Chulin 108

Today's daf is and we are at the Mishna 13 lines from the bot of z today's being learned and so we're moving along in discussing how is related to so the topic of perabaser are the laws of the last two daffin involve olved some digression related to laws of a bit of in today's we are very very much going to return to the regular program which is the of says a person's allowed to take a piece of meat and a piece of and wrap them together in a in some sort of towel. You just have to make sure that they're not going to touch each other. So if somebody is traveling, let's say, and he needs to carry with him buser and he could put them in the same. He just has to make sure that there's a little heftake between the two, they're not allowed to touch each other. said another two guests are eat on the same table if they're staying at an in the one person's bus the other person's allowed to eat and they don't have to be concerned. What don't they have to be concerned about? That maybe if they're eating together on the same the person eating the basa will end up taking from the gina. the person eating the gina will end up taking from the basar and will violate the laws of and oh by the way this was a mishna that we saw on it's a that we saw right at the beginning of the per together but over here where it's two different people that are eating and there we'll see in the what the significance of that is it's in that case that it's going to be okay either way the Mishna said two and a both very basic related to the laws of the first a person's allowed to wrap and vina together in the same he just has to make sure they don't touch another two guests are allowed to sit at the same table eat their respective meals even though one person's eating the other person's eating venus so as relates to the verse says who cares if it touches I mean the Mishna says just make sure they don't touch and if they touch what's the issue who it sounds like from the Mishna the is and the is now if you have two foods that are each even if they touch each other but there's no way for there to be any there's no chemical reaction that's going to occur that's going to cause some of the bus to go to the gina and some of the gina to go to the buser. So the Gmorra says who cares if the buser and the are touching at the end of the day they're meaning if the Mishna would have said this regarding where it's ah that's already a very important but for the it sounds like even where it's says the if it's why would that even be an issue I'll tell you why it's it's true the only time for there to be real and pl is if the food is There we say because of the heat that exists there's a little bit of buser that would go to the gina a little bit of gina that would go to the baser and that would require a whole literally of how you supposed to deal with it remove a layer of it sometimes the entire thing is when two things are so and they touch all those don't apply because you're not worried about bas but you know what you are worried about maybe there's a little bit of meat that is sitting on the surface of the gina. There's a little bit of gina that's sitting on the surface of meat. That is a real concern. And the way you address that concern is by just washing the buser and washing the Here's the point. To the extent that the buser and the would touch each other even though there'd be no of etc. But there would be of and it's for that reason the Mishna says that if you want to put you can make sure they're not touching because if they touch you may end up eating without not without but maybe without that would be a violation of the laws of and it's for that reason the said this is something you have to be concerned about. The second part of the was eat on the same table. You don't have to be concerned that one may end up taking from the other's food and vice versa and be over the says the name of the great the only time the of the is true that two are allowed to sit at the same table is it's only if they don't know each other if they know each other then it's going to be if they don't know each other then it would be very socially awkward to uh you know ask the person that you're sitting with you mind passing your fries right that's probably not something you're going to do but if they know each other that and in that situation the would not be true it would actually be that supports that both arrived in one in one came from the north the other came from the south one person came with a piece of meat and the other person came with a piece of cheese. They're allowed to eat on the same table. That boss of he could eat his meat. He could eat his cheese. And you don't have to be worried. Hit the pause button for one second. This is But there's one in the he didn't have in the Mishna. And what was it? It's the drama. But the drama is making a point. The case was with two that came to Punt. He came from the ta and he came from the d. What's the significance of that? They don't know each other. He lives up north. He lives down south. It's then and only then that is that they're allowed to eat. If however they were then ready it would be which was exactly what said. So again are allowed to eat at the same table sounds a little bit like they don't know each other but I don't know maybe they're two that do know each other no it's don't know each other the B seems to say it a lot more is coming to teach me the of the continues and the The only time it's the only time it's ever for two people to sit together on the same table and to eat is if it's which literally sounds like says they're in one bundle. It's in that situation that you would ever have the says the could it be that the only time it's going to be is if it's in what's the Rashi says if it's then even if it's not two people sitting on the same table even if you would only have the buser you'd only have the once the buser was or the was the at that point each one individually would be like we saw in the to the extent that it would mean that they're touching and if that's the case it would anyways be it. So the gar says ain't what we mean when we say that the only time it's user for these two people to sit at the table is not if it's because then it would be user even if you have one without the other but it's where it's so they're not literally touching but they are somewhat on some serving plate maybe it's in that case and only in that case it's going to be what's the point of this if there is some sort of between the two people that are eating in that instance this is not going to apply so it's a very important caveat The only time this is prevalent is if it's but if it's not it's not going to be an issue. What happens if you have two brothers but they don't particularly like each other? What's could they sit at the same table and eat one person bos one person? What's the shiloh? So if you have two strangers that are sitting at a table, this person is going to eat boss or this person's going to eat. It's going to be okay. If there are two people that know each other, then it's not going to be okay. What would be if you have two people that know each other but don't particularly care about each other? What would be the there? Would it be or would it be? So he asked this question