Chavra D'hilchisa Ta'aruvos Siman 102 Seif 1-4 The Parameters of Davar Sheyeish La'hem Matirim

Okay, good evening everyone. We have a major topic we're beginning tonight sim kay simmon kb. We learned in simmon k about is not a elephant. We learned about is not those were that they're not. The reason they're not mash is because of their importance. Simmons we're going to learn about another item that's not B and in a sense this is the most of all the items that are not B and the reason that's reflected in the fact that by if we're dealing with an is that if we're whether it's oric if it's a we're even though as we're going to see that's also the The reason it's not B is also only majan. Still if we're miss if it's also not which goes flies in the face of the rule of but that's a good trivia question. What is are we by a suffic logic of why literally that means something that has a the time will come when it will become mut and it's it will become tomorrow it could be in a bit could be in seven days we're going to see in the end of the sim it applies to you have is considered I but it's going to takes seven days until pes is over. Well, that's that's called also. Okay. So, the basic logic is enunciated by where says why rely on and eat it in a state where it might be. Just wait. Just wait. Why should you rely on this kula? Why should you rely on this ka? You say no. What do you mean bit? Okay, you're right. I always say when somebody asks a shila and they want to be lenient, there has to be a a good basis to be lenient and b there has to be a reason to be lenient. In other words, one is the the leniency has to be based in halaka and two the person has to have a need. If the person doesn't have a need, then you have no right to be lenient for them. So says there's no need to be lenient here. Just wait. Don't rely on the koola. What do you mean there's a valid kula? You're right. There's a valid koola, but you have no right to rely on it. And know whenever somebody's lenient in you need, you always need to fulfill two ingredients. Ingredient number one is there has to be basis for the leniency. And number two, you have to have to rely on it. You have to have a need. But by Rashi seems to be saying you don't have a need to be lenient. Why? Why do you have to be lenient? Just wait. It's not necessary to rely on this leniency. That's the basic logic. But as we're going to see there are other logics that are going to be involved over here because the big curveball is that is only not min as opposed to and there since the reason it's not is because of its those things are not b not only also we did see the iseter that says um and remember we said I told you last time you get extra credit if you could come up with a logic why would that be right but simply we don't hold that way you see if something that's not because of its importance is not but And there's a special reason it's not. The reason is but we're going to see there are other logics that come into play and some of them are very very subtle for those who learn. One of them we saw in the ones in the okay that's a little bit of an intro. Now here's the plan. Right now, in the next 3 weeks, we're going to be a bit ambitious. In the next three Sunday nights, there are four blat we we're going to try to do four blat in the next three weeks because on February 22nd is the day of reckoning. February 22nd, mark it on your calendar, is the meeting with the nit Gabrielle. And if you're scared, you should be. You should start being scared right now. Don't Don't say you can't handle the pressure. You pressure is good for you. Finally, maybe you'll you'll you'll do something. And and if you're nervous, be very nervous. You should be very very nervous. You should be full of anxiety. You should be you shouldn't be able to sleep for the next 3 weeks. No, I'm just I'm I'm dramatizing you. Let's say half the nights you'll be able to sleep, okay? No, it's not it's not a pressured uh test, but we're going to be uh the test for Nick Nit Gabriel is going to be on kofb and kof gimmel. Yeah, we're going to we're really going to try very hard to do that. Um just try to have the basic principles and you will be fine. Um and ignore all the drama and the the uh scary tactics that I tried to use. That wasn't you know that was just part of the making the share interesting. Okay. Anything that has a ultimate leniency anything that will become what for example what an egg that's born on yt is a that's born on yumpt you're not allowed to eat it on yamt. However, as soon as Yamt is over, it's Mut. It's not us or forever. It's when Yamt is over that it's the next day. If it gets mixed with other eggs, it doesn't matter being whether it's being whether it's cracked or scrambled or mashed. It's not it's not even another example of since it's what exactly is the theim was a great he wrote an autobiography I think it it's called nephesh and he says that in his mind the purpose of tubishvat since tubishvat is a line of demarcation for micer that whatever had before is last year's produce. Whatever has afterish is this year's produce. So is a day to learn. So an example which is for tubish is let's say you have a tel in other words you have some produce that you didn't take off micer from that got mixed up with other produce that's because you could just take off the micer that's actually the most classic case of mater okay so um it's not even a thousand what if you're what if I'm not sure if this egg was born on Yamiff. Maybe I think it was maybe yeah, maybe no I'm not sure. So the isur it's but that's this is not is if it got mixed if it got mixed in but it is and the rama brings a whole slew of say this theory the smack the smack um and many other. Okay. Now, why in the world would be mino? After all, the logic is why rely on B just wait just wait just wait. So the basic logic is going to be and it's very hard to uh understand it but the words are that when something falls in mininoi let's say an egg falls into other eggs you're giving a heter to the egg can't give a heter to