Chulin 98

Today's d is and we are 16 lines from the bottom of so yesterday we began the of which is predicated on the idea of so usually when you think of you're thinking of the classic example the example of this a suffic you're not sure is not sure how to resolve the suffix so We assume that what the is whatever is most probable statistically speaking is what happened. So for example, if there's a sh of gimmel and they're trying to determine whether ruin killed shim ruain didn't kill shim was ruin mal shabas was he not m shabas if dam say he was we'll assume he was if dam say he wasn't he wasn't but there are other concepts of as well the of is very different than the classic and that is when you have a you have a mixture of two things and hater the is that we don't look at the taru as a mixture of is but rather we're forced to make a decision. We're forced to decide whether this should be deemed or whether it should be deemed hat. How do you decide if the voice is we're going to look at the if the is then we're going to look at the voice as if it's hater. What happens to the mat? It becomes bottle to the and we say that whatever the is, that's what this is going to be. Thus, you have a tremendous kadesh. You can have a little bit of non-coosher food that's mixed together with your kosher food as long as the kosher food is the majority. We're now going to look at this as if it's 100% kosher. And when we talk about au of there are two types of there's a taru of there's a tar of yish first. That's when you have three pieces of meat, three hamburgers, they all look the same. Two of them, you know, are kosher. One of them, you know, was not kosher. Right now, because they look the same and they all got mixed up. So, you don't know which are the not kosher and which one is the non-cooser. We say that being that the majority, two out of the three are kosher, even though we know that one is not kosher, all three become. It's a it's learned out from the same exact that teaches me all the other Rabes all three hamburgers are going to be kosher. Now to the extent that there's a rush that says you could eat all three at the same time. How can you eat all three at the same time? You know for sure one of them is not kosher. You know for sure one of them was not kosher. But now that tells me that we look at all three as if they're kosher. The raash argues the raash says you have to eat them one at a time. There's no way you could all eat all three at once. There's a rashi that says that you could eat the hamburgers but you have to get rid of one of them first. So you throw away one and then you could eat the other two. What's the methodology? You throw away one will have the right to assume that the one you threw away was the non-coosher one even though but that's the rule. The point is is that there's a concept of that that is important in the but there's another type of which is really the one that we're discussing right now and that's a that's we have that literally merged together and became one. It's what the garra refers to as it comes up in different shapes and sizes and forms. But the point is what you have is and they were literally nar into one. You have a pot of kosher meat and you threw a non piece non-coosher piece of meat into the mix and now they all got cooked together. So it's not three hamburgers. I don't know which one is which. I have a a pot that has food of kosher and non-cooser food mixed up completely. So in the physical are not mixed. They didn't merge. They didn't cook together. Nothing chemically happened between the two to merge them into one. It's just that we don't know. There's a confusion. The tar is is the is the is the confusion over here. The tar is physical. It's chemical in nature. What happened was the isra and the physically got mixed together. There too we say the of stating that there's a very important caveat. The caveat is Tomaker says that as long as the is nice and t even though it's a mute in this is that is still going to be will speak more about that again in the end of the but as we spoke out briefly in the yesterday is that is all the brings to it's with one caveat it's only if the is if the Then even agrees that is only going to be how do you define how do you define that too we're going to see at the end of the either way it's what comes out whether it's the whole but one thing is clear that if you have a even though there is an idea of but there's also an idea of that says that you can't just say oh of the pot is koshi so big deal one piece of kazer fell into the I'd rather than kosher. No, that could have would have should have been. That's not the way it is because now there's a a new of Tomker and Tomker says that as long as the moot is nice and in the voice so the is that the whole voice is going to be awesome. Now Tom doesn't apply because there's no there there's nothing happened between them chemically where one would be contributing any flavor into the other. It's only a discussion when you're learning the of although we will see at some point there is a concept of shishim even by but that's only because of I cook it together but the point is is that when you discuss you're obviously discussing so how do you know if something's nice in time so you have a we know there's a so how do you know if the dber user is being nice in time or the duster is is not being nice in time so the garra gave A few possibilities. Ra said that there's three ways to do it. Either you can give it to a Jew to taste. If we're dealing with that no Jew's