told him it has to be. You know why? Because if it's going to be people are going to say this is an expression. Now the source of this expression is there discusses as she brings it on the top of that says that if somebody makes matzah for pes you're not going to make pictures in the matzah. You can't engrave these different pictures. The reason is because it may take time for you to do it and during that time the dough may rise and your mat end up may end up becoming so as a protection not to violate the is often don't make these pictures over there says that there was a baker his name was bis and he had some technology where you were able to make pictures in the matzah and you were able to do it very very quickly and the discussed whether or Bis is an exception to the rule. Maybe because he makes these pictures so quickly. So there's no it's going to come with so maybe it be okay. And there was a ch written by and this is what they said it has to be. You know why? Cuz otherwise people are going to say all the and the bis if you make a and you want it to stick you have to enforce it in a plug way. And it's for that reason they said that even this was so it says the two brothers usually are not and therefore they would not be able to eat at the same table says for that reason it has to always be why we're talking about we're just borrowing an expression from there but the says according to you that we always apply this rule of it's not just the unique but we're going to take it from and we're going to shle it literally drag it so far all the way to send the name. If somebody has only one shirt, you're allowed to wash to do laundry, right? Why can't you do the wash on? We're afraid that if you do people will not do it before Yantiff and they'll end up coming into Y improperly for the same reason you're not let take a haircut or shave on the name of the third is my it's all because of that you may rely on and you may not take care of business prior to so it's to protect said don't do these things so you know a week is coming now where I can't uh do the laundry I can't shave etc etc you're going to make sure to take care of business prior stating that said if somebody has only one then it's okay. He's why are you not worried people are going to say if there's a general principle that says that institute and the sources from the well if that's the case so how come when it comes to the laws of we don't say that in other words what the is arguing is that telling to matzah to tell me that we make a plug and therefore is going to be it's still going to be us. Even though I'm proving to you that you don't always say that you don't always when it comes to being do the laundry although generally speaking it's but the proverbial street over there is actually see you don't always say that it's going to be no there's a distinction over there already explained the reason that were okay with the person that has doing the and the reason is because his belt is going to be nicker. So Rashi says this is a a little bit of a mitas that shirts these had some sort of belt. If somebody had multiple shirts, so when he would wash his shirt, he would remove the belt. If somebody only had one shirt, so might as well just leave the belt in and just wash it that way. It's not like you're taking it off and putting it on your other shirt. So they would just wash it together. It's nicker to the bystander and these suggest they're not such innocent bystander. We always say he's a big yenta this guy whoever he is. So it's nicker to that guy that this person only has one shirt. Wears a nicker because he has the inside. It's for that reason Kazal said, "I'm not so worried that if we're going to allow this person to wash his clothing, other people are going to wash it as well because people are going to this guy only has one shirt, the other guy has a a whole wardrobe, you know, they're going to see it because a is going to be however as it relates to as it relates to you're not going to have any way of knowing they like each other, they don't like each other. It's for that reason felt that's a better to the bis and it's for that reason they said that just like the bisal was also this has to be as well if you have that were willing to make a distinction and go away from the general rule of if you don't have such a then we are not going to say that either way this concludes the first portion of today's daf by far the lighter portion of today's daf so as it relates to the balance of today's daf. So is a daf that requires an asterisk next to it as it's uh daf that's learned in yeshiva. When you learn in yeshiva you spend at least a month that was in my days at least a month on this a lot of the lumbus of andan is all playing itself out right here on this. Now without further ado, one of them were certainly one of them. So somebody had a pot of meat and a little bit a ta of fell on top of one of the that was inside this if there's enough relative to the for it to be meaning there isn't 60 times of connected is this buser that has a little bit in it is now going to be what would be if the second the fell on top of the person immediately took his mish and he stirred the chant he stirred the pot so then what we say happened is the didn't just land on top of this it ended up uh immersing itself in the entire so then only if there's enough in proportion to the for it to be nice and in the entire is that it's going to be if however you don't have enough for it to in that case it's going to be meaning if the tas falls on top of the so then when you're trying to determine whether there is tam or there's not so you're going to look at the tasc relative to the katikas if however the tasc would fall into the entire so then you wouldn't look at it as relative to rather you look at the relative to the entire right to everything that's going on in the pot says the second way of looking at it would be true even if it landed on one but then you immediately mix the together with the rest of the then the of determining the shisha would not be that one though it landed initially on one it's going to be everything in the relative to what's on that one so before we start the garra a tiny bit of an introduction and that is we're familiar with the concept of tam ker what's the idea of tam ker in the event they have a taru of is of but there's no mamoshious of the iser in the taru all there is is a tan so for example somebody would cook a piece of meat that's not kosher together with meat that's kosher but he would remove the meat from the pot so he cooked it together but the actual meat was taken out in that instance. The way kazal termed this is you don't have the of the all you have is the it's what's known as tom kicker now we know from learning tom is without a question stating that a big sham whether is which trickles down to a big whether is or is the gumar is going to suggest that the laws of bus would at first glance seem to be a good source, a good mar to the concept of tom kicker. Why? Because what is where somebody cooks meat and milk together and now he goes ahead and he eats the if somebody simply eats meat and milk together, he's not over. somebody doesn't wait he's not over the didn't say don't eat the said and from there we learn