passing like here it is. If you have hot fish placed on a hot fleic plate, you are allowed to eat that fish with say. So 15:51 how do we pass in? We pass in not is motor notat is motor. So therefore again on a technical level if you would have gone ahead and cooked your spaghetti in a fleic pot and now you put that spaghetti on a plate and you want to add cheese to that spaghetti. Technically speaking you can. Now practically what we try to do is like this. The way you 16:16 can be in free and clear, right, and totally fine is if the fleacic pot had not been used for 24 hours. If it wasn't used for 24 hours, then as we've learned, any absorptions contained inside are dormant. And then you're really good to go. You're really good to go. If it's been used within 24 hours, we would advise your local Orthodox rabbi would advise not to put cheese on 16:42 that spaghetti because there are active fleic absorptions inside of it. Right? So, but 24 hours you're good to go. That being said is better not to do that and better to have a power of pot. Right? better pot or if you know that anyway you're make you're going to use the spaghetti ultimately with cheese just make it in a milk pot. But again, technically speaking, you know, if the spaghetti was 17:06 already made was already made in a pot that have been used in the last 24 hours, okay, we would make it throughout the spaghetti. But ideally, if you all you have is a large fleh pot to make spaghetti, then ultimately make sure that it hasn't been used for flesh shakes within the last 24 hours. But on a technical level, we pass that not secondary flavor infusion ultimately is mut means it doesn't have a negative 17:29 hakic impact. But once again, this is all talking about permitted absorptions, right? There's nothing tra happening over here. All permitted absorptions. Incredible. Furthermore, last line of furthermore, if you have a radish that was cut with a knife is a very interesting case. If you have a radish that was cut with a fleshic 17:53 knife, what's you can't eat that radish with. Now again now there are two reasons for this known now this is because it's a radish radish is a is a sharp food say so here's so there's two things that's happening over here points out we have two issues when you 18:18 cut a radish with a fleshic knife one issue is the gimar operates under the assumption that at least in the gimar their knives were always covered like with a schmutz like with a like with a fleic residue. I guess that had to do with the cleaning of their knives. So, there was always a fleic residue that was there. So, as such, one issue is you literally have some fleshic residue on this. But the point is, even if the 18:42 knife was totally clean, totally clean. The way it works is like this. A sharp item, what we call has the ability to extract flavor through. So when you take a flec knife and again what I said there's an incredible amount of novelty in this even if the knife hasn't been used for fleicks in 24 hours the act of pressing it upon an item with 19:05 a sharp flavor enables the sharp item to extract the absorbed flavors. So therefore, when you cut a radish with a fleshic knife, right? Or anyway, this comes up all the time, onions, right? You're preparing dinner and you go ahead and you cut up an onion with a fleshic knife, but you only end up using half of the onion. So tomorrow night you're having milk, you want to use the rest of 19:29 the onion for milk. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Once you cut that onion with a fleek knife, that onion is fleekic. It doesn't make a difference. The knife was used for an hour ago, three hours ago, three years ago. Well, maybe not three years ago, but right once you cut because there's two dynamics happening. Number one, sharp item extracts flavor and the act of pressing the knife also 19:54 causes for flavor extraction. So the says, but this only applies to this only applies to radishes. say for example are gourds ultimately again so so the says over here I'll look at just a moment just go through the actually goes through other examples of this listen to this but if you're cutting 20:33 gourds so gourds are not considered to these sharp items. Therefore, with a gourd, interestingly enough, the only thing you're going to run into is the possibility of residue on the knife. So, if you cut a gourd with a fleshic knife and you have to be concerned of like meat residue on it, okay, clean the surface area of the gourd and you're good to go. Other examples of this 20:56 says kil the lift turnip turnip tops, right? The turnix turnip stalks shi ultimately again are going to be permitted going to be permitted. All right the sila asser beets so beats apparently are considered to be a little bit of a sharper item. So the silk assi it's again when we say doesn't mean you can't eat it. Just means you can't eat it with milk. Like in other words if you're cutting it with 21:21 a fleshic knife you can't eat it with this is interesting. If you went ahead and you first cut you first cut turnips and then you cut beets. So apparently again the sweetness of the turnips goes ahead and somehow neutralizes any type of taste absorption. Okay. 21:47 So this is an interesting question. Can you put your salt container next to your container? Now what are we concerned about? What are we concerned about? I'm concerned about some kusak getting into my salt now because salt is a staple, right? Not just not just like as a condiment for eating, but also as an ingredient. Do I have to be concerned that some kusak got into my salt and 22:12 then that very salt was used to cook fleshik? Do I have to be concerned about that? You can't keep an open container of next to an open container of salt for fear of salt contamination or contamination. What about vinegar? What about what about ultimately again? What about a container of