allowed to eat, you can't give it to a Jew. Then you can give it to a non-Jew. You trust a non-Jew. Rashi says too much. Ty says you give it to a a master chef, someone who is not going to put his professional license at risk so that you can trust him. Exactly. So you can trust him that he'll be telling the truth. Or finally, a third option is if there's no way to taste it, it's or you can't find that chef that you're going to trust. So then there's a so there's a back of the envelope formula that you're allowed to use and you do it is you count the amount of in this amount of if the 60 times is then you're allowed to eat it. So it's not but rather it's why because of the of cake. But one thing we saw in yesterday's d and it's going to be a lot more clear on that the whole concept of shishin is something that evolved during the kufa of the and it seems that the and even some of the earlier were not aware of this she of which would seem to suggest that it's not included in the unless it was forgotten but but the point is as we're going to see throughout the different numbers and formula that suggested and the way says this is all before what is is from the right there's nothing before kaz is that's so apparently this shishim was something that somehow came about at some later of the either way a lot more mean every is in the of the if you have a gan which is how we got into the in the first place and you cooked it now together with other then the entire is going to be and you don't have to worry about what does that mean that means you have to have 60 of without the doesn't count as part of the 60 meaning when you talk Does it mean shishim together with the daser or does it mean in addition to the total you have to have 60 or total you have to have 61. So this is a that's one line of basics you have to have 60 of the one of the udder of a cow. If you want to be there has to be it. You could count. Now the udder of a cow is where the milk comes from. So if you take the udder of a cow with the milk inside of it and you put it in a pot with other meat, you're running into a bus of question issue. You're not allowed to cook bus together. You're not let together. So what happens if you cook the udder that has milk inside of it. So you need the milk that's inside the udder and you can use the udder itself to be the milk. The reason is because the u itself is is meat. It's a it's a the is not the milk. It's the milk inside the u that we're worried about. If you have an egg, we'll see what that means in the there too. There's and you don't count that as it relates to an udder. So somebody took an u there's milk inside he cooked it in a pot together with other meat. So the is you need but even if you have shished the the itself is going to remainer the you would take this and you would put it now into another pot would have the ability to make the other pot. It's a little bit of a kesh because to the extent that connected the meaning to be the milk that's inside of it. So why should it remain? Why? If you put it into another pot, should it still be? So, but the point is is that even if the remains and if you put the into another pot, it has an ability like to make the rest of the pot. Discuss this a little bit. When I was you asked him the following question if somebody sticks an udder of a cow with milk inside of it into a pot. So you need the said shishim and the udder itself counts as as part of the shishim. His question was shishimga the entire udder or shishima the milk that's inside the udder. Meaning at first glance you would say it's ka the milk that's inside of the udder but maybe no maybe you need to be mato the u itself the u is mutter is meat you let it cook the udder with the rest of the meat the problem with the udder is the milk that's inside the stating that he wasn't sure he said do you need the milk that's inside the you figure out how much milk is inside and that's or do you have to the entire so he told him you need to be the entire tell me that you need to be only the milk that's inside of him. How in the world do you know how much milk is? There's no way to know how much milk's inside. I mean that there's no way to know how much milk is inside. You need the entire if that's the case then I don't understand the next line of the we said that the udder itself you need to be if the shishim it the still remains meaning if it falls into another it has an ability to answer the other. If you're telling me that shish means shish the uter. So you already the otter. So if you how does the have an ability to go ahead and answer in another path. So theor says two separate. The first is we're worried about the milk that's inside the so with milk falls into a pot. So you need to move the milk. You have no idea how much milk is here. So as a result you need to move the entire cow. That's the only way to do this. the entire stating that the remains. Why does it remainer? Because it remains. There's a that the is viewed as if you take the you put into another pot, it's still going to be a problem. The shishim worked to be the udder the milk that was inside the udder stating that the uter became a in of itself and as a result if it falls into a it's going to have an ability to but there's one very important maybe the sh of is not so but there is one very important principle as it relates to that you have to take out of this gumar and that is the gumar said that if you had an udder of a cow with milk inside of it and now it's in the voice so the is it's not enough to have shishima the