that the only time there is if somebody goes and he cooks the meat and the milk together now if you would go ahead and you would cook meat and milk or meat and cheese together assuming you take the meat out and now the cheese out and you eat each one individually you're going to be over the But at the same time, do you have mushy of the other men? I don't think so. You take the buser out of this pot, you have the buser. You take the gina out of the spot, you have the gina. Why is there a problem? Because the buser has in it a gina. And the gina hasn't iter. It's for that reason it's awesome. If you think about it, it's your classic quintessential protottypical textbook any synonym vera of a Tom Ker. Every bus of a is really a Tom Ker. I took bus. I took vina. I cooked them together in the same pot. I took my baser out. I took my gin out. Each one is prohibited by the rice to go ahead and eat. I It's not really bos of it's the terret is there's some idea of of kicker. So at first glance it would seem that in this of we have an amazing form and that is the laws of right. So again when you learn the sukis of uh tam kicker you encounter a lot of very fancy sources to kicker learns it from mish that it says by the nuzer learns it from the gle mid this is in paras you end up flying all over the place really if you think about it we're learning now at first glance the most obvious the most basic the simplest source to ko would seem to be bos it's going to be abaya's comment right here in the beginning of this abay tamoy I hold but I don't have cuz if you're going to tell me that it's I'll ask you a very good why wouldn't you learn from that it should be awesome. So this is a little bit of a backwards way of saying that I see from that Tom must be because if Tom is I'll ask you a question learn from that it should be okay in English I learned from that Tom is now says I know what you might be thinking you might be thinking that maybe you can't learn anything from you know why because of and we know the rule we don't learn things from so If the Tyra says something that's like very very novel, it's like a real. So the rule is you can't take that and learn from it. Just to explain this a little bit better, one of the is which means that if the Torah tells me something, I assume it's a rule and I'm allowed to now apply it elsewhere as well. It's what's known as precedent in the legal world, right? Pyav is a precedent. So the TYRUS SAID THIS HERE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE way it's going to be other places. But at the same time there's a limitation to binav there's a limitation to the rule of president and that is if that thing is clearly aesh what would make it a kesh because it's inconsistent with some of the other rules and regulations that govern the terra so in that situation we say that we can't learn from here because this might be something very very unique so says I know what you're going to tell me maybe Tomk is really I and being that it's aish you can't learn from it now why would be a kadesh. So Rashi says two reasons. One reason Rashi says is because Baser is kosher and is kosher. Yeah. When you mix them together all of a sudden becomes non-cooser. Come on, that's a kadesh. If it's kosher, it should be kosher. The fact that something could be non-cooser is not aesh. But the fact that something is kosher but when you cook it with something else that's also kosher now becomes non-cooser. That's another reason Rashi says that is because of is only a problem if you cook it together. But if you would eat them together not cooked in that situation it itself wouldn't be a problem by the way speaks out that the Gumar in different places in says and the always brings the second reason that Rashi says not the first reason says as far as I know Rashi made up the first reason but the bottom line is says I know what you're going to tell me. You're going to tell me that maybe is why wouldn't you learn it from the because it's a but said I'm not sure I agree with that. You know why? Cuz what are you going to tell me? You're going to argue maybe you can't live from because it's a then should be that bus of that's cooked together should be even if the bus is not well the is not and the bus meaning if you want to tell me that this concept of bus of cook together where it's user not because that's the regular rule of the way it would be in ter but is somehow. So why are we limiting the to limit the scope of the to where it's it should be even if it's not. Now how do you know it's not if it's not but if it's not that it's going to be how did Kazal know to limit it? Oh the terret is they must have known to limit it. This way Rashi explains it is because they know that there's a general of they learned it from as we learned it in that there's a concept of something called but the bottom line is that you see that the laws of are also conforming with the regular laws of if that's the case this is not just some unique uh parish in the that you can't learn from you should be able to learn from it and if you see over here that Tomkick is the rice I think this is going to be the case and call Tomkick is always going to be the rice rahas said and he told him I disagree with you. I'm going to tell you that it's a very novel para. You want to know why it's only going to be a problem if the bus is or if the is because it says what does mean? If you put ingredients into a pot, you expect each ingredient to be nice and the is saying don't cook meat and milk together. What's the significance? Don't do it in a proportion in a way where the meat's going to be nice and time to the milk and the milk's going to be nice and time to the to the meat. It's for that reason is that it's only a problem where it's not going to be a problem where it's not there's nothing to do with the par of this is a very very unique you can't learn anything from here and that's the case says you have no from here that is the bottom line is Tom kick is riso is Tomake is lava if you remember from perh even though ra's Tom kick is lav riso but by Tomkick is the riso but the bottom line is over here in whether what's can I learn from or can I not learn from you said well if that's the case it's teaches me that Tom is always said is and you can't learn anything from next said that as it relates to the first of the You know what the word means? Said as soon as the falls on the and it's nice and assuming it is the entire becomes a piece of and it is going to all the in. And the reason it is because the buser is the same min as all the other is that's inside in the and being that it's the same min there's no way for the other to be and it's for that reason it's all going to be us. So this one statement of rav reverberates throughout and all the sug said uh In fact, as we'll see, he said two and he also said so first said that if you have a falls on top of assuming there's no you're not going to be able to eat the bosser. That's easy right? What would happen now if this katik's bosser would beare with other katik's boser? This katika's bosser is user right you can't eat it now it's with other katik's bosser and you're trying to do I have shishim that katika's bosser or do I not have shishim when you am Iing times the original