Just The Daf

Today's daf is Chulin daf kuf dalet. And we are b'ezrat Hashem in the beginning of a new perek, the eighth perek of maseches Chulin, perek kol ha'basar, three lines from the bottom of daf kuf gimmel amud bet. So, perek kol ha'basar, believe it or not, might be the perek in maseches Chulin. So, there's a lot of candidates for what the perek with the heh hayediah within the masechta with the heh hayediah is, perek kol ha'basar is definitely a finalist. The topic of perek kol ha'basar is the laws of basar v'chalav, which very much is a continuation of the latter part of perek eiddo hanashim, which discussed halachos related to taruvos of issur v'heter. So, let's just set this up a tiny bit, and then b'ezrat Hashem, in today's reid by we'll talk a lot more about the issur basar v'chalav, and in the coming daf and in the coming reid, we will b'ezrat Hashem double and triple down on that. So, everyone knows that a Jew is not allowed to eat meat and milk together. Truth is, this is one of the biggest chiddushim in the entire Torah. In fact, it's a lashon ha'Gemorah, basar v'chalav chiddush hu. Why? Because chailu chudai shari v'chailu chudai shari, meat you're allowed to eat, and milk you're allowed to drink. Yet, if you created a taruvos of basar and chalav together, all of a sudden this new found ma'achal becomes assur on the level of neveilah, on the level of treifah, on the level of the chazer, of the sheretz, all the things that the Torah says you're not allowed to eat, basar v'chalav falls into that same exact category. It's interesting, the Torah doesn't say anywhere that you're not allowed to eat basar v'chalav together. What the Torah does say is lo sevashel gedi b'chalev imo. You're not allowed to cook a goat in its mother's milk. Or, more simply, you're not allowed to cook meat and milk together. But the Torah doesn't just say lo sevashel gedi b'chalev imo once. It doesn't even only say it twice. It says it some drittem mal. It says three times in the Torah lo sevashel gedi b'chalev imo. It's in parshas Mishpatim, it's in parshas Ki Sisa, and it was in last week's parsha, in parshas Re'eh as well. And from the fact that the Torah said lo sevashel gedi b'chalev imo three times, Chazal learned that one time is coming to teach me the pshuto shel mikra, you're not allowed to cook meat and milk together. Another time coming to teach me you're not allowed to eat meat and milk together. And the third time is coming to tell me you're not even allowed to have hana'ah, you can't even benefit from meat and milk that's together. Now, from the fact that the Torah wrote the issur basar v'chalav in such an interesting way, lo sevashel gedi b'chalev imo three times, but didn't say you shouldn't eat meat and milk together, Chazal learned a lot of halachas. The most notable and the most critical halacha that really underpins all of perek basar v'chalav, and that is that the only time one is mid'oraisa not allowed to eat basar v'chalav together is if the basar and the chalav were cooked together. Or something that is synonymous with cooking. Roasted together, fried together, but it's only if it's derech bishul that osser Torah. But if a person would eat meat and milk together, not derech bishul, he would not be over an issur d'oraisa. Now, an issur d'rabbonan for sure he would be over. The fact is, even an issur d'rabbonan not to drink milk within a certain time frame after you ate meat. The infamous six hours, which by the way has a makaran tomorrow stuff. But the point is that being that the Torah didn't simply say thou shall not eat meat and milk together, rather the Torah suddenly from there we learn Derek Fisher this is the shortest to the laws of possible. We're going to be tough without further ado we're going to jump in to the very first albeit slightly light enough says the mission call all one is not allowed to cook together with foods me with the exception of the meat of fish and the meat of grasshoppers. So all are is also to be cooked together with what not so you have to read the not such fine print dog and you're allowed to cook together with and which we don't eat today anyways, but grasshoppers