milk and shish ka the entire why the problem is not the utter the problem of the milk the reason is because you have no idea how much milk is inside the th you don't know how much to be you don't know if you knew it' be one thing but you don't know it's from here we learn that anytime you have a you always need to be the entire is you're not allowed to start making calculations and saying one second I have a n of is that fell into a pot so I don't know how much of this really went into the food of hat so that how much is there is that I need to be so let me take the piece of non-cos out then I'll make a of how much platus went into this and I'll be that is it doesn't work the is you have to assume that there's no way to know how much actually went into the there's no way to know how much went into the you always have to of the entire another technical we said that if a egg so apparently this is a non-cooser egg was mixed together with kosher eggs is you need the egg itself doesn't count as part of the it sounds like you need the one egg of 61 only it sounds like from this that if you boil a bunch of eggs together the eggs will somehow be nice and tin to the other egg. Is that true? Don't people say people want to say that something is tasteless? So they say this thing tastes like water that eggs were cooked in. Meaning it tastes like water because if you boil eggs in water, the egg is not going to give any tam into the water. So if the egg doesn't give any tam into the water. So what's this whole question in the first place? We're talking about tam because we're discussing shish. So, you're talking about eggs, boiling eggs together. If you boil a bunch of eggs, you boil a kosher egg and a non-coosher egg together in the same pot, there should be no problem because how is it being nice and t and it's interesting says, "How do you know it's not time?" Ask the man on the streets. We're not talking about a regular egg. We're talking about a fertilized egg. We're talking about an egg that has a chick inside of it. As a result, that type of egg being that that chick is already a it's a chicken. It's a non-coosher chicken. You're not allowed to eat a fry, right? You can't eat it. So, you can't eat it. So, in theory, even though it's kosher, it's a chicken, but it's not kosher, meaning it's not and flation that's already going to be nice and so a nonfertilized egg won't be in, but a fertilized egg is different. Thear says the says says theami if it would be a regular non-cooser egg you're telling me it wouldn't be a problem if somebody has kosher eggs all the tomato and he cooked it together with non-coosher eggs if he cooked it if there's less than 60 it's a problem what's the kasha the cash is why does it have to be non-coosher eggs even if it's kosher eggs even if it's kosher the issue is not kosher versus non-cosher what's a non-coser egg it came from a non-cosher animal doesn't have to come from a non-coosher animal even if it came from a kosher animal. The issue is that says it's true. That's what it means. The price means then why it refer to it as to doesn't usually mean non-cooser. No in the sense he can't eat it. Not that it's from a non-coosher animal says it can't be toner that disgust cooking bates with bum tomos has a say you cooked a bunch of eggs you boiling eggs together and then you found out that one of them had an if the then they all become now it's two cases in the discusses you cooked kosher eggs with bum tomos. The second one discusses you cooked kosher eggs with eggs that had an talking about two different things. I'm not sure what the ra is talking about, but I know what the is talking about. It's very straightforward. It's talking about an eggs that have a little chicken inside. Clearly the is not talking about a ba that has an what then does it mean when it says ba too? It means a non-coosher. And still there's a discussion of nice and tam. So you see clearly from the that there's an idea of and and even when you're dealing with eggs says the right don't you see from the is talking about there was no says no it it's not two cases it doesn't sounds like it's two cases you have to say that the safer of the is a pish it's a commentary on the ratio of the does this sometimes the ratio was bishmato What does tomato mean? Usually tomatoes means eggs from a non-coosher animal. That's not what it means. this case means says it's actually because the two talking about two different things and the is talking about a non-cos the is talking about a once I know the I shouldn't even need the what's the bigger it's a bigger that an egg from a non-coosher animal even though it's not a fertilized egg it doesn't have an a could be nice and then it is an egg that hasn't a should be nice and time. So once the ratio assuming the ratio is discussing a regular non-coosher egg, not a fertilized egg, a regular non-coosher egg and the is that it's nice and time then I shouldn't need the safer. So from the fact that we mention the safer after the right it's not two cases because if it's two cases I would know the second case from the first case must be one long case where the is being dish but the says no could be really it's two cases. Ah, you'll ask me why do I need a safer of a once I know the ratio of a ratio. I need a to tell me the ratio because had I only had the ratio, you would have thought this. You would have made a mistake and thought that the telling me the more obvious but if there's no maybe the made it clear no it's going to be the point is there's no from the whether