that was the troublemaker or do I times the entire baser that became because of the tasal that fell on top of There's merit to both arguments. The merit to view it as the is because really the iser is together with so when the fell into the right now from the perspective is that little bit of so good I didn't have shishim to be so is going to be but if this is now cooked together with a whole bunch of other at the end of the day the only that I have is the as long as I'm going to have shish that little bit of I should be good to go. What's the other side also merit and that is once the falls into the so now I have a of meat that's once the meat is if that's with other piece of meat so I have to be the entire piece of meat you don't have to worry about this I'm going to explain it to you this is the when you have a that falls on when the I look at the entire as if it's what does that mean? I look now as the entire piece of meat is so if it's I would need that entire piece of meat it's when I go ahead now to be it's not enough that I'm have to be the entire because I look at the entire as if it's awesome. Now again ra is not being that I look at the entire as a piece that I can't eat it. I knew I couldn't eat it. Of course, of course, you can't eat it. I look at it as an entire that hasn't it. I look at it as if it's itself. And if that's the case, if I'm going to try to be in now in a new, it's not going to be enough to be the original. The did its damage. It went ahead and it metastasized in this. So now the entire piece, this entire piece of meat is one. And if that's the case, I would need shisha the entire NO or this piece of B of that we're proverbally referring to as and otherwise wouldn't be a problem. But said another's once that happens once falls into and it makes it because you don't have and if this piece of meat is all the other are going to be and the reason is what does he mean first of all why is it for should be telling if there's not answer is of the opinion that is raud if that's the case once the makes the itself into aer now I have not just of iser in this voice I have boser of is in the as well can't be and therefore the entire pad is going to be so essentially is saying number one additionally what he's saying is that now as it relates to the right we said that he's saying a little bit of the let's go back to the fell on top of if there's a ratio a proportion where the inside it's going to be before rav what did we thinker meant meant that that is going to be asser is teaching us means the entire is going to be because once that k becomes I have meat of meat of in a pot of meat everything is going to be so ra is telling me that is like and based on those two that what does means the entire is going to be because once that becomes at that point there's no way to be with other everything at this point is going to be now the next part of the daf it's going to take us on to the is going to ask or make two observations related to so we have to stay mindful of it's the backdrop to the next piece that we're going to learn. So returned to Ra and he said when Rav said his who did he say it according to clearly right the second of Rav's that means regardless of what else is going on because once the knocks out the one I have and there's no way to be with other bosser that's only true who I just want to bring up one other point. I think it's the two of and are mutually exclusive. They're not totally each other. You could and hold and you could owe and you can not hold but at the same time but at the same time happens to be he also happens to hold and he needs both of those in order to bearish the way he was because he was the entire pot is and means it's always going to No if spots or when as long as the made at that point everything is 100% going to be everything is going to be 100% maybe there's enough meat in the to go ahead and be this one the is that so again you don't need both in order to have one they're mutually exclusive of each other but you need both in order to bearish the way without I that's making trouble. Not even if you have but if your whole is going to be you have to give me more information. How big is this pot? This might be some massive commercialsized pot and maybe there's going to be times but if you so the boss is I don't care how big the pot is. this going to be awesome. But again either ways told you know one second when he was he clearly like well if that's the case I think is something and we had earlier on the days that even though also says anytime you have a where there's and The heter is made up of mininoi and ano mininoi. So you have let's say me that's aer and you have me that's motor. So that's of but you also have may right you have rov you have may of so I have is and I have of that's the other meat and I have of that's the so what did rab say what do you do in that situation according to we make believe the is not there and as long as there's enough of water in that case to be the meat everything is going to be mut. So what was the even if Rav holds and even if Rav holds I'm still not sure why the Mishna says automatically you should still take a look at the pot you know why cuz if there's enough to go ahead and to be that one then it's going to be a what do you mean there's all this buser inside and and like bottle you'll never have enough road to be mat all the baser inside the that's true but you don't need that because anytime You have a voice of min and so we make believe the min of is not here and all you have to is the and as long as this it should be so again is being no if buts and you don't have to do any don't pull out your measuring you don't call your local rabb throw the whole thing in the garbage you don't have to do anything the whole pot is because the bus is and And then whoa one second there's mino and there's how do you know there's mina cuz there you have a cook there's going to beo there's going to be so for sure there's going to be as well and what's the rule it's rule and all you would mean that if times would be can just go ahead or it's guaranteed going to be what do you see from here what do you see from here. It sounds like rabbin hold of robbed in hold of see you know what Rab said Rob said that if you have where it's and is going to spread you're going to end up with so much there's no way in the world the is going to be able to all the meat inside and you're going to end up with one big as of everything is going to be brown but says the gum is that true raino told said it's a beautiful but it's not because if the case in the Mishna was with the rodev was ra it was like a very liquidy then I would agree because that is viewed as it's and if it's said there might be a over here you can't just go ahead and tell me it's talking about where the was very thick says has a d of and being that has a d Boser. So this is minim. So there's different types, right? So if you have a chol, for example, a thick cholen, the rotive over there is considered boser. You have chicken soup. So the rot is considered. So sometimes it's considered and sometimes it's considered berk where it was baser. There's no sal to be had over here because you don't have any. If that's the case, there's no over here. But the Gmorra says there's