vinegar? She says over here, 22:42 what about vinegar? What about keeping an open container of vinegar next to an open container of kusak? Well, what is that? We have to be concerned of kusak getting into the vinegar and again apparently vinegar was a popular ingredient ultimately again to go ahead and use for cooking. So the says says that's permitted says come on I don't why so again I'm 23:07 not allowed to keep an open container of salt by but I am allowed to keep an open container ultimately again of of vinegar by why the difference so again is interesting so this is asking said when you go ahead when you go ahead and you give me a quart of salt, I'll answer you. So said 23:32 this is like this was like this was tamic humor give me a million dollars and I'll give you the answer to it you know. Okay, I guess it'll be there and the says as follows. So what what why the distinction? So the says it's a very simple it's a very simple distinction if kusak ultimately again right if kusak ultimately falls into 23:59 ultimately again what what'll happen the kusak gets sorry if kusak falls into vinegar it's not going to have an impact why because since the vinegar is sharp ultimately again it dissolves in the vinegar and will not be no saint time will not infuse flavor even if the vinegar is used to cook fleshik on the other hand with salt the kusak does not dissolve the kusak is there'll get mixed in a person will be unaware of it and 24:23 you can potentially have a kusak flavor infusion then into fllay shakes in which the salt is mixed okay that's the distinction tells a story there was a story once of a pigeon right this is obviously a pigeon that's been shed already a young pigeon that fell into a fell into a container of kus okay says now the shil is both on the kus and on the pigeon 24:54 This right of said ultimately again it was permitted. It was permitted. Again I was saying now what's interesting what's what's permitted? The pigeon was permitted. You could eat the pigeon. You could eat the pigeon. Now what's the novelty over here? The novelty we're going to see is that was very heavily salted. Right. Hold on to who is wise enough to permit the pigeon 25:24 if we're not for except for why is say what's the issue the issue is we have a concept of that putting something into a heavily salted mixture is like roasting it. If that's the case, then the pigeon should be user. Why? Because malia because excuse me because the kusak is salted. 25:49 If that's the case, it should be like it was roasted inside of the kus. Therefore, why is the pigeon permitted? I because when do we say when is that? That's only if it's so salty that you can't eat it as a result of its salty kite. Right? If it's so salty that it can't be eaten because of its saltiness, then it's as if it's been roasted. But 26:13 kusak is not that salty. And therefore, again, we don't view the pigeon as if it's been cooked inside of the kusak. And therefore, the pigeon is motor as salty as it is. Apparently, kusak was a very salty dish, but it can be eaten. Can be eaten. So, because it's eaten, we don't view the act. And again say so essentially I just want to point out over here what so just you understand this was pigeon right pigeon right 26:41 pigeon that fell into cold kus so the concern over here would be since it's salty maybe it's as if a roasting process occurred and therefore the pigeon should be should be user kamashon when do we say that something that is salted ultimately is like it's roasted only when it's so salty that you can't eat it as a result of its saltiness but that's not the case of kusak Okay. Tells 27:04 another story, another qualification. Furthermore, this is only if the pigeon is raw. But if the pigeon was roasted, then what you would have to do is you'd have to remove the outer layer of the pigeon meat before going ahead and eating it because apparently since it's been roasted already, the meat is softer. So, because the meat is softer, it does absorb a little bit. So, you'd have to 27:28 remove a kibba. Furthermore, and if the meat was roasted and also cracked so that there's crevices in the meat, then the whole thing is because then in fact we would have to assume that it does in reality absorb. Furthermore, if it's been seasoned, seasoning makes the pigeon meat even more even more soft and therefore again 27:51 would absorb it would be incredible. So both say this is really interesting. What happens if you have a loaf of bread and you cut meat on top of that loaf of bread? So say what's ultimately again the loaf is going to be user. Now what's the case? Rashi says over here Rashi says first here's the case. I roasted a piece of meat. I roasted a piece of meat. Now 28:24 what do I do? I take that piece of meat right off the grill and I cut it on top of I cut it on top of the bread. So say what's going to happen when you do that there's going to be blood or juices that come out of that of that meat. So what's said the loaf is asser the loaf is asser right now the qualifies this rashi says 28:46 over here why venival because say what happens over here when you cut it what happens there's still some there's still some um there's still some blood inside of the meat and say remember this is first of all this is that at least if you want to be a good Jew you eat well done meat. I'm just saying, you know, nobody's perfect. 