bates and tomos that are cooked together with bates and could be noisen or can't be there's no hami mabra but there's also no you can't ask kashes from here you can't bring rayas from There's two ways to learn the brio. I mean that there's two ways to learn the way we come back is to what said in that is that when there was a discussion amongst the and whether if you cook kosher eggs with non-coosher eggs together in the same pot that there should be of and of it's all where the egg had an aak inside of it. So this wasn't a regular egg the type of eggs that you'd make scrambled eggs from. those eggs kosher non-coosher you put them all together there's no where there's where the egg had in it a chicken such an egg being that there's buster inside the egg that can somehow seep through the shell that would already be nice and to the would be of it was a regular non-coosher egg that's the in of itself would not be an issue there was a There was a gaz of that of fat that fell into a pot of meat. So this is a problem. So a notasi was sat down and he wanted to do the arithmetic to make sure that the shish. So he started counting how much kosher meat there was and then he counted the ro and the keepa like we had at the end of yesterday's d. So he started taking all the hea in this pot into the calculation. But then he added one thing. What he did was he also tried figuring out how much he was absorbed in the walls of the pot because he felt that any food that's inside the walls of the pot would bear to the fat how could you do that you see there's a little base there this is he says how could you do something like that how do you know whether the pot absorbed or iser or more hater or more iser there's no way to take the pot into calculation meaning really what you need to assume as the that the pot probably absorbed proportionate to whatever's inside the pot. So if the pot was 70% and 30% is then the pot itself probably absorbed 70% heet and and 30% is the point is you can't assume it absorbed more than is so that you could somehow tip the scales as far as the ratio of is to goes to walk away with yourashi was to the side of the balance sheet because he thought that by doing that he'd be able to somehow walk away with it doesn't make any sense either way. There was not a zas of fat but rather there was a fell into a pot of meatashi. This is not raashi. This is two differences, right? Number one, it's not a it's a halfas. Number two, it's not raashi. It's raashi son. It's marashi. So he was doing the math and what was the math that he did? 30 half. So it was a half and he was 30. Now had 30 would have been good because 30 is 60 times a half as but he wasing 30 half says father told him father was the god of sounds like this isn't the first time they had this conversation right he said didn't I tell you that he shouldn't be when it comes to meaning seems to have been doing the math and looking for a 30 to1 ratio and raashi understood that what do you mean 30 it's 60 everybody knows it's 60 so probably the reason he came up with 30 is because this is only the raon cuz not a full it's a so it's a only we'll see that'll be the second question oh he's being he said just like and if you want to be you need when it comes to you want to be you need as well so how you doing said It's not even it's a told two mistakes. Number one, you're assuming it's a work with just like work with and number two, it's not even why would you assume it's we like is with regards to meaning if somebody eats a half a of it's a He just doesn't get malus were said with regards to but as it relates to the actual the name of who was that full suspense what what did they say egg that gets mixed up with 60 is with 61. It sounds like you're saying a very big why explain because they said a similar but it was not clear what they held. They were the two. What did they say? Bates of Bamakura Bamak the alfter an egg in 60 is in 61 is and it's a little ambiguous right and the weren't sure what they said when we say that an egg is only with 61 it means 61 it's one of the 61 or do you need 61 without it and we couldn't resolve this question and from you it sounds like from the fact that you're not explaining that you need 61 without the egg that's asser that a person will for sure walk away thinking that as long as the 61 with the egg of Isra that in it of itself is going to be enough which is a big kah because that's only one sad in the way understood what said it's because there was which was that you need 61 in addition to the egg in other words what's coming out from this is very interesting Ordinarily whenever you talk about explained right as the first line first words of the d in the beginning of the that you need 60 of so if you have a you take the you divide into 61 groups the point is it's 61 in total which is made up of 60 of and one of if you have that you could be mat 60 had to connect with one of 61 in total here the gumar is declaring that sad that when it comes to an egg you need 62 in total He did 61 of Heather and one of Isra. It was a little bit unclear. I mean is not sure but there were two that said something that seemed to suggest that and they and there was a follow-up question and no one knew the answer. So at the very least there was a possibility that when it comes to an egg that you would eat 61 and thus the saying that it was a big that they all made it sound like it's partial you need 60 oh it's not so short not so it's true for 60 forum but but 100 but but you know this of but egg might be different