the egg why give a heter to the egg just wait but let's say when an egg gets mixed into meat and the majority is meat You're not giving a heter to the egg. You're giving a heter to the meat. Okay? Why can't I give a heter to the meat? The meat. The meat is not the egg is in other words when it falls into the label of the is not to the item that becomes the label of the is to the mixture in general. And that's okay because the mixture is not something that has a heter to it. In other words, the the thing that will become is the der but when it falls into you're not you're not giving a to the you're giving a to the okay we'll see that inside in the shak but that that's the rule. The rule is Let's see the shock. The shak says even if you're the isser, the sha brings a bunch of things from the bach that he doesn't agree with any of them. And the one that we're going to focus on is the final thing the sha brings from the So let's say the case like this. You have an egg that was born on Yamiff that gets mixed into other eggs. So they're aller until Yam is then an egg from that mixture falls into another mixture. So the Bak says okay then uh then it's uh mut then it's mut meaning into a second mixture it's mut. says nobody agrees to that. It's the same logic because what's the logic of why is just wait. So the same thing with the second tu there's no difference between one and two. The shak does not agree with the bach who says into a second mixture. No says the the shak nobody holds that way. Um, by the way, the Taz uncharacteristically agrees with his father-in-law on this one. The Taz ink says Mut. So the quotes that it's Mut and the Shak disagrees and the Taz says straight up it is Mut. We'll get into that in to get there. Okay. Now, is not and is how do you define minoi and anoi? Does minoi mean the same taste or does minoi mean the same name, the same shame? says the inkl it appears in my opinion says a shakama doesn't spell this out but the definition of minoi and is the same name are they called eggs or are they not called eggs not do they taste like eggs are they called eggs un the spells it out if it has the same name even though it doesn't have the same taste. It's considered the same species if it doesn't have the same name even though it has the same taste. It's a different name and it's bal. So if it doesn't have the same name even though it has the same taste it's and the shak says because we hold like rava inbas of now this is different than we said earlier remember earlier when we were defining that you always need you don't need there the said It's dependent on taste and not dependent on name. I we hold like rava. No, no, no. When it comes to being taste, of course means a different taste and min is the same taste. Earlier on in when we're dealing with abolishing the taste, nullifying taste, of course is same taste is different taste. But here it's not a matter of flavor. You see, we're going to clarify the den of not being is we can't label to something that you could just wait. But that's when you're labeling that's when you're labeling the to the as opposed to if it's in a mixture. So here the the relevant factor is what it's called cuz you're not nullifying the taste. This is not a matter of nullifying taste. This is nullifying an entity. This is nullifying a reality. So here the the the operating principle is what is it called? If it has a if if the D is has the same name of the items that it fell into that's if it has a different name it's okay that's what the concludes even though remember tried to pull this off earlier and the sha went to town on this right earlier tried to say also it's dependent on shame and not on taste. And there the the shak and the taz both said no when you're abolishing flavor of course it's a matter of taste and not name but here every we definitely go like rava that this is a matter of shame and not a matter of taste. Now look in the shocks of if it's a different even though when it comes to not being there's no difference whether it got mixed in or like we say shi here It's different. Why? What's the reason? What's the reason is not it's not because of the importance of the whole reason it's not is because wait it will have a later the is quoting the reason why is say since it will become later we don't want to rely on. So here's here's the bomb. When something mixes, we're not giving we're not labeling the for the item which was we're giving the to what it got mixed into and the so for example if an egg got mixed into meat. So what are we giving the heter to? We're giving the heter to the meat. Okay, meat is not is not a mat. There's no this the meat itself is a dut. It's not something that will become mut. It is mut. So that's not called giving a to something that will ultimately become mut. You see if an egg falls into an egg. So you're ming an egg. What do you mean I'm ming an egg? But the egg will become mut. So we don't have a right to label to the to the uh egg. the egg will become but if the egg falls into a different item that other item is not those are the words of the logic that now something we see something very important from the shak is saying I'm sorry the line before The din is not is the choice of the rabbis. The rabbis didn't want it to become. It is not a dinda. Underline that line and underline it twice. It's the rabbis didn't want it to become B. It's not a that is not B. Even though we're going to see that Taz is going to quote and you can make the case well maybe that maybe it's not B. But the shak says openly the den of not being is a don. Okay. Let's see the taz. >> If you had egg that fell into the chin, you you just have do you take the eggs out or does it just become bottle of the whole mixture? >> Again, anytime you could identify it, you always have to take it out. Will never become B. Has to be a case. It fell in and you're not able to distinguish between the egg and the meat. Okay, that's the case. Let's see the t of kan the the said whether the egg fell in shale or smashed up. What do you mean shalim? If it fell