another observation that needs to be made as it relates to as it relates to the of and that is the Gmorra now is going to introduce Shila which is going to also be the topic of uh the beginning of tomorrow's and that is whether or it's usually when you hear the word make a beline to right but over here means something else the question is if you have a that has in it a bah and then you go ahead and you cook it. Do we assume that that ble came out or do we not assume that that ble came out? So when you have this new tar here if we could assume that the ble came out so then as long as you would have shishim in the entire that would be enough to knock it out. If you don't assume that it came out so then it's stuck inside this katikas baser and even though your new taru has a thousand times kga that little ble I know but it's it's stuck it's nestled inside this and there's no way of extracting it now through this second process of bishel or whatever it was and as a result that thing is going to remain asser when you go ahead and you recook this baser whatever ble is inside is going to come out and as long as you have a a shishim to knock it out in this whole new taras that you're cooking in that's going to be enough for everything to be okay means that once it's there it's there and there's no way of extrapolating it there's no way of doing this extradition there's no way of getting it out it's therefore if it was enough to make this it's something that's going to remain now this sh of plays right into right let's just pick it up because it's so obvious if Rav held that if Rab held that if you recook a ba that has a little bit of a inside of it, the ble comes out and you reassess the whole situation, then then his would make absolutely no sense, right? It wouldn't even get onto first base. It it just wouldn't make any sense. You can't say that you can recook a k that hasn't it a and everything is going to be fine and also wholean because by definition means that once the ble merges together with the so at that point the entire BECOMES SO WHAT DO YOU mean I went ahead and I recooked it and I got the ble out and now I have shish time from the fact that you're telling me there's a ofan then you clearly hold that this business doesn't work. In fact, you're taking it a step further. You're telling me not only don't I hold that you can remove the entire even IF YOU TOOK THE OUT it would be neither here nor there because at the end of the day there's a concept is available. So it's almost as if is like an extreme opinion, an extreme position within the And it's even more than that. Not only can I remove the but and in the second bishel when I'm doing my computation I'm not only either way that's high level what the is about to do. So let's see it inside says the what is what does mean in the event you went ahead and you recooked that piece of meat. So we can now again connect it that little bit of that was there and assuming you have the whole thing is going to be then had it to make sense to hold right you're going to recook it it's all going to come out and and everything is going to be fine it must be that rabb is of the opinion that is that once the becomes asser there's no there's no second bishel that's going to be able to remove it and that's why if you recook it you put it into the it's going to remain inside that original piece of and ra doubled down on that he said not just that but you should know I also hope that so that if you're going to go ahead and you're going to try to be it's not going to be enough to be mat that little bit of that little bit of tub you're gonna have to move out the entire bus again if then you couldn't get to because then when you recook it the ble is out this this whole thing is a mood point the say and on top of that and the says by the way this observation that we just made that that is that is also happens to be thear said, "Which do we need?" Which is consistent with this opinion of does in fact hold. Now, this is a little bit of a tricky gimmar because really what the Gar means to say is not so much that does holder. We're not going to have any proof from what we're about to ask from that he doesn't hold. We're going to have proof that he doesn't hold is going to ask. The reason the Gmorra is saying is just based on we just said that you can't hold unless you hold. So we're picking on the part, but really the is not but it's fell into a a big vat of said the bus is going to be and the m what was the case? A little bit of baser fell into a huge yer of the buser is asser. The is the reason the baser is asser is because there's very little baser relative to the little bit of that goes into the baser is not bottle. So the baser is asser the however is mut and the reason is because there's so much relative to the baser. So the little bit of bas that fell into the is bottle to the and therefore the itself is going to be right. So this is like a little counterintuitive right make up your mind is this is not no you actually have to bifrocate right. So the itself is because there wasn't enough to be that's inside the itself is because there was enough to be the little bit of that was inside says if you're going to tell me which we said really means if you're going to tell me that why is that is why don't we say that the That's inside the now became. So when it is together with the rest of the being that all the should now be awesome meaning if you don't hold so when you have the has a little bit of inside of it from the perspective what's the is the baser that's inside from the baser perspective the is the that's inside from the perspective the is the is inside so you have that has a little bit of baser inside that is going to of now in the of that little bit of BA that's inside of it is buckled a million times over and as a result this is not something you have to worry about if however your whole so that means when there's a little bit of in the it's not just the that's the and there's a little bit of inside the it's not just the that's the that's so you have a bus the isiker and the isiker well If that's the case, this piece of meat that's floating inside this now has in it. If holds also those are the two of so the whole should be if I only see the as being the and the being the so there's enough to knock out the boss there's not enough to knock out the but that one I have a little bit of that's I see them each as a so in that I HAVE OF AND THAT is with the rest OF THE YEAR. SO THAT THAT LITTLE BIT OF KNOCKED OUT THE entire that's something that should be able to happen a bomb a very surprising terrorist. It's a fleeting but it's a surprising one which again say means really ravels. So what's the show if that's the case in this case the whole should be because and now when the T says what does it say don't cook a goat in its mother's milk doesn't say don't cook a mother's milk together with uh you know the son the goat it says don't cook the goat in the mother's milk the meat is user not the milk it's only the meat that's the milk was was never assur in the first place and if the meat was never in the first place it's only the itself that's well then in that case you don't have to worry about it right take a look at right the itself is always going to be