This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:03 say good morning good morning a great to be able to learn with all of you sorry I can't be there in person but grace at least to be virtual from mercy so I'll begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning to thank our sponsors for the month of Haba Melon Karen Ram for dedicating all of this this month the first of Alazar Ben Alisha Eden Iris 0:27 Miller and Adam and Dr. Leslie Rosenish Dr. Joseph Ben of Mayor Ben Para for dedicating all the shel this month. from our week of learning sponsors Nathan and Beth Adler of the arts of Benjamin sponsors Steinberg in the continued health 0:57 and sponsor of father who is undergoing surgery tomorrow we hope that all the Look after our brothers and sisters allow our holy soldiers to be successful to just and the rest of us. So with that 1:22 let us begin really exciting ahead of us today 97 and we are picking up on four lines up from the bottom said as follows. So we'll see remember again going back to the Mishna for just a moment. The Mishna spoke about an interesting case where you cooked the leg of the animal with the ganosha still in it. So the Mishna explained that 1:49 if there's no saint if the gf infused prohibited flavor into the rest of the meat of the leg then ultimately the leg is prohibited. But if not ultimately it's permitted. Then the Mishna then advanced the what we'll call the turnip meat model to be able to assess whether or not there was in fact an infusion of flavors. 2:07 qualifies this says that's only true if the g was cooked if the leg of the animal was cooked with the g inside but if it was roasted was roasted you could literally peel the meat away until you get to the ganosha obviously you can't eat the but the point is you could eat all the meat around the logic there points out over here 2:35 so apparently the difference between cooking and roasting is that when you cook something, the flavor expands. The flavor expands and ultimately infuses all that's around it. When you roast something, the git contracts and because it contracts, there's no flavor infusion. And therefore, again, pretty much all the meat around it is going to be permitted. So, literally the expression is just peel off the meat until you get to the gan and you're good 2:57 to go. Is that so? Question said, said that if you cooked let's say again you go ahead and you have you have a lamb and you didn't remove the or the goat you didn't remove the right so now what what's the is we assume that the permeates the entire animal to the point that you can't even 3:24 eat you can't even eat from the from the tip of the ear of the gad so that would seem to indicate that when you roast something there's flavor there's flavor permeation and flavor flavor infusion throughout the entire animal is different because by definition it expands literally means it expands. There's a flavor. So has a unique property that apparently again 3:54 because it's because it's fat by definition the flavor just expands into the rest of the animal. But that may not be the case ultimately says really is that true says that there was an episode that happened in the once roasted without removing the was still inside 4:24 and they came what should we do with and said, "No problem. No problem. You roasted it. Not a problem at all. Just peel away the meat. In other words, you can eat all the meat. Just obviously don't eat don't eat the but just peel away the meat until you get to the So point over here is you see that does not automatically permeate, right? 4:49 And does not automatically infuse flavor everywhere to which the says, "No, no, no, that was a different case. that was a weaker animal. It was a weaker animal. So because it was a weaker animal, therefore again the assumption is there was less because there was less ultimately again there wasn't the flavor transfusion or infusion. But apparently in other cases you would have to be permeates the entire animal. 5:16 In fact actually comes along and says it was a different case. It was actually a different case. It wasn't a case of a of the ultimately again that was roasted with rather again it was a case of a kilkis says over here says kilkis it was actually a case of a small 5:39 non-coosher fish that fell into a pot of kosher meat and they came and they asked and right they said again so so interestingly enough say answer number one so remember say just follow the flow right says of where you cook the leg of the animal with the gan inside of it. And we say we have to be concerned about flavor infusion is only by cooking. Said is not 6:02 true when it comes to roasting because roasting causes the g to contract. No flavor infusion. Therefore, she eat all the meat around the g obviously not the g itself. Not the g itself. Then the gimar says is that true? Because the gimmar brings up a case of a gadi that was cooked together with its which the says all is different the flavor spreads out and it permeates 6:26 the entire animal. Says really because there's a story where this happened in says it's not a problem you could eat all the meat around the so number one was it was a weak animal. So because it was animal therefore again had very weak or less and therefore it didn't permit didn't permeate the animal says no no no you got the case wrong. It 6:50 wasn't a case of being but in fact it was a pot of kosher meat into which a non-coosher fish fell in. They came to they said what do we do with the meat and said let a non-Jewish chef let a non-Jewish chef go ahead and taste it and see again he'll be able to tell was there a flavor 7:12 infusion from the non-cooser fish or not this is very interesting is introducing us to the concept that sometimes when you have a prohibited flavor infusion, give it to a gentile. Now, it's interesting by the way, so Rabokan said a chef, right? Because obviously you want someone with an experienced pallet that they could that they could discern the flavors, you know, they could discern the notes, the notes of 7:45 non-coosher fish and the kosher food. Now, Rashi points out to her something very interesting. But she says that you don't tell the gentile why you're why you're asking him what you're asking him. In there's something called which means someone gives advice or someone gives information of their own valition. 