in shale, if an egg fell in shale then even irrespective of the fact that this egg will become after it's not but anyway eggs are sold by count and something which is sold by count is not but so you might make a mistake and say well if it's shame and it's not but because it's shabin maybe it will only have the of no says not only is it not because also have the of then being if you're if you're then if it's just then it will become det if you're mupic if it's asser but if It's suffic. That's why we pick the case of to indicate that don't think well it already is not. Maybe you'll think in other words maybe you would think you can't could an item not be for two reasons. Yeah. That's the then not only is it not because it's also not because it's and therefore in a case of suffic fasten your seat belts for this taz. The taz is now gonna take a ran in a daram. The ran spans like 50 lines. It's literally one of the most lumpisha pieces in shas and the tazusa condenses this run into about 10 lines and it's very simple and uh this this is there's this latter juice in this uh this taz says the why is not why is says, "You know why?" The same thing that the said the is not on the on the egg. It's on the mixture and the mixture is a different specy than the is remember that's the logic that the sha said that when it falls into the label of the heet is not to the dove or is but it's to the mixture in general the says no no no I I don't like that I don't like it no it's not good enough that's not good enough it's a weak bottom line is why in the world do we allow this to go through it should be wait isn't the logic why is not because you could just wait so what's the mean if it falls into this semantics this you know this complex offering of words that when you give a the is not on the d is it's on the mixture it's I don't care what the heter is on why should we allow bitto just eight. Okay. So, the so the Taz therefore says, I don't know why the and the don't quote the run on this one. There's an amazing run. There's an amazing run. We just learned paraser says learning the adam is I can't explain further but he says learning the adam is matalik actually I will explain okay because amo comes from cloudy hazy thinking and there is no more sharper analysis of lambdas than the ranadaram Brisk said if you want to learn how to learn, you should learn the ran on. So here we go. This is like 50 lines of the condensed by the Taz. If you remember, who remembers this earlier on? We said, you know, you need really shouldn't need it's so we require. Does everyone agree to that? You remember there's a shita Rabihuda. Rabihuda holds mininoi is not rahuda. There's a minino is not do we hold like no the argu but let's understand where did get this from says the says the taz we're going to read it inside I wonder I have a question why didn't the quote the ran This is in a nutshell what the says that is not where did get this from? He got it from carbon. It says the coen will take from the blood of the bull and the goat. Now there's more blood in a the bull than a goat. So why do we call it and the blood of a goat? The blood of the goat should become even though the blood of the bull is more than the goat alma says we see from here that since they're both now to read a puk that way you're gonna learn out you're gonna read a puk a is gonna read a puk and Oh, it says dapar. Damasy. Why is it called damasur? But there's more damar. Are you kidding me? There has to be a logic to that. Why would it not be by supplies a logic? The logic is that when you have two things that are the same species, one doesn't nullify the other. No, just the opposite. They're each other. They strengthen each other. Since they're the same species, they give to each other. It doesn't weaken it. It strengthens it. So here says we learn out because it's the same spec each other. So the question is so the rabbis why don't learn out from there. The rabb are you kidding me? Of course in that case it's not but because they're dealing with two items. They're both Heet. They're both. So they're exact same thing. So why would one be the other? You can't learn out to they're different because even though they're the same, but one is and one is. So the fact that one is Mut, one is that difference alone allows one to be the other. But you can learn out from the are both so they're both they're both so therefore they're each other they're not each other and it's but you can't extrapolate from there to because I'm sorry you can't extrapolate to there to and because the fact that one is one is that alone is a distinction that allows one to be the other. Why? They're both kosher to sprinkle on. But if one dam is mut and one one dam is kasher and one is so even though they're the same species they're different and therefore the fact that one is and one is that makes it like meaning fundamentally theon agreed to the hudah that If you had two things that are exactly the same, we could learn out from that they're not each other. They're just hold you can't extrapolate to because by they're not exactly the same. One is M and one is come and say you know what there is a case if it's and it's not but the iser is so now it's the same specy and don't give me this distinction that one is mut and one is because the is will become that will agree to Yehuda that that's like because it's all it's the same men and even the distinction of one and one the will become so then it reverts back to the say will concede to one Um if there is going to be it's like what try to learn out from the there's no difference between the is and the because even the isra will become now I want to point out is this aisa that it's not but orinder It's still a dinder because it's not it's not that the is because the isser and the is so it's not like the damp and the dam it's just the feel it's to the damp and the dam and therefore it's not but if it's then of course it's going be bal then it's completely not similar to the damp and the dams and then it would be in other words the ran is is trying is