even the in the is going to be motor even the in the bus is going to be Every time you have here's the point. It's always the that's what's the whole should beer. Why would it beer? Because of right at the end of the day, what's the is there's no real here is just an expression. What do you have? You have bas never asks the all it ever asks is the basa. Right? Every time you have a a cheeseburger, it's it's not the cheese that's awesome. It's the burger that's awesome. Cheese is not awesome. It's the burger. That's what the is suggesting right now. So if that's the case, so so what's the problem? The problem is that the the is going to go ahead and is is going to all the is never user anyways. And if that's the case, this is not something you have to worry about. But the says it can't be. Impossible. Rav holds that every time there's only the what would be if somebody has a half of and he cooked the two together. He would get malus for eating the half of the half of but he wouldn't get malus for cooking. Now the is going to explain soon what the difference is. But if you going to tell me that whenever comes to the is only under is not inval for eating a half a of baser and half a zas of the is not even it's can't be that rav holds that the is of was never said regarding the was only said regarding the baser because if that's the case if somebody is he would not be over anything it But it would not be enough for him to get Malcus. And Rav said that is that means because he has a together. But if the is then then what's the issue over here? You have to say is what's the problem? So let's go back to the case with the cuz fell into the of the buser but the motor why is the motor the buser makes the knock out the entire it's talking about that yra wasn't just hot now we knew it was hot because if it wasn't hot they couldn't have been ble and plus but it was it was boiling hot Okay. If if you have a situation where a piece of meat is in a so there the can be blay from the but it won't be able to be maflit back into the so what are you worried about you worried that the it was now went back into the it became it should knock out the entire it's Now the reason that it's pa is because apparently it could focus on one thing the piece of me. So if I'm being ba right now I can't be maflin now but the says that's once it's not so anymore once it calms down then it should be able to do another thing as well. So it's not going to be so boiling the entire time. So when the waters calmed down a little bit at that point why don't we say it's mafl the case is talking about where before it calmed down you removed it it had a chance to be ba it didn't have a chance to be meaning it's a big but could be true it could be true in the event that you had this now if you take a look at struggles with this very very much in fact says that if you put a piece of meat It's going to be it's going to be so strugg struggled a little bit to understand what the exact mas here was. Either way, one last. If somebody would cook a half of his together, you get malus for eating it. You don't get malus for cooking it. If a half is half of you should get malus for cooking it as well. You shouldn't get malus for eating it either. And by the way, the not cooking and not eating is the same. How could it be that with regards to cooking and with regards to eating the makes no sense says half of his eyes the case of was talking about where it was the way Rashi explains of but were two completely different cases. The case of bishop was where someone takes a half his eyes of this, half his eyes of that. You cook it together, you're not this because a half a and a half as of each other men is not you haveis of that. Yeah. But a half and a half is not going to be mitarf. The case of eating uh half aas and a half a bear is talking about where someone had a big yra and in the yra he had a bunch of kaza. He had a full kaz of this full kaz of that. He had kazish kazayas of each one inside the and then he pulled out a half a zas of this and a half of that and he ate it. In that case, you're going to be if the starting point is a half aas of each, you don't have the basis for if the starting point is a kazas of each and I only eat a half a zas. If it's not just a half as half as it's a halfas from that was cooked together with a half as in that situation it's definitely going to bear. Either way, what's with regards to bish is with regards to he said you get malus for the bish as well. So somebody would cook half you would get malus for the bish that said the same thing just like you get malcus for eating a half his eyes and half his eyes you're going to get malcus for cooking a half his eyes and half his eyes. What kind of bish did mean? It's it has to be a type of bish that other people would want to eat it. Right? Meaning if would eat from it says this is just a fancy way of saying if it was cooked properly, it's well done. It was it was made in the right way. That's when you would have this. If it wasn't cooked properly, meaning the sheer bish of is when it's cooked to a point where somebody would want to eat from it. But if it's not cooked to the point where somebody would want to eat from it, in that situation, you would not have this x hail. So, as it relates to rate, there's so many directions that you can go with a daff like this, but I think it's good to focus on the last last part of the DAFF, one of the lighter portions of the DAFF, which really ties in to some of the Goras and some of the raid that we saw earlier this week. And that is the primagod in his declares the following question. He said, "What would be if somebody would cook a half a zas of B of not a full Zas of B of a half a Zas of B of Would he violate the or would he not?" In other words, it's we just learned it a minute ago that there's a sheer as it relates to the is of whether you need a bus or an or whether are going to be that there's a shear and the only time one would get malus for violating the would be if he went and he cooked the shear of but we also know that and we pass like which means that all the that you find of etc. It's only with regards to the punishment with regards to the with regards to the malus but as it relates to the issim would there be with regards to the or would there not be with regards to the at first glance you would say why not ifra and this is a general rule that you find in so why would you think that the iser would be any different says I'm going to tell you why because if you take a look at the gives two reasons why the first is a it says in the thou shalt not eat but doesn't just say thou shalt not eat it says thou shalt not eat all the says you're not let it eat that word is coming to be something it's coming to be but the gives another reason why is The Gmorrah says that being that a half a is it's for that reason it's for that reason that is what does it mean it's so we know that whenever the says you're not let it doesn't mean that you can't only eat it or can't only not eat but if you would eat a little bit of And then you would go ahead and you would eat another little bit of a those two within that short time frame would be it's and it's for that reason here's the lus even when I only eat half the share even though I