8:04 The concern is Rash's concern is that if the gentile knows that we are relying on him for a matter of he may feel tempted to mislead us. And therefore again we don't tell him why we're asking. We just ask by the way do you you know do do you do you uh taste any uh any fish any fish that may have come into this dish over here I just 8:27 point out it's interesting Rashi says over here excuse me tossis again to a little bit later but if you take a look it's in the in the wide lines it tells us about eight lines in Tulsa says it's not true says that even if the gentile knows why you're asking him the question. He's not going to lie. Why is he not going to lie? Because at the end of the day, this is his parasa, right? 8:57 At the end of the day, in other words, his whole identity is is based on is based on the fact that he's he's a chef. And if he lies, he undermines his entire credibility. So, it's interesting interesting. Rashian tells us, according to Rash, you could rely on the non-Jewish chef, but he can't know the reason you're asking him the question. 9:17 According to Telsus, he could know because again since he's a chef and he has a professional reputation to go ahead and uphold. Therefore, he's not going to lie. Okay. In any event, that's the key said in the beginning it's very important because introduced us to this idea of of giving it what we call is like a chef is is a nonju. So let a 9:46 non-Jewish chef taste it and tell us if there was a flavor infusion. Incredible. So now goes on. In the beginning I was always bothered by the following. If you had a pot, this is actually interesting. If you have a pot that was used for meat, you should not cook in that pot. Now we're going to talk a lot about this. Now what's the logic? The 10:11 logic behind it is because we assume that when you cook in a pot, the pot absorbs flavor, then when you cook a second time, the pot emits the flavor. So therefore, if you have a pot that was used for meat, that pot absorbs meat flavor. When you then subsequently go ahead and when you then subsequently go ahead and cook milk in it, then what will happen? Then ultimately again, then the milk then the milk will absorb meat 10:35 flavors. That's that's the problem. That's the problem we have. And if you went ahead and you cooked so again the right the dairy that you cook in there will be problematic if if the meat pot infused meat flavor into the dairy items being cooked inside. 10:59 similarly again if you have a pot that's used for truma you should not go ahead and cook in it because remember again a nonen cannot eaten infused with truma and if you went ahead and you did cook ultimately again it's problematic if there was a flavor infusion so the says okay so now the obvious sha is how can you tell if there was taste in a flavor 11:22 infusion how how do you know that or not is bishl first wide line on the bottom of 97a bishl from a truma time the coin. So no problem. If you have a pot that was used for truma and now you use it for koolin and you want to know is there a truma infusion into the hoolin. No problem. A coin could go and taste that. 11:39 This is assuming that they're dissimilar items because then you can taste a flavor infusion. No problem because a coin is truma. A coin can eat. That's easy. But again imagine the following case. I had a pot that I used for fleshik. And then I went ahead and I inappropriately used it for milk. So now I have to see does the milk have a infusion in it. 12:00 Okay. Who's who's who's tasting that for me? Who's going to be able to tell? So oh said that you could rely on a gentile chef. I could rely on a gentile chef. Right. Good. Good. So now now I know that I could rely on this gentile chef to tell me whether or not there's an actual flavor infusion in all of this. 12:26 Incredible. Incredible. So we'll say this next line is very very very important. So watch this. Sometimes sometimes when it comes to mixtures, right, for mixtures that that are potentially forbidden or potentially problematic. The rabbis assessed the mixture in one of three ways. Sometimes it's by tasting it, right? By tasting 12:52 it. Is there flavor infusion? And can you taste it? Sometimes the rabbis say to rely ultimately again on a non-Jewish chef to see if there was flavor infusion 97b and sometimes the rabbis ultimately again use shish. Now again this is interesting we have not seen this in well actually we have seen this in so far but now we're going to get much more 13:16 into this. Sometimes the rabbis say no when you have a mixture the way to look at it is through 60. Is there 60 times more permitted matter than prohibited matter? So interesting is saying that the rabbis seem to give three different ways for dealing with mixtures. 