showing almost a biblical source why is not and that is the same way holds is not now normally the say is because it's different because one is asser and one is mut. But if the iser has an eventual, then we should say that it's mish like the dampar and the dam. It's similar in nature. It's similar in meaning they're both. And then we say they're not each other. They're each other even though they're both really because one is and the in general is and what got mixed in will become even though in the element that the equivalency there is a big difference. because one of them is a different species. So if I were to ask you what's the reason why it is why why is it only not by and not by there are two reasons. Reason number one is what the sha says and what the taz the sh inkal and what the taz says in the beginning of that if it's this the words are we're giving the not to the but to the voice so that's okay and the says I don't know what you're talking about it's not good that's not a good answer that's not a good those are nice words. It doesn't make sense. The T says why don't we quote the why don't we quote the that by the fundamentally disagree with because it's different because one is one is but then it's like who does but if it's not like the because they're two different species Please. Yeah. Do was the ran clear? Is this logic of the run clear? You're shaking your head that to the ram it was clear. >> You're saying because eventually it'll become mutar. So it's really like the same thing as the dam and the other dam >> if it's one thing we know dam and they're both and therefore the dam does not lose its identity. So wants to extrapolate from that will always say even if one is and one is the say you can't apply you can't extend it to where one is mut one is because then they have they're different in one being mut one is but if the is itself will become so now there are no differences they're both and there's no difference one is mut one's because the is the isur is almost already or will become so the removes the distinction that the made between the damar and the dam which are both and the dra and I think that's a I'm pretty sure that's a dindon. Um okay now let's continue in the Rama says Rama uh you know when we're defining so we said that an egg and an egg born on y that got mixed with other eggs is an egg born on y that got mixed into meat is mini what would you say salt and dough is that mini No. So, right, you know, you know there's something called salt. I want to explain something. There's something called salt. There's something called dough. These are things that happen in a kitchen. Not saying you should go into that place. But there are there is such a place it's called a kitchen that sometimes people there's something called dough, something called salt and these are different items, right? Or what about an egg and dough? These are different items. But says Rama, but what if The two items are mutually dependent on each other. Dough needs salt. Dough needs eggs and they get mixed together and they these two items enhance each other. We're not going to call that minino. That's going to be called mininoi. What do you mean salt is not do? Dough is not salt. Yeah, but when when ingredients are mutually enhancing that's mininoi. They come they're they're dependent on each other that will then be defined as says if you whitened a food you used food to whiten to give color and appearance to another food. You put it into a cooked dish to fix it to enhance it. you filled it up into into the chicken then it doesn't become don't try to get away with the fact that it's since A is enhancing B that's called mini that's called mini look in the says why since it's giving appearance It's not. If a food is giving meaning even though we just said is but if it's giving appearance the reason is if it's or if it's put to enhance if they put them together to fix each water or salt in the is called since they fix the dough. Look in the taz. The taz says what are these two cases of the rama? The two cases of the rama are number one it gives appearance. Number two it gives taste. says the knock out. Not only case A but even case B not only if it gives not only if you whiten the food that it's giving appearance and flavor even if it's just giving flavor that's also If it needs each other like water and salt and dough have a minimum. Now the Tajas points out you're filling up the chicken with the egg. So now, not only is it giving taste, but there is an actual substance in the chicken that's giving taste as opposed to what we're going to see later on that the Rama says we do not apply to taste. Something that is just giving taste. In other words, let's say you have an absorbed flavor in a food and that absorbed flavor is let's say it's and it's because after it will become we don't say absorbed flavor becomes uh doesn't apply to tam it only it has to be of substance not just flavor alone okay not just flavor alone you do your warm Now, >> what? >> I think >> I'll zip up. >> Yeah. Tell me if you get cold. Okay. The heat's still on. Just the 70. The oven is off. Okay. Okay. That is now I just want to I'm going to suggest the har that the way the taz reads rama not only case a where you whiten the food so it's giving color and taste but even if it's just giving taste that's how the taz reads the rama I would argue the shak disagrees with that reading of the rama and the shak learns it's not au It's telling you two different. The first is love and love is it just gives color and the second case is if it just gives taste. If you have either of those because the way the way the shock words it is of it and he doesn't say so maybe the the is not reading it but the Rama is saying two the shak would read it that the saying two different uh okay that's here we There are those who say and the Taz says I don't know why the says because this is the and nobody argues on that. So, by the way, the Mish Bu sometimes points out in the that will say um and it's it's not a it's unanimous, but since it comes from one