בענין ״רואין״ בתערובות

just to be makayan the Indian of finishing the daf with a kasha. I just want to end with one order and this is a kasha from Chaim Brisker. The tame the and that is the primary topic of yesterday's daf and today's daf was the halacha of rayan. How did rayan come involved? Because we had rayan in the Mishnah. What did the Mishnah say? The Mishnah said that dam should be the mayan. dam kasha. The side of or if it's the side of the dam or the dam of the then the halacha is rayan of the mayan. So there's an idea that dam that's the side of the mayan even if the dam is the mu'at but if you could see the dam in the taruves the dam doesn't become battel. What would be if it was the side of with something where you can't see it but the only reason you can't see it is not because there's a issue. The reason you can't see it is physically because the rayan of the the mu'at look the same. But if they would have looked different you would have seen it. rayan as ha dam or rayan as and to the extent of it would have been mayan you would have seen the dam. Well then right now we're going to say that the is not going to be right that's where the halacha of rayan came into the of as well. How did it become a whole issue? It became a because the brought as a halacha. said if somebody would eat a size of pigel and a size of as a kasha. So the halacha is that he wouldn't get malkus. size of pigel you don't get malkus. size of you don't get malkus. But if you eat them together you don't get malkus. So the said talking about a case where it was Being that it's so there's no time physically no time by me. So if there's no time that's where it's going to be halacha. Even if there's no time but what happened to rayan? In our Mishnah you see there's a concept of rayan. What should the rayan be? The rayan should state that if you have a taruves of two different machalois where they taste the same and as a result one can't be time to the other but we should say rayan as if they were in a minute. And say that in the event that had they been in a minute the would have been time in the life. Well then the halacha is that the shouldn't be battel. So that was the kasha. How could say that there's no time allowed when it comes to in a minute? There should be a halacha of time. Based on the halacha of rayan triggered a whole issue. That is the question. The following kasha. said why is it that if you have a taruves of dam and mayan just to pick a case we have mayan a mu'at of dam but you could see the dam in the taruves. Why is it that the halacha is that right now the dam is not battel? I could see it. That's why it's not battel. So what I could see it. Why is seeing the dam a reason to be battel? The reason is said Chaim because in order for something to be battel it has to be battel. You have to see it as being insignificant in the taruves. To the extent that you could see it so it is significant. And being that it's significant said it's for that reason there's no battel. Meaning the fact that you could see it said is a minute that it's there and if that's the case if that's the case it makes sense that it should be battel. What's the reason that if you have a taruves of a and a and you can taste the mu'at. The halacha is that the mu'at is not battel. It's based on the of time kicker. And was in safer that the halacha of time kicker is that the was that that just like if you eat a of you have a issue if you eat something that has the time of that you're also over issue. The of of time kicker is not that because this time so maybe well there's no battel. The of time kicker is time kicker is a new day. Time kicker issue. So said Chaim the issue the issue is mayan that would be very very that we should say rayan when it comes to matter but we shouldn't say rayan when it comes to time. What's the reason? By matter the whole reason where you could see the dam in the taruves it's not battel is because the fact that you could see the taruves is a that it's a issue so if it's a issue you can't be this there's too much of it in order for you says Chaim said that that's not only true where I could physically see it but that's also true if I could or would have should have seen it. Because the whole of rayan is it's a minute it's a minute that there's too much to be battel. Now in this case I don't see in the forest. Who cares I don't see in the forest. But I know from rayan I know with my glasses I know just based on the concept that if they would have been two different I would have been able to see it. That means there's too much of it over here. There's too much of it to say battel. So therefore even when I can't physically see it I'm going to say battel. Now is it a leap of faith? Of course it's a leap of faith. It's the of rayan. There's no one that's going to debate that rayan is a issue. rayan rayan is a issue. I hear the of this. The of it is that being that if I would be able to see it it'd be too much of it for there to be battel. So it makes sense to say that even when I can't see it but I know there's enough here that if the co The only difference is the color is off. Okay so for that for the color I for that already I could say rayan. And like this the halacha would be that we would say that there's no battel even if it's a minute. But time kicker the whole of the time kicker is is that there's a new issue called time. Well if I don't taste it then you don't have the new issue. So maybe taste it there should be rayan when it comes to time. The and the kasha held that if you say rayan by matter you have to say by rayan by time. asked this great kasha. Could be matter and time kicker issue. Matter is so that it shouldn't be a battel. Time is a new issue. Where all it is is a minute that it shouldn't be battel. Maybe for that you say rayan. Makes a lot of sense it's very logical you should say rayan. If however we're dealing with time which is a issue either you have the issue you don't have the issue. By I don't have the issue I can't taste the issue. So to the extent that I can't taste the issue rayan as if I could taste the issue doesn't make any sense. Where it's a minute that there's too much of it to say battel. So I know for a fact that I have the that wouldn't be battel if it was a minute. So if it's a you also shouldn't be battel. That makes sense. Albeit with the and the institution known as rayan. But when it comes to time not. Now there's a big that we're assuming in this kasha. And that is that there's a fundamental difference between how matter works and how time works. Specifically matter is just a reason that there shouldn't be battel as opposed to time is not that it shouldn't be battel but it's an issue and safer is very how exactly time kicker works. seems to come out that there's two of them. There's two of them when it comes to time. Side there's a new issue there's an issue but also time is like and just like by matter just like by matter there's a that if I could see it that's a reason it shouldn't be battel by time there's also reason it shouldn't be battel. Would that answer kasha? The say not so fast. Because if there's two of them by time you probably need both of them by time. You probably need both of them by time. The way the say it is the only reason time is a that it shouldn't be battel is because the was an issue again there's so much to talk about that's why we're leaving it as a kasha. But this is definitely a kasha how you do a here in the of rayan.