13:31 Sometimes they tell you to taste it. Sometimes they say to rely on a non-Jewish chef and sometimes which which way is which to which the says here we go this is very important 97b first line. So again, when you have two dissimilar items, two dissimilar items, right, that have when we say dissimilar means they have different flavors and they're both 13:56 permitted that you assess through basic taste. What's a good example of that? Truma and right. I have a truma pot. I cooked chuma in it. And now I I cooked in it. So the sha is can I go ahead and eat that or is it or is there a or is there a chuma flavor infused in it? So once again, I can't taste that because I'm not a Cohen, but a Cohen can taste 14:20 that. That's a perfect example of where you could rely on a Jew to taste it and tell us whether or not there was a flavor infusion. That's what we call two dissimilar items ultimately, but they're both permitted. Truma and are both permitted to certain people. So therefore lion taste if you have two dissimilar items but 14:43 they're good example of that I have a meat pot I shouldn't have used it to cook dairy but I did so now the sh is is there a meat infusion into the d into the dairy food cooked in the meat pot I can't taste it because I'm a yidashem I'm aid I can't taste it but I can ask the non-Jewish I can't ask the gentile the gentile chef to taste that minino 15:07 So again, but in the case of minimino, and we'll get into all of this. Minimino means similar items, similar items. Again, so let's say you have fish, right? A piece of kosher fish and a piece of non-coosher fish. Meat, a piece of kosher meat, a piece of non-coosher meat. The assumption is you can't tell taste because they're both pretty much the same thing. That's what we're dealing with over here. So there's no possibility to rely on taste. So 15:31 therefore, again, can't use a taste test. or two dissimilar items like but there's no available gentile no available gentile but then we use 60 then we use 60 so this is a very interesting statement of rab let's just go through this once more so says like this there's actually three different ways in which the rabbis deal with 15:55 mixtures sometimes they tell you to taste it sometimes they will tell you to rely ultimately again on a non-Jewish chef and sometimes shishim 60s where says What? When? How do you know what to apply? What? It's a very simple says what we call two dissimilar items. If they're both have a Jew taste it, specifically a coin to see if there's an issue. Good. That's case one. Case two, two dissimilar 16:20 items, but it's for example. I can't have a Jew taste it. No problem. In that case, have a gentile taste it. That's fail. That's fail. And case number three is ultimately two similar items. One is one is mut. Therefore, taste test is not going to work. Right? Taste is not going to work. Orino that is asser and there's no chef. 16:43 There's no gentile chef available. In that case, you'll use shish. In that case, you'll use 60. The ratio of 60. As long as you have 60 times permitted material corresponding to one part prohibited material ultimately again the mixture is going to be again we're going to see more about that in just a little bit tells the story sorry 17:10 there was a case means legs of the animal there was a case of a leg of a leg of an animal that were sold in the house of kaloosa And they didn't remove the salted leg with the gan in it. Okay. 17:28 What is the impact of salting on the permitted meat given the fact that the ghanosha was inside of the leg of the animal said it was said that it was mut. Okay. So now what do we do with this? 17:47 So they came and they asked what should we do? He said my father permitted this case even though again even though the wased inside of the leg of the animal my father permitted this case my so then said what's your logic ra said that it was right so they salted they salted the the meat of this of this leg of this animal with the githan still 18:14 inside ra therefore said the entire leg is assur so they asked ra what's what's your what's your logic And answered said, I'm gonna talk about all these things in greater depth. Sultting is the equivalent of roasting. 18:34 And pickling is the equivalent ultimately of cooking. And therefore again because salting is the equivalent of roasting it's as if the leg of this animal has been roasted with the inside which is suggesting that would hold is but one second one second it's not true how did we start today's came along qualified what is say when do we say 19:03 that if you left the ganosh the leg of the animal that it ribs the the entire leg wanted that root when it was cooked inside the leg. explicitly said that if it was roasted then ultimately roasting cause the causes the contraction of the g and the contraction prevents flavor permeation right the flavor infusion so it shouldn't be a problem maybe maybe when said that is like is 19:31 like excuse me that is like ros that salting is like roasting maybe it didn't literally mean roasting maybe what he meant is that salting is like cooking But here's the problem. The fact that said that pickling is like bish like cooking. Therefore, by definition, the fact that he said that malia salting is like roasting means he really meant roasting. He really meant roasting which the gim says kasha. It's a good kasha. 