29:10 Nobody's perfect. But I'm saying, right? Why it said because because remember if I were to take a piece of meat and cut it on top of a loaf of bread, my loaf would be fine. You take a piece of meat, you cut a loaf of bread, mameish. So you draw your own conclusions. I'm just saying this is a no judgment zone. Just it's e so get your act together. So say but but again, so I just want to just want to point out something very interesting. So remember in all 29:33 seriousness the gimar is not saying you have to eat your meat well done like in other words if you want to eat your meat whatever r so obviously there's still some there's still some blood or some so remember we keep seeing the same theme when it's inside the meat there's no problem right that that's fine other words I eat my meat you know I have a friend who eats his meat rare it strains the friendship but we're still friends 29:56 you have to accept all people right so my my friend the barbarian so you know again so so sola you know when when it's inside the meat that's fine the issue is when it comes out so the problem over here is I have that piece of meat so you can imagine that I'm cutting it over that loaf of bread that those juices which contains some is coming out so now 30:20 that loaf has those juices in the so you can't eat that loaf you cannot eat that loaf so the gives a number of different qualifications with it says vanimilli vanimilli So number one, what does the mean? Rashi says, so first of all, this is really assuming that the juices that come out are really red, right? Really red. We're not talking about just like stem gravy. 30:46 Number one is that it's really red. Number two, the means says furthermore, there's so much of it that it permeates the loaf from one end to the other. So the loaf is soaked. The loaf is soaked which which in other words and furthermore furthermore it's a thicker it's a thicker consistency. She says 31:14 it's it's it's in other words they both say so the concern of it really is this is blood. This is blood. This is not like just stamp gravy or stam juices. This is really thicker blood. So in other words number one it's red. Number two it's permeating the loaf in its entirety. Number three it's really of a thicker consistency less. But if it's totally liquidy there's no problem because if it's liquidy again even if it has a red 31:37 appearance we look at that as gravy. We look at that as juices and not and not as blood say. So ultimately again say so a lot of qualifications over here. So number one it has to be red. Number two it has to soak the loaf through and through which just means the appearance of the loaf has changed. That's what that when you look at this you don't see bread. You 32:00 just see like a blood soaked item. Right? And number three it's thicker. It's the the consistency of the liquid is thicker and not like a not like a more liquidy type of gravy. Okay. So had a loaf like this. He threw it to his dogs. He would not eat it. 32:18 Gave it to his uh servants. One second. What now? Rauna's servants were Jewish. What does that mean? You're feeding it to the help. I don't understand. Either it's Mut or it's user, right? Those are the options. If it's mutter for the help, it's Mut for you. If it's for you, it's for the help. Shiny Rahuna. 32:41 No, no, no. Rahuna didn't eat it. Not because he felt it wasn't kosher, but because he was an istinous, he was fidious like like just it did not it did not appeal to him to eat bread like this. But from a kash's perspective, he absolutely felt that it was totally unequivocally motor. 33:00 Rava ate it. It's very interesting. Rava ate it and he said essentially this is delicious. He said we call this the wine of bread. It's like this is the wine of bread. So not not only did Rava eat it, but Mishi said this is fantastic. Rashi says this is called the wine of the meat. A delicacy. 33:21 Incredible. So it's very interesting. So let's say you're roasting meat. Now you're roasting it. You're roasting it, but you want to trap the juices, right? So what do you do? You want to put a a utensil underneath. So you're going to remember when they're roasting, how are they roasting? Pretty much if you can just imagine, easy to imagine, you have that meat on a spit, right? It's in like an oven, right? Or in a receptacle. You want to trap the juices underneath it. 33:50 So what do you do? You want to put a little pan underneath underneath the meat. So says, "You can't do that until the juices are no longer red." Like in other words, anything that's red is blood. If it's blood, you can't collect it. But once the juices are no longer red, then go for it. Go ahead and put your put your receptacle underneath it 34:13 and collect your gravy. So the Gimar says, "So how do you know?" Like in other words, obviously can sit there and look at the color of the juices coming out. But is there a way to tell in the cooking process at which point in time the red juices are no longer there and now it's gravy. So this is very interesting when it begins 34:38 to smoke when she begins to smoke. So this is very interesting. Sash has two gears about this blessing. Either when the meat itself begins to give off smoke that's indicative that all the blood is gone or then Rashi says the other possibility ultimately is is when the coals begin to give off smoke because when it's blood so blood 35:01 actually dampens the heat of the coals but when it's not blood it's fat. Fat actually causes smoke to rise. That's how you could tell if you've passed the blood phase and into the gravy fat flat fat phase. But still, how do you know the is swimming over here cooking it on a spit and the piece of meat is hanging down like a like a schwarma, right? So he says, I don't understand. Maybe the 35:27 blood just drained out of the bottom but didn't drain out of the top. How do you know less lat says you're right? The truth is, it's really hard to tell exactly when the blood stopped draining and when now it's gravy. So, what do you do? 35:45 Here's what you need to do. This is actually quite fascinating. If you have like the drip pan, right, the pan in which you're collecting the gravy, what do you do? Put two clumps of salt in that pan that's collecting the gravy. And say and then what what what does that do? So say and then what happens ultimately again that I'll collect it. Now again says