why would an egg be different so What's the spar eggs? Because eggs are not all the same size. You have a large egg, an extra large egg, right? That they come in different sizes. As a result, if you can have 60 kg, the one of we're concerned that maybe the one of this is an extra large egg. And one of the 60 are going to be just the the large eggs, not the extra large eggs. So, what we do is we add another egg just to make sure that we have a full 60. That's the idea. That's the and that is the bottom line. So if you have an egg where you have 60 plus meaning 60 which is usually the it's still a problem but if you have 61 plus then it's going to be so we mentioned earlier that the number evolved it wasn't always that way a few stories that are going to demonstrate that. So there was somebody that came in front of told him they did the math and there was 45 of can I get the one of is sir and so told my father I remember didn't want to be m with 47 to one you expect me to be m 45 to1 what do you mean isn't it 60 to1 so it seems like not at that time somebody came natural become leob had a son had a son. He told him here he told him my father didn't want to said you have 30 says who no one ever heard 30 this is this is right he meant to say you don't even have 30 so why we so why you asking me every time you have this next by the way is a classic I'm the fun told him is this what you heard from heard the name of who said over the name of that anytime you have a what's the magic number if you can't taste it there's no master chef so what do you do that's what you heard I heard differently I heard that every time you have it's always 100 they both had the same they both learned it meaning apparently there were two versions of what the name of is it or is it every time you have and it's learned from a a paraso it's a kim it's tucked away it's in the is of the nos The Tyrus says that after the Nuzer completes his Nazerus, he had to bring three carbon. He brought an aim and his schlamim. The schlamim that the nazer brought was given to the bim meaning the nozzer got to eat the meat of the schlamim which is the way it is with almost all schlamims because it's kachchum colum but at the same time there was one part of the carbon schlam that had to be given to the cayenne that the bimin nosar was allowed to eat. It's viewed as kachi kadashim that's also lazar. There was one part that had to be given to the kay and that was thea thea that's as of the sedar plate fame. So the za was given to the cen they would do tanufa with thea and afterwards they would give it to the kay but before they did that they cooked the za and the za was cooked together with the rest of the animal. The p says the shale. We'll see now what exactly means but really the and even though there's everybody agrees that so the was cooked together with the rest and the ended up taking it. So they would cook the together with the would end up going to the co as the says and then he took the mat and all the different mats and and they did the of but regardless says the before the gota was cooked together with the rest of the says what does mean it means it was whole had to be says it means it had to be cooked. It says everybody believes it had to be cooked for sure also means cooked and everybody agrees that it had to be cooked together with the meaning together. The said that first they would cut it meaning they would they would separate the from the rest of the aisle and then they would cook. It was cooked in the same pot. But first they would separate and then afterwards they would cook it. And it was the second sheet of holds. First they would cook it and afterwards they would cut it. Where do you see this in the so it's a little bit unclear. The says it seems to suggest that you just have to make sure the zya is intact. You don't have to make sure the aisle is intact. You have to make sure the is intact which seems to suggest that they remove the from the rest of the aisle. Make sure the zya is whole but cook it all together. says doesn't mean and all it means is there's a name and that's only and that's all it means that that's all it means. So you could be you had to cook it all in in one shot. Alternatively, what is everybody agrees that first they would cut and then then they would cook it holds they would cook it together with the incidentally in the first of the first the second it's a little confusing the first so they would cook it in two different pots Bottom line says this we just need a punch line according to the first lion both the tanakama and in this price of that thea was cooked together with the rest of the aisle if that's the case you see according to everybody this idea that they were cooked together who cares oh we'll see in a second according to the second understanding of what the is at least according to one of the holds that they would cook the zuroya together with What's the problem? That's a very big problem. This Roya is also only the client's allowed to eat this. So, here's the question. You're going to cook this together with the from the bal from the Nazer's perspective. Does the He's allowed to eat all the flesh of this a lot of food. He's allowed to eat all of the meat with the exception of Desraha. Desa only the K's allowed to eat. So then the question is then how could you cook it together and how could you eat the now you have it's like you have a of and you have a of the is the which is only the is the rest of the aisle and still it's okay must be there's a bit so if you see now in