20:01 In other words, it's not clear. It's not clear exactly why Ravino said that ultimately again that gid is going to be user excuse me or why the leg of that animal is going to be user interesting you know we'll say there's a lot to talk about with that we're going to we're going to a lot of these concepts that are being introduced to now we're going to go into further dep being thrown at us in today's do so this idea that salting is the equivalent of roasting 20:24 and that pickling is the equivalent of cooking is actually a very very important concept which we'll get Now that the introduced us ultimately to the concept of the concept of 60 times right that when you have let's use the examples of the right when you have let's say a case everybody will agree with you have milk and meat that got mixed together right some milk fell into 20:51 a pot of meat think it's simple typical case so let's say again so although technically speaking according to the gimra you could go and ask a gentile chef to taste it. Is there a milk infusion into my pot of gentile chef available to me? Okay. So now what am I going to do by something said 60? Is there 60 times more meat than the amount of milk that fell in? If 21:13 so, the mixture is permitted. Now says something very interesting. What what goes into establishing that 60? In other words, what's counted towards the 60 parts of meat? The game says when we when we go and we measure the 16 the gravy means like like the like the pieces of meat that come to that I was going to say meat dregs but it's not you know 21:38 like the pieces of meat that come out and settle at the bottom and obviously the pieces of meat themselves and the pot that last piece a little bit confusing look at just a moment says again so Therefore, when we when we say that you need 60 times more meat, what goes into that calculation of the 60? 22:01 So, essentially says it's everything. It's everything. It's the pieces of meat, it's the primary piece of meat, it's the pieces of meat that like the meat dregs, it's the gravy, it's the soup, and it's even the pot. We'll have to see what that means. Some say the actual pot itself. It sounds like what it's saying is that we take into account even like the volume of the walls of the pot. Others 22:27 say no. It's what the pot absorbed. In other words, well, when we measure 60, we look at what that mixture, that meat mixture was when it was first put into the pot, right? Because as you cook it, obviously some of it gets absorbed into the pot, which diminishes then the volume of meat. So we look at the original volume original volume of the meat before any absorption got got included before anything was absorbed into the walls of the butt or to say it 22:50 differently we take into account the absorption as well when calculating the 60 very interesting looking I just point out Rashi says something very interesting look at so again if we know how much meat there was when it first when it was first in the pot before before it got absorbed into the walls of the pot. 23:30 Okay. So therefore here essentially we take into account the fact that some of it was absorbed and we add back those absorptions to the 60 to the permitted to the permitted amount of of meat. In other words, we don't look at what the meat is now minus the absorptions but rather we add back the absorptions to count towards the full amount of 60. Now it's interesting by the way Rashi points out over here 23:54 points out he says um he says Rashi just says this is we don't do that in other words it's he points out essentially like it's impossible to figure out how much the pot itself absorbs we can't there's no way to do that so says in general when we measure like when we take 60 times the meat we just look at what's in front of us right now but we do not tried to figure out how much absorptions there were. Okay, 24:22 Rash is giving us the but this is the says we can't even the absorptions others say okay I'm sorry this is very interesting so whenever you have an prohibited item that falls into a mixture of permitted items right whatever whatever the case is we view the prohibited item as if it's onions or leaks now onions and leaks have a have a 24:52 strong flavor and therefore we view the prohibited item as if it has a strong flavor as well. Look at Rashi. Rashi says, He go okay this is very interesting comes along and says like this when you have a prohibited so let's say for example you have kosher non-coosher meat that falls into kosher meat so this is going to be a case of minimino right two like items but let's say again 25:31 so you can't really discern based on taste or even if it's baser and but there's no we view the prohibited item imagine for a moment if this prohibited item was onion or a leak and an onion or a leak fill in in this measurement in the amount of let's say the non-coosher item into a pot of kosher food would onion or leak convey flavor to the permitted item or not. If it would then 25:55 we view as if the non-coosher item gave over flavor as well and if it would not then ultimately again their mixture is totally permitted. Interesting. So you know also points out this is aside from gidanosha because as the mission explained ganosha has its own model ultimately again of of the ganosha has its own has its own idea baser right 26:19 baser as we saw says as follows. So again I will say just to point out this is a little bit of a different model than right what this is saying is whenever a prohibited item falls into a mixture of permitted items we view the probed item as if it has a sharp taste it's an onion it's a leak so if a onion or a leak of this size the probed item fell into the mixture would 26:42 it convey flavor or not if it would convey flavor the mixture is user if it would not convey flavor the mixture is motor incredible Well, if you're going to do this, why don't we treat the non-coosher item as if it's like a pepper or spices that are very sharp, have a strong flavor, and aren't bottle, even a thousand to one because Kazal understood that at the end 27:12 of the day, in general, there's no non-culture items that really have greater taste intensity than an onion or a leak. Okay, incredible. This is very interesting. So I have a falls into a pot filled with other senus. So what's so will in a ratio of 60 to1 the emergency just points out 27:38 over here you need 60 times the g. But of course the g itself is not included in the permitted number of 60. That's what it means. The gid itself ultimately requires in other words essentially what you need is 60 other kosher giddin and one ganosha in that mixture the githanosha will be bottle. Now that may sound obvious and intuitive but just either the next case 28:03 requires what happens if an udder right cow udder falls into a falls into a pot of meat. So what's the issue with the udder? The issue with the udder ultimately again is is that the udder has milk inside of it. That's the concern we have. First I'll take a look at in the first wide line on the bottom. 