and we don't find it in other heed or I've seen in the Mishb when the says and perhaps it's the same thing with this in other words, it doesn't mean there are those who argue. It's just we know the raja says it. We don't know the ran and the ram agree but they don't argue. We could assume they agree but it doesn't mean it's a it's just it comes from one. They say as follows. We only say something is if the is going to come. In other words, or even if it won't come on its own, I have the ability to make it come without too much of a loss. but something that I don't have the capacity to make a won't certainly come in other words for something to be it has to be that the will come let's say pes will be over it will be over or I have the ability to bring the I could take off right now this is and it will remain te forever. So it's not like the heter will come a mela but I could make it come whenever I choose I could take off chuma I could take off micer or let's say something is because I made a nether so it's going to remainer forever but I it's to go to m it so it needs to either come or I have the ability to make it come therefore shall suffer let's say you have an egg of a suffic that got mixed with others is not a won't for sure come. It might be a trade for this and I don't have the ability to make it come. There's no there's no there's nothing coming that's going to be m which is a traa and there's nothing I could do to make it come. So the asks what in the world is a talking about an egg which is a suffic what the the reason why it's not is because the won't certainly come and it's not the other to bring The it's not the because what exactly is there's no what's the you might be a tra what's talking about saying no we don't apply to a suffic why why how could it apply why is this example given of something which is not of course not there's no that's coming the hey as hikah There's no no connection applicability to at all is something that now is also tomorrow will become mut of a suffic of shak says if it turned out that this in other words what's the you're going to find you're going to go to he's going to tell you it's not a tra if the exit and it's it should become and if it's not a traa then it was never to begin with in other words the says this is not this not this is not this is the worst example possible of has no whatsoever You don't know if it's an egg of a tra or not. So guess what? There are two possibilities. The possibilities are yes or no. So if the So let's take the yes. Let's say it is a traif then it should become but let's say it's not a traa then it was never to begin with. So what was talking about? Well, if it's a chick, if it's an egg of a chicken and and we don't know if it's straightforward, we could wait and see if it's how the chicken does. It's >> just a beer. >> Maybe eventually we'll see. The chicken was good. >> Is that a >> We're just We're finding out what it was, right? It's not a It's just We're right saying we're that it's wasn't a You're right. If it survives, good. If it survives then it wasn't a trafa to begin with. If it doesn't survive then it was a traa. It's not a heet. So the says something very interesting. We're talking about shall suffer that what the means is it's talking about where was so you would think it shouldn't become just wait let me just wait and answer no I don't have to wait cuz that's not going to take care because lameisa the the issue of it being a traa is not solved by waiting and therefore I don't have to wait why why do I have to wait we're talking about an egg that's what the means I just wanted to bring out that question I'm you It's interesting the shakamaz don't discuss this question but I thought it was just like a pasha something we need to think about. Okay. Um okay s gimmel sift giml is a whopper. Sgiml is a whopper. Now let's talk about a cle that absorbed is a cle that absorbed is that got mixed with other kalem. You have one cle it absorbed pig fat. You cooked pig in a cle and that cle got mixed up with other kumm. Okay. is a cle that became by absorbing that got mixed with others. You can't tell which cup which cle absorbed Iser. It's why and we're not going to consider it like so you say why would it be maternal >> haga because you could casure it that's a very that's a very clear way that it's you could casure it so why don't we consider the ability to something says the rama Huh? The doesn't say by the way this very important the is calling the rajbah the is calling the rajbah that kaim that absorbed is even though you could casure it is not therefore it's but the doesn't explain why you know why says because it costs money it costs money to cash it didn't the just say in in bay that the definition of is either if it's going to come or I could bring it without a loss but it cost me money to to do hagala I have to heat up the water so my gas bill is going to go up or it takes time it costs money it's not a lot of money it costs money that's not don't why I I would say rash in says why is mater we say why should we rely on BTO just wait so I say wait for what say wait until I casher it so I say I don't want to casher it cost me money don't tell me just wait just we mean just wait not just I don't want to I don't want to pay money the gave a called but they don't want you to use it if you could Wait. They're not going to turn around to a guy and say, "Just wait." Well, I say wait and what? It's a pain in the neck to casure it. I have to heat up the water. The I don't know. I have to stick it in the pot. It's dangerous. It's costly. It takes up time. I don't want to do that. You don't want me to take the easy way out of relying on BL if I could just wait. Waiting is not for me. Cashing is is a pain in the neck for whatever reason. It costs money. It's a that's how the rama is mazb the who quotes the rajah okay there's a lot of amazing lambdas here okay so that's now at first glance it would seem remember I said that we don't say once only on something that has so why is the ra saying oh you know why there's