like this and this is quite fascinating. You want what what do I 36:11 want to do over right? What do I want? What do I want? So besides like a piece of meat, right? What do I want? I want the gravy. I don't want the blood. The issue is everything is collecting in that drip pan. So you know, okay, maybe there's ways to figure out when it's finished bleed. Okay. What do you do at the end of the day in the drip pan? Put two clumps of salt. So apparently what ends up happening is the the the 36:35 blood will gravitate towards the salt. So the blood will be absorbed in the salt and then the gravy pools. So what do you do? So put the salt in allow allow allow the blood to gravitate to the salt. Allow the gravy to pull. Mashi mashi means then means gently pour off the gravy. So because the blood is absorbed in the salt, the gravy will be there floating there. You could gently pour off the gravy and you're good to 36:58 go. Fascinating 112B first line really say this explicitly said if you go and you cut a piece of meat on top of a loaf of bread ultimately again that bread ultimately is shiny says it's different over there Why? 37:29 Again, I will say same idea as you saw before. It's different because when you are going ahead and cutting a piece of meat on top of a loaf of bread, you have you have the the the pressure of the knife and the pressure of the knife has a problem of extracting extracting absorbed blood and therefore is going to be problematic. Incredible. Incredible. 37:49 Again, we're going to have to see just like what do we do with absorbed blood? Like in other words, when you have a piece of meat and you're not cooking it fully. So it's possible that there is some right those juices are there. Now essentially just you understand we salt meat right? 38:06 That's what we do. You buy a piece of kosher meat that kosher meat has been salted. The assumption then is not the assumption says the blood has been extracted. Which means when you see red liquid come out says that's not blood. That's not blood. What is that? What is that? That's as we saw before that's the wine of meat. Right? That's the wine of meat. That's meat juice. That's meat juice. That's why in all all kidding 38:29 aside, when you're cooking your meat medium rare, there's no problem. It's a hashkafic problem. But there's no there's no there's no there's no problem with that because any juices that are coming out are not considered to be blood. And therefore, again, for our purposes, just you understand for our purposes, if you were to take that medium rare piece of meat, I don't know, maybe you're making some type of dish where you want the gravy absorbed like in the bread, right? you were to cut 38:53 that piece of meat on that bread. Even if the bread would become stained red, it's not problematic. Again, Figimar is often operating under assumptions over here because remember if you don't want to salt meat, there is another way to remedy meat. How do you remedy meat? You roast it. You roast it. That is way so that that's where the gimar is operating from. So you have a piece of meat that has not been previously salted. The way you're extracting the blood ultimately 39:17 again is through roasting. Now we have a problem because when there's red stuff coming out of that meat, that's blood. That's blood. So to take that piece of meat, cut it over a cut it over a loaf of bread. Now I understand why that's problematic because that is blood that may still be coming out. You're collecting the gravy in a drip pan. That could still potentially be problematic because there still may be blood there. 39:38 Incredible. All right, let's go back to now. Watch this. What if you have what if you have fish, right? fish and birds that were salted with each other. So ultimately they're why they says the fish are why the fisher because we assume that the blood from the birds goes into the fish and obviously blood 40:09 of birds is problematic as well. blood of fish. We'll discuss says what's the case if we're talking about a non-perforated utensil and literally you're salting the fish together with the birds in one utensil and therefore fish and birds are in there and there's a whole bunch of blood in there also. 40:33 So, forget about salting fish and birds. Even if you're just salting a whole bunch of birds together, if they're sitting in a non-perforated utensil and therefore everything is sitting there in the blood, everything is user. Why is everything user? Why? Why? Because it's absorbing blood. And if you absorb a blood, even remember, even if an animal emits its blood and then absorbs its very own blood, it's still user. So, 40:55 what's the case? So the says and if it's a perforated utensil then ultimately and if it's perfect you say what happens with perforation perforation the blood flows out. So if there's perforation then there's no pooling of blood anyway. If there's no pooling of blood then what's the issue? 41:17 In reality we're talking about a perforated utensil. So we'll say what's the issue? The issue is like this because fish ultimately have a softer skin. Therefore they emit their blood first. Birds on the other hand have a tougher skin and therefore said they emit but when they emit ultimately again as they're still emitting the fish is 41:48 finished emitting and therefore the fish absorbs from the blood of the bird. That's the issue over here. So because the different consistencies between bird and fish therefore the bird is emitting for a longer amount. The fish emits first finishes. Bird is still emitting and therefore because the fish finished emitting therefore the fish absorbs ultimately the blood of the foul the blood of the 42:12 bird and therefore becomes us. Okay. So stop over here for today. We're not finished. We'll pick up with this case tomorrow. Reverend Zum have a great day everyone.
Expand transcript 6,661 words