28:35 So again because the g itself is inherently off. So therefore you need 60 times more you know a aside from the g when it comes to an udder however an udder also so an u now here's interesting the cow u itself is mut is kash the concern we have with it is the milk that is absorbed inside of it that's the issue we have so the gimar says so same thing if an udder falls 28:59 into a pot of meat it's ble in shishim 60 to1 but interestingly enough the udder itself also counts towards the 60. In other words, because the udder itself is a kosher piece of meat, it could combine with 59 other pieces uh 59 other pieces of kosher meat in order to be in order to nullify the milk that might have gone into the mixture. See the 29:23 distinction? Because the g is inherently oscerish similarly again an egg. Now again we're assuming over here Brashi says over here bes like a non- kosher egg kosher egg from a non- kosher bird. So if an egg co non-cosher egg gets mixed in with other kosher eggs ultimately you need 60 times kosher eggs and obviously the non-coosher egg is not 29:54 part of the tally which again makes sense. All of these things make sense because at the end of the day, the end of the day, something that is inherently prohibited cannot go ahead and cannot go ahead and be counted in the permitted items. 30:13 Now, interesting enough, this is fascinating. So, but the itself is going to be even though we said before that the utter can count towards the 60 units of permitted matter. The itself is going to be and therefore again if the because again the concern with the udder itself is the udder has milk inside of it and then the meat around it oer 30:43 infused taste. Therefore, the udder is going to be user. Not only that, but if the udder is taken out of pot one, it falls into pot two, the udder will still go ahead and prohibit as well. The says one secondash when I was in the house of we ask the following. 31:08 When we speak about the udder and we need 60 times the udder, is it that we need 60 times the whole udder or it's that we need 60 times the amount of milk that will come out of the udder to which the says it has to be that we measure 60 times the udder itself. Why? Because otherwise how am I how would I know how much milk is coming out of the udder? That's 31:34 impossible to know. But if that's the case, they're measuring according to the udder itself, then that would mean that when the u is in the first pot, if it's bottle, if it's bottle, right? If in other words, if there's 59 times 59 other pieces of permitted meat, I would say the utter also counts as part of the tally of the permitted, then the udder is but if it's if it's nullified, then even if it falls into a second pot of meat, why should 32:00 that be problematic? No, no, no. When we say that the itself is why is that rabbis treated it ultimately like a piece of the itself is just considered? Because the u itself is complicated in that it has milk mixed into it. Even though technically speaking, yes, the u is mut and therefore again it combines with 59 other pieces of kosher meat and the whole mixture is going to be 32:32 permitted. But the utter itself as a as an entity ultimately has a status of so because that says when it falls into another path it will still go ahead and prohibit. Incredible. Take a look at So again, a fascinating just detail here by the essentially went ahead and just treated it as if it's treated as if it's and therefore say even though it goes 33:08 ahead and it falls into a second pot, it is going to be user in that second pot as Well, incredible say. Incredible. I just want to point out we we I know we we touched on a lot of different topics today. Just understand how the gimmar is going to work like often works. The gimmar kind of loaded onto us today a lot of concepts in what we call is refers to the sections of which again prohibited mixtures, permitted mixtures. 33:32 We see the three different models of shishim 60 times a Jew tasting it to see the flavor infusion. A non-Jewish chef tasting it see flavor infusion giving us. Now we're going to see the interest I'll just tell you this and we'll end with this. The interesting evolution of this is we're going to see that pretty much everything gravitates towards shishim that over time in we kind of dispense with people tasting things tasting things non-ju tasting things and 33:56 rather we just simply focus on the metric of shishim that if there is 60 times permitted matter more than the prohibited entity then ultimately the mixture is going to be mut. Now of course there are exceptions to this rule other things like that but today at least we got a lot of the concepts in the coming days we'll see how they are applied tremendous tremendous a great with all of you wishing everyone a 34:20 wonderful
Expand transcript 5,360 words