no oness because it costs money to it. should just say very simply does not apply to the the here is would apply to ice clearly it would apply but this question the Taz is going to ask next week in that the Ramos should have said a different reason why doesn't apply here because it's only fine I'm I'm just revving up because there's a dehuda here. You're going to be so happy to hear the dehuda. You might even want to You'll be so happy you can go home, you're going to eat bxer or something. That's how happy you're going to be. Okay? And then if you need a dentist you go to okay says the the comes and says I don't know why the rama had to say the reason why it's not is because it costs money didn't need this reason of that it's going to cost Because even without that is the going to come automatically as time passes like pes is over or is over no you have to do a so since the doesn't come ma it's the marshall says I don't know why the ra give this this you know complicated answer that hagala costs money forget the money it's not that comes by itself says I didn't really get what the talking about since when does have to come in even if the doesn't come through time if you have something which is even though the doesn't come on its It comes because you could go to to be mashall. So then from there we see it doesn't have to come on its own. By the way the pisk chuva says that regarding the shak's kasha on the marshal that nadarum doesn't come on its own. The chuba bakov defends the marshall. No, no, no, no, no. Nadim is different cuz there's a mitzvah to be mad. There's no mitzvah to do haggal on ka. There's no mitzvah to your kale. In other words, fundamentally maybe you do need a comes on its own. I don't go on it own. No, that's because you're supposed to go ahead and do it that itself said that it's a mitzvah because It's a mitzvah there's no that's how brings he answers the marshall from the v then the says the inabay questions the rajbah and he says I don't know what he's talking about so the raja says this is not dash matern because it costs money to casure it. Fine. But there's a there's a different reason why this should not be B. And this reason that should not be B should make it that it's not Ba. Everybody knows the basic rule of Bal is that something is B when you cannot identify it. If when it's in a taru vice what if question what if you have a a pig fell into a chalant pig and you look in the pot of chalant and you see oink oink there's a pig in there it it's oinking at you you're allowed to eat the chant or if you see the actual pig in there I don't care how big the chant is you got to yank it out there's no b if you could identify the isser So says the the ra of course this is not uh of course the raja is wrong. How could the raja say this is not this is not maybe it's not matern but there's no way this could be kbat because since you could do hagala that means you could extract the iser so how could you rely on bal mean that the basic premise of bit is somewhere in here there's iser I can't get it out you could do hagala haga basically uproots the whole concept of BL in the first place. BL is there's iser in here. We don't know where. Okay, it's BL. Yeah, but I I do know where I could get it out. How could you rely on BL? The says that fundamentally this D and this gimmel and is dead wrong. The Pins and agrees that a cle that absorbed is that got mixed with others is Mut. Why it's not the says I say not only is it because there's no why no I could identify the I could do I could says the um there's another reason whenever the isment since it's possible to remove it. It's like the Maril says the Maril also argues on the Raja. He says, "Could you please tell me Raja how much money it's costing you to do Hagala? How much it cost you? 73 cents." Oh, bigah. Yeah. All of a sudden, Hagala is a bigah. It's a mu and therefore the concludes you need to be concerned for the marel the shenuba if it's not costing you a lot of money you have to be concerned for of the marel namely that this is not a this is not a real heid that it's going to cost you money to kasher a cle by the way then the sha adds since we have this of the that it shouldn't even be because you could ker it and you could be maker the iser you know what else you need to do you should wait 24 This way the taste is and at least it's see at first I was very here look at this line it would also seem to me you should wait with the then it's permitted last night I was learning this I didn't Understand that line. You should wait 24 hours because this way it will become why would it be because of is not I thought it's not I couldn't understand what the sh was saying. The is saying you should wait 24 hours. So this way it's at least it's anyway. Nobody says in other words we're arguing on the raja. The rajba says it's because it's too expensive to casher. So the marel says no it's not so expensive and therefore it's and therefore it's not. But the marel never was saying it's not. So why should I wait 24 hours to make sure it's not to make sure it's nobody would say it's not what the sh means is it's not only the marel it's also the the said if I could casure it then I could identify the isser and it's not even because how could you call how could you say over here if there's no vice because the isur is removable that far would say that perhaps it's not even that's why the shock says you need to wait 24 hours. It's not only because the marel says that uh kashering is not such a heid. It's also because of this other logic that that since you could kasher it. It's like the iser maker is means there's no it's not even. Okay. Now then the shock says that so the shock concluded that you should be for the marel if there isn't a loss that you should deem this If there's not a heuba and what he means is even where it is a heuba and you want to rely on the you should still wait 24 hours. Okay, that's how you read the in other words you should be for the you should that we're not we'll say it's not but unless it's a heuba because we'll call