the Torah here we have biblical precedents for the concept of a ble now we have no idea figuring out what the sheer BL is but look the G of this is such an important gimmar that if you have a P in the Torah that already seems to be telling me a little bit about BL. So let's figure out what the ratio what was the proportion in the Gar's case of BL and that's going to be a we can cut and paste and apply this formula across the entirety of Tyra and say that if it conforms to this formula it's going to be okay. If not it's not going to be okay. that heard from that which is of course that the way we calculate is we take the buster of that and now we match it up to the rest of the animal the if you do that math the roya is going to represent approx I don't know if it's approximately it's going to represent 160th of of everything else thus you're going to see 60 the one of the says he holds the it's the it's not so why you counting the so you take the buser of the and you match it up to the buser of the rest of the animal apparently the had a disproportionate amount of versus baser so if you count the buser of the versus the buser the rest of the animal represents 160th but if you only count the buster of the versus all the the buser then the number is going to end up being 100 and that's how you come on with it but the gar says could you learn anything from says we're learning everything from and the sc you can't even learn anything why we learn that the said is really what's going on in stating that is I mean this is That's it sounds like there's something in that's unique. It's a and and really it's does the did not conform with the rules and regulations of so how are we learning from the just the opposite the said it's coming to that really you usually can't work with what you see by the how you learning or from that's what the says now that means one thing it means which very important who holds is that if you have are the same exact men they're both the same thing. So you have vegetables that are trum and that are and they were so according to Yehuda the is being that it's the same if it's the same min if you have kosher meat and non-cos and then the same meat. is according to this is a very because you could have six 60 you could have 100 you could have a thousand it's the same so if it's should be that's what that price means but not the proportion of no we learn from the z what's unique about that says So why did learn from this? If you see in a in the so why not learn from there says he had a different this is of course the context over there is where the is doing by the and he's taking the blood of thee and of the power that he brought and at some point he's going going to mix the dham of the par and the dham of the and he's going to do from the two together and the when it describes the taking that mixture that of it says and says which dam has which animal has more the par the big bull or the s the measly goat of course it's the bull and if that's the case why even referring to a damas shouldn't the damas be bottled to the dham true from here I see that being that the damar and the damas are both dam it's bottle so at the end of the day said true you can learn from bottle but I learned from that if that's the case how do you know to learn from bottle maybe learn from that says the because that it's aesh you can't learn from a par that's a why is what's so about it says rashi and rashi invokes that's very very important that will speak a lot about over the next few days and that is because there's a rule that even though you can rely on But so that it's true if you have a little bit of milk that falls into your pot of meat or if you take a piece if there's co non- kosher meat that gets mixed up with your co there's but although there's not go ahead so that being that we're violating that principle aren't we violating the rule of we're taking the we're cooking it together with the Why you let it do that? It's once you can't learn anything. So to learn from Yeah. But to learn from then says if you tell them you can't learn from how you allow to learn says no that you can't learn but you can learn meaning to tell me that said I'm not going to learn from because I'm not learning any from so I know from I'm not going to say but the para of teaches me but it could teach me what's the is that what would have been without you would have thought you would have thought it that teaches me that it's not but and as a result you need so to learn a from that you can't but to learn a you can't why can't you learn a ka from because the parish is why is it because ordinarily and over here you could be ex so just a few important as it relates to understanding the of that we're learning number one just to point something out stating the obvious but this is important it's just so that we all don't get confused and that is we just mentioned holds In other words, auino is a lot more than au of au of is not. Now this is the exact opposite of what we spoke about in the yesterday's we spoke at yesterday's and it's the rash is literally it's the bottom rash in this it's really going to be the beginning of tomorrow's where is that is but at the same time says it depends if the if the is going to be then is going to be in other words of is more than au of so according to which is the there if you don't have the if it's and you have no way now of figuring out how much was there you throw it all in the garbage it's because the suffra then it's only is just the opposite is that if you have at the very