didn't eat the other half to bear is it's already going to be awesome. In other words, the gave two reasons why is and the is it says not just and the is that it's says the prim if that's the case I think there's mock to say that as it relates to the there would not be a problem because being that one of the reasons that the gave and both are needed for is in if somebody would book a bus of a and then five minutes later he would cook another of a bus of a would they be mitarif says why would they be mitarif when it comes to there's a special that says to pick a brows but why in the world should a that's not a bear with another bishop that's not a zenar 0 plus 0 is zero each one is And how could two make one complete and being that says the you don't have so could be you wouldn't have says the I'm not sure what's the says that because maybe the gamarra doesn't mean because after I eat a half a shir I always have the option of eating eating another half a share and then the two will be that they were of and it's for that reason even that first half is already awesome it could be the of that when I ate the half a I could have eaten more at that time being that all I was in was in the amount I did everything I needed to do it's just that she I could have always added I could have tacked on a little bit more I could have taken another bite out of the sandwich or a bigger bite out of the sandwich. that what means not that after I do the shir I could do another half a share but what it means is that when I did the half a share I didn't have to do a half a share I could have done more and maybe that's why if that's the case by bishop I didn't have to cook a half a I could have cooked an entire share and being that had I cooked an entire share it would have been so maybe when I cook it's also going to be in other words is claring what is the lumbness of is the lumbness of that after I eat the half a shar I can eat another half a shear Or is the lumbness of that when I ate the half a I could have eaten more. If it's after I eat I could always eat another because it's going to be by you don't have a way to bear of two half a bishials. If it's that I could have eaten more by as well. could have cooked more and if that's the case maybe I would have the this is the suffic of the prim in his the truth is the primagod in another place is this identical sh and this is in this is in the primar if somebody would eat a gdan would there be or would there not be again it's pos not going to But would there be or would there not be what did it says? We learned the gar earlier this week with the says that asked what would be if somebody took and he cracked it in half and he ate each half individually. Would we say that he would get malus now assuming the two halves made a a hole that's a or would we say that is not by what's the says in days is because really this whole idea that is very big the fact that there's a concept of if that's the case is mo to say that the only time you say the is when it comes to a regular laugh. But the lab of why is it a because the is not just the it's being that it's and maybe there's no and that was if somebody would eat but he did it in where it was do you say or do you say it's a is a say if somebody would eat two half of they would not bear. Why wouldn't they bear again? because it's not says the prim that that's just like is also it's the biggest in the world because it's an says and you find that it's if that's the case Dr. of them. It's part to me in math that just like and he ate them in two shots. It wouldn't be when it comes to it's going to be the same. If that's the case, says the here's my is not it's totally in how you understand the if means that after I eat a half a she could always eat another half a year and it's going to bear well when it comes to it can't be mitarif why not because that's me by and what can say by the prim to me would apply to as well so if the can't bear if you don't have the but if it doesn't mean that after I eat a half a I could always bear with another half a means that I could have eaten more if I could have eaten more well if that's the case when it comes to also could have eaten more you can always have eaten more and if that's what means then would be in other Sha whether this when it comes to is the same exact as whether this as it relates to the it all boils down how you understand the infur explains this of is because If means that after I ate my half a I could eat another half a which would retroactively mean that what I ate now was really a aer and that's why I view it today even without eating the other half a as if it's well if that's the case I don't think that's true and I don't think that's true when it comes to if means not after I eat a half a share I could eat another half a share but I could have eaten full share when I only ate the half a share. Well, that's true for as well. You could have cooked the full share. And that's true for you have eaten the entire share. And if that's the case, you would have by and you would have when it comes to the of of the of by the lav of Gdan. So he brings the second primagod that we mentioned the primagodam is simak and he says that even though the primagodam had a suffic but the shagasar a contemporary of the primagod one of the great 18th century he in simmons pale took on one side very very clearly. The shagasari declares whether this by the love of this is like a classic portion of declares whether this when it comes to it's to me no he says you know why because why does mean that if I have half and then I tack on another half they're going to bear says if somebody would have a half as she often then afterwards he would have another half and they both happened within a certain time frame WOULD THEY BEAR NO WAY IT'S 0 plus 0 equals zero the only time you find is when it comes to it's in this but by the you're not going to have it says to me that you say there's no it's totally how you learn the it's totally in other words means that after I do a half a I could bear for another half a year then I agree but means not that now I could bear but I could have beenar I could have done more by I also could have done more the ter is the what is mean when it says that after I do half I could always add on another half. Well, if that's the case and you see that boy in his of the and that is okay this is all raid we've spoken about over the years and that is says if somebody eats a kho of thou shall not eat somebody eats a khu he's even though you're not going to be punished there's no there's no carbon I'll ask you but at the same time it's and you're going to be misus you're going to get makas the ra brings a pik a special pik to teach us that if somebody would go and somebody would eat oft you don't need a special for that says it a bunch of times but there's a sh the is a what if you eat less than a culture it's also awesome because it says I quote And if that's the case, why do I need a special? I've no I can't for the life of me understand the ra needed to pull out a p to teach me that if somebody eats it's of course it's user we pass. Now let's explain the catch a little better. would be there's a real oh that's because but there's no but the says clearly only see anyway he's not being