it and even if you do want to rely on BL and you're going to be on the raja you should still wait 24 hours then the shak says says that he quotes the massy who says you only have to wait 24 hours if you want to use all the different kalem in this mixture but to use one of them you don't have to wait 24 hours and the sh says I disagree even to use one of the kalem you have to wait 24 uh 24 hours even to use one of the k have to wait 24 hours and then he brings in of the so now the sha holds listen to this let's just say this clearly the shak says you should be for the marel the marel holds that kaim is because the expense is minimal and even where you could rely on the raja and say it's not and it's you should still wait 24 hours you should wait 24 hours even if you want to use only one of the ka and there's a of the bach you should take out one of the ka this way you know maybe you got out the uh the one that was assur that's an added the shak says that he doesn't really feel you have to do that but if there's not a loss you should take out one of the ka now let's see the taz the taz says the taz has Kasha why does the raja need this reason that it's not the mater because it costs money why don't we say the following principle the nessar is that which becomes the cle can't answer more than the thing that answered it question what answered the clay what answered the clay is an absorb taste. We don't say unabsorbed taste. The absorbed taste is there's no there's no there's no on the absorbed taste. So how could the thing that became be more asser than what made it user? What made it user and absorbed taste? There's no on an absorbed taste. How do you m an absorbed taste which is asser? So why don't we apply the rule? This is a a classic rule that we apply throughout uh yada that that which became us or can't be more us or that which assert it and the the says yeah we could apply so that since it will this will have a we don't we ignore all lenient saras because just wait Just wait. Just wait. Then the taz quotes that this is not because it's not it doesn't it's not the taz concludes as follows that even though the marshall disagrees with the and the marshall says it should not be but it's not in other words the marshall says sorry the marshall gives a different reason why it's not namely because the is not so we have we have two reasons then why it's not we have the reason is haggal is expensive we have the marshall's reason that it's it's not the concludes that you could be on the rajbah right the shak said don't be on the rajbah the shak said you have to be for the marel that the expense is ridiculous. It's a minor expense. We're not going to consider this mater. We're not going to consider this mater because the expense is minimal. The TA says you could be on the raja. First of all, an expense is an expense. Second of all, it's not but the taz. So again, the sh says do not be the says you could be on the rajbah. However, says the taz even though you could be on the rajbah and the truth is you could use all of these kalem. You could use all these kalem but don't keep them in your house too long because even though you could use each k by itself are you allowed to use all the ka together? No. Because if you use all the kale together then one of them is user. We're afraid if you keep it in your house too long, you're gonna cook something in all three of these kalem and then it's for then the food is for sure gonna be because it definitely went into a cle that had issa the rajbah says it's not because it's expensive and the marshall says it's not because it's not the shock says no no no this is classic and you have to be that it's not unless it's uh unless it's a heapsub and even when it is auba you need to wait 24 hours says no you could be on the raja however don't keep it in your house too long if you keep it in your house too long you're bound to cook something and all of the kale and that's for sure going to be a problem. So you want to rely on the raja, rely on the raj you want to cook and cook in it but do it for a day or two and then kasher. You ready for this? I'm going to tell you the hud of the century comes and the says there's a very simple reason why this is not dishan there's a very simp not not the way the rama explained it no it's not it costs money to kasher it doesn't cost so much money not because of the marshal that it doesn't come it doesn't have to go mea There's a very simple reason why there's not. Could somebody tell me what's the brings this down? This is an amazing. What's the reason why is not we say pal you have to this egg was born on yamt. It's somewhere in this mixture. Said no I want to utilize bal. We say pal just wait till tomorrow. Don't utilize bit. Wait till tomorrow. And the egg that you wanted to eat today, you could get that egg tomorrow. We're not making you lose out anything. You're hungry, you want eggs. So instead of eating the egg today, you'll eat it tomorrow. The lambda says, "Why eat it today if you could eat it tomorrow?" Says, "But I'm not I don't want to eat an egg here. I want to use a cle. So what are you telling me? Don't use the cle today. You could use it tomorrow. What are you talking about? I want to use it today and tomorrow. So what are you helping me? What are you telling me? You're a bad therapist. Right of is not is because we're giving the guy therapy. We're telling him, pal, we're not causing you any loss. You want to eat the egg? You'll eat it tomorrow. What you We're not We're not making you lose out. You could do it tomorrow. says, "Let's say it doesn't apply if it's something that you could use cuz it's something you could use. Don't tell me I could use it tomorrow, but I'm losing out using it today." You see, eating you can only eat once. You can only eat the egg once. Did you know that once you eat the egg, you can't eat it again? Telling you that once you eat an egg, you can't eat the egg again. So we tell you that why do you need to rely on BL just just wait till tomorrow we're not taking anything away from you you could