least is so how do you reconcile those two ideas you don't but what you just accept is that it's although at first glance it seems to be contradictory but and Meaning is and in Yehuda's world of is more than the good news is we don't pass like so we don't pass the is like that is not only is like that but according to is actually more cooler. So sometimes you learn a gam and you're going to see who that's and sometimes you're going to learn a that's both true in world and that is we don't we in the world not only is but is actually more than what that holds so that there's a days probably the longest run, one of one of the longest rounds of we're going to have to say that for another day. That's the first. The second is we mentioned that voice of there's a very interesting from the is and says that the only time you say that is according to which is the that's only if the things were cooked together. They they would they weren't just the but there was some heat. But let's say you would take Yen of Truma and you would mix it together of with wine that's cooling. So you have a Taru. They're mixed together. I mean you think that's the textbook example of you took something liquid kosher something liquid non-cooser and you mixed it all together. You have a says that there's no tank rice over there. He says that that's not understanding of of he says why because the definition of doesn't mean that they're mixed together. It means that there's some chemical reaction where the two are fused together on some level and that's something that happens with heat. That's something that happens with for that you need one of those medians in order to create that and in order to have your if however you just have two that are both they're both cold and they were pun mixed together the says they would that's just they're just bled together they're just mixed they're living together side by side but unless there's some element of heat in that case you're not going to have a we had you're not going to have the mentioned the idea of now the said that says that the par of and that's why even though in the par of you would seem to see is that's you can't learn from there you can't learn from there that is bottle Why not? Because the whole parish of is a very big the reason it's aesh is because it's violating the principle of isn't there of so you're allowed to rely on but you can't go ahead and and create if it happened it happened but to go ahead and create it that's not something you're allowed to do and still that's what we do by this so it says and once it's I'm not learning anything from it says derive it in two of And this is quoted by the sh and this is one of the more important shittas in the sugu is very important that is that you see from this that is because if would be merely then why is it's true but that's only on the rabbitic level there's no such on the level from the fact that said that the parent on the level there's something called aim of stating that you have this parra violates ostensibly that's not something that you're really allowed to do. So this is such a parish says you're violating a principle in the which principle of see clearly you're violating anything. The problem is all the cannot argue with the everything in the but the point is is that the is that most argue with the and hold that is only innocent. So how did they learn this? So I am discussing the bottom line is the as quoted is according to is only ina brings a bombasha from the shame And the cash was on the at the very end of the is discussing a with regards to the it says. So part of the esoteric process of the involve. So the says that those had to be last tells what what does mean? What does it mean to? So it says the you know means that it can't be it can't be from an that's what the says it can't be a part that was part of it it's disqualifies from being able to be used as one of the I need a for that I don't understand what do you do with the one of them they took the d the other one they sent away if you need a to tell me that that's going to be sent away that's that you're not let use for Whoever I need to pause you can't think about what's the alternative. I'm going to use it. You're going to use it and then you're going to let it fly away. What's going to happen? Some hunter is going to find it. He's going to take it and he's going to end up eating it. T YOU BE SOMEBODY. THERE'S no way the would tell you to do something that's going to involve the what's the there's one that's floating around that's that's from but it's going to be I mean that it's going to be there should be no problem over here says the maybe you'll tell me that the problem is it's true there's something called but you not let go ahead So by us taking this and allowing it to now we're what we're doing is and setting up somebody to eat from a where there was a but says the that's good according to the holds of but according to the hold of so on level there's no so maybe to address the should be fine. No use says to answer this he says you know what you have to say he says you have to say that it's true only but it's true but that's only by everybody agrees that that's what the meant when the garra said there's a over here. Why would we go ahead and set up a situation where only that's true by everybody agrees that and says I'll prove it to you and says this a few times. He says it in he says it says I'll prove to you that what do you do if you have a terrorist says what do you do if you have a Why do you have to take your tra and feed