punished really so if you're not being punished anyways it's a regular answer REGULAR ANSWER WHY DO I need a separate and they Paul said, I'm going to tell you maybe why the ra needed a what would be if somebody would eat a half a so this guy made it through the whole pes but he couldn't control himself at the last second as the curtain is at the last second he says you know something I'm going to LET ME QUICKLY AND HE GOES AHEAD and he eats a half a would he be or would he not He wouldn't be. You know why? Because why is because it's that's why it's because it's I could always eat another HALF A SHARE. THIS GUY can't eat another half a share. YOU KNOW WHY? CUZ TOO LATE BECAUSE THE THE MINUTE YOU'RE READY TO HAVE ANOTHER IT'S CAN EAT PIZZA ALREADY. IT'S at that point it's going to BE MUT. SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE DR. Even that guy is going to be you know what says and there's a new answer for someone that NEEDS A EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T HAVE the but they like the they both means it HAS TO BE NOT I COULD HAVE eaten more during the time that I had because if that was the case every time that you eat even at the last second before yum I could have just taken a bigger bite. I could have just taken a little bit more the means I need to physically bear and I have no time to go ahead and bear. In other words, what the prim was about with regards to bishop of and with regards to we have from the regarding the labs of and from with regards to the jumping all over the place a real smogus board of but this is like a realmous board right. So you have over here this grace of grace was had to learn the what is the is it that after I ate a half I could have eaten another half a or when I ate the half I could have technically gone ahead and ate more wasn't sure and that's why he had a suffic whether you say as it relates to and whether you say with regards to the held for it means you have to bear and that's why there's when it comes to and as well and they that's why the need a special to tell me that it is he did it at the last second of I just want to end with one last a beautiful and that is the Rambam in the beginning of it's the first if somebody goes ahead and he steals or more he's over the stating that even though that's true but you're not let steal even so Geneva is that when it comes to Geneva, you can't steal from somebody even a says also in even though the talking about and says the same exact that's invigor that's in if you take a look at the in the beginning of if take a look at the on that says quote it's referring to it's 57a And by the way, this whole idea that you'd be for oh it's like it's true for right we discussed it in the context of so many there's no reason it shouldn't be true with regards to as well says 57a Okay, you have the dick. Do this one more time. 57A 57A leaves out the second part says that. But invest THESE ARE IDENTICAL made a beline to the same but here he added the one LINE and did not add that line says he says why is it that is so he brings from the and our list is the shagar and and that it's based on the fact that meaning after you do the half a you could always go ahead and do another half a share says I want to ask you a question if somebody would steal from somebody and then he would go and he would steal from that person another would the two be mitarif or would they not be mitarif says pes here's my muskarish my musition is they won't be mitarif You know why? Because the says in that very same and it says it elsewhere as well that a person is if somebody takes from him and being so it's yours you don't have to give it to me anymore. So once I'm you you don't owe it to me. I later you stole another half. Whatever that's uh that's that's another half that I'm maybe at some point I'll stop being but once I'm right if you chip away then at some point I'll get the memo. But the bottom line is this person is if this doesn't pass. What's the difference between a and a right? We know the gland doesn't pay the pays. What's the difference? The gazel looks you between the eyes and he takes it. The ganiv goes in a cunning way. He goes in a discreet way. When someone is a golin, you know he's a golin. When someone is a ganv, you don't necessarily know that he's a ganva. In his gazum says, you not let us steal. He knew it from a gar says to I'm wondering you think this has something to do with can't be you know why because the guy knows you stole and we have an implied that he was once he's not if he would steal another half a share as a result this can't have nothing to do with anything to do with and it's for that reason it's posit this must be just a separate but in is where Nicknav doesn't know that it was taken away from him. He doesn't know to be. HE DOESN'T KNOW TO BE. AH, IF HE WOULD know about it, he would be. What's the answer to that? We passing like for now, right? But that's we touched on enough big sluggies in this. But here's the point being that doesn't know about it. SEE, HE DOESN'T KNOW TO BE. IF HE DOESN'T KNOW TO BE if it's going to work with could be that's this in this such subtle in the you know the talk about teaching us in such a subtle way in where there's a there's no if there's no it can't He doesn't know about it. He doesn't KNOW TO BE DOESN'T KNOW to be if it's over there. You're going to have it. But this is only true if you learn like you learn like you learn like that the way works is that it physically requires you to be able to do another act for it to be. But if the way works is I could have So I COULD HAVE STOLEN ENOUGH WHERE IT WOULDN'T be but like means that it physically has to be and if that's the case that's the why or the invoked and he did not invoke just to really come full circle and that is that we said that they said there to answer who's why did the need to teach me and the oblied what would be ashhat in why the wouldn't have answered the way and the answered is because maybe the held that the way works is not that I could be mitarif later it's that I could have done more so what WAS THE TERRORIST WAS THAT what would be a case where I eat it by where there's no time anymore for it to bear that's all true if I needed to p to bear but JUST MEANS I COULD HAVE earlier made I could have had more then that is not going to be as far in other words the maybe maybe is from the fact that he didn't say what said that he must have held like the other doesn't mean that means that I could have done more. All I was missing was in Shir. If that's the case, it's really a between the kfishna and the magishna from Frank's in the magna and gaz you see that he held like the shag and you see he held like and means that after I do a half I have to be able to do another half for it to go and bear and that's true by it's not true by there's always going to be a whereas the mishna from The fact that he didn't answer like doesn't require me to the fact that oh I'm lacking that enough is going to be in other words of exactly how works his whether this with regards his could be really between the magishna and the mishna the bottom line is And this very in terms of how to understand we discussed it in the context of bishop. At first glance, this would seem to be a huge a huge mus.