partake of this very thing tomorrow but that doesn't apply by a cle by a cle it's a matter of histamious usage so we say don't rely on just wait yeah but if I wait I'm losing out I'm not getting what I want to get I want to use it today and tomorrow and there's nothing you could tell me So we mean just wait. Just wait is a we're not causing you to lose out. What you want to do you'll just do it tomorrow. But that's by eating not by usage. By usage this whole logic doesn't apply. >> By just it's not waiting like is not waiting. It's a >> okay but that's a different point. Even without that it's not what's you're going to tell me what you can say that it's just something that comes. So then this come that's probably on time. But uh you're not using the usage. Just do a now and you can use it. Duh. Just do hagala. >> No, but in the meantime I want to use it now. >> So the same >> it's going to take me five minutes to do hagala. But right now you're making me lose that on the five minutes I can use the clean. I want to use it before the hagala and after the hagala. But you can only eat the egg once. >> You can only eat the egg. You could use it always. So don't take no duh. Yeah. In the meantime, what am I going to use? >> For the next 10 seconds, you're taking that away from me. You're taking something away from me. That says now We're doing a Okay, it's 9:19. I need eight more minutes, okay? Cuz we got to we got to cover grand. So, we're going to do a little bit more in the Rama. I'm sorry, but you know, they um it's Tubishvat, so we have to do more. It's it's well known that on tubish fat you have to do more Rama because you know the days get longer so the nights get shorter. So you know it's just one of those things. Okay. And man is like a tree. So if you're like a tree you have to do more Rama. I thought you I thought you would go for that. Okay. So the Rama says like this. Okay. One more one more in the Rama. that which is not what Oh, sorry. Okay, thank you. Another if the food is going to get ruined while you wait for it to be for yumptive to be over or for pes to be over and in the meantime the food's going to spoil then we don't say because what do you mean wait by the time I wait it's not going to be round it's going to be spoiled we don't say if it's going to get ruined fine says It's only that has reality substance. to the is in the mixture something that just is flavor. We do not apply the rule of say in a case where the iser is removed. Let's say you have an egg that was born on y but you the egg was taken out. So now all that you have in there is flavor of iser. It expect taste that is not we said in that if you fill up a chicken with an egg let's say it's called minino and it's not but because it's enhancing the flavor. And so there we're saying flavor is not bottle. No, that's where the flavor was meant to enhance the food. But if it just happens to be flavor that got absorbed into food, that will become bat. So it's not similar to what we said in safal iff that if you put in an egg uh if um if you put an egg into a cooked dish to enhance the flavor then it's not ble cuz there it's meant to enhance the dish. Now the bottom line the Rama Hoskins that Tom of Datan is is balos and you can see it. It's B. >> Yeah. But but if it got mixed in and you don't know where then that something that has mush usually it's the and it won't be buru. But if you if the thing got removed and all that you have in the is the flavor then the Ramos is Tom will become B. Now, so that means the Taz concurs with Rama T of is and the ink disagrees. The holds of is not um says the sh that if that you whiten a food or you fill it up with um an egg, it's not that's because it has it's not considered dissolved. That's only when it's not apparent in uh and to be able to see it. only in taste. It's only considered dissolved when you can't see it and all you have is taste. Bottom line is the what is saying is of is however the disagrees. The says the and the Even flavor is not butter. Why? Let's say if you skip a few lines down, one of the rias that the shak brings is that um the tour says in the name of that that's only the is that implies the iso. The sha brings a whole slew of rias that even flavor of datan is not b. The shak then wants to say well that maybe all the cases that indicate Tom is B I'm sorry that Tam is not B that's when the G iser is in there it's just not for example let's say wine falls into wine so the ga is not ben it's a it's not a it's not a substantive But it gives taste. That's when we say that it's not B. But if a piece of is falls in and you remove it, maybe then it would become B. And the sha says, tell you the truth. I don't think that makes a difference. In my opinion, the sha says his conclusion is The the argues on the on the Rama. He says even if you were to remove something that let's say a piece of trave steak of dash mat that's not a good case of dat. Let's say you have an egg that was born on yam that got mixed with other eggs and it was taken out. The flavor of that egg will not be combat. The sh argues on the rama. He says it's he doesn't like the there's no difference whether some of the residue remains in it or you completely take it out. You know why? You know says the you know why I feel should not be because the logic why is not is wait. So what difference does it make whether there's mamas there or whether it's flavor there? The flavor shouldn't become B. You know why? Because why rely on B when you could just wait? Why rely on when you could just wait? So I would I'm focusing on on this. It's a big shock. I'm focusing on his line like the fourth line in the shamb because he brings many many that time is not toward almost near the end he says even if he took it out and he concludes it's very whether the item is absor is dissolved in there or you took it out completely. Okay, Rabbi say uh it was a bit was a a sheer malle. Thank you for hanging in there and next week we're going to at least finish Kuff and begin Kofkimal. Okay, have a great night everyone. Thank you.