it to the dogs? I have a perfect idea. You know what you should do? You should take the tra, close your eyes, mix it up with a bunch of other animals. Now, you're not going to know which one is the tra. You're going to have it be. You're going to go ahead and eat it. What's the problem? Oh, that's only so why in the level say you should go ahead and give it to the what's the big deal? Just close your eyes and do the same. JUST MAKE A TER is and we have a everybody holds a par of and you don't have that of a dear is going to be says I want to answer he says that he heard from his father this is there's no time to go into this but just say over the is we know that we violate all these everything other than so what happens if you now have to feed a non-cooser food. So what do you do? So you we do it with a sensitivity. We try to limit the amount of a we're going to do. So if there's two things in front of us, we figure out which is more which is lesser and we give him the we give him the one that's the least brings. If you have two things in front of you, one is one is truma. So which is less which one should you give him? What's the or the tanama says? You give him you don't give like this if you can give him that's the best option. It wasn't possible to give him I don't understand I have the perfect you know what the is the is you should take the maf that certainly was an option and then take the truma and mix it together with the which is so now everything is going to be m what's the problem the problem is is not even is not in. So isn't that for sure the best option? Whatever you have over here. So the question should you feed the or first and give him the trum. Those that those are the two options there. So there's the I think the best option is is to take the mafa stick the tuma back into the and now everything is going to be put there. What's the issue? You know what the issue is? It's because being that we're dealing with the even though that's when it's but if it's over there is going to be that's the way the answer that the brings from and he says the whole of would seem to suggest that amazingly this said as well is printed in and was asked by he asked him this he said why did the say regarding the why did the say take the give it to the Why not just be with the rest of your food that's only and said his third terrorist was terri added one thing. He added a and he says and this is just something that we'll we'll speak out the and and we'll pick it up another day and that is says if you think about it there's a fundamental difference between nothing changed to the you have one piece of meat that's non-cooser and you have two pieces of meat that are kosher now that it's au you're allowed to eat all three pieces of meat that's the two kosher pieces of meat don't change the non-coser piece of meat. We know there's three pieces of meat. We know that we don't know which is the kosher and the non- kosher. We also know the ter is r. So as a result, you're allowed to go ahead and eat all three pieces of meat. Says that despite the fact I can't identify the kosher versus the non- kosher, it doesn't matter. Eat all three says is very different when you have what's not because of whether it's rice or we passing the right. So it's because this t on the right level you need 60. What happens when you now have 60? Now you have what happens when you have 60 says something very different happened. You know what happened? The whole went away. What was the Tom when there's no Tom? You know why it's mut because the time's not there anymore says they're both called and they both have to conform to the laws and the of quote unquote but at the same time what happens when the is bottled in a b is very different than what happens when the oer in is bottled in a bish nothing changes with the daser the doer is still there WE JUST CAN'T FIND IT. Says no would come and he would say this is the kosher burger. That's the non- kosher burger. Okay, done. That's it. You're out of business. You can't rely on anymore. Right? Works. But you don't know. But to the extent that you now know, you can't you can't use that anymore. But but is different the over here is is that as long as the food is nice and time, then there's once it's not nice and time anymore. If it's not time there's no time. If there's no time it doesn't make sense for there to be a time. So the point of is that the is not here anymore says when is it okay to be on the level that's where the is going to be removing the hel it's okay it's only as it relates where even after the is still going to be there said everyone's going to agree that it's going to be the bottom line is not only the same they both prove the same from the same place from the par of and they were both that even though throughout it's only that holds that's with regards to as it relates Everyone agrees it's right. So what's the difference between it's this of what happens with the does the make the is not be here anymore or no is still here. What happens if would come in the case of it still be able to eat the taru because there's no time. So if there's no time there's no reason you shouldn't be able to eat it in the case that what do you mean nothing changed with the daser? It's the same daser as if there would be a taru. It's just there's a suffix but you're allowed to eat it being that in one case you're the bit is completely obliterating the draer over there you could be of the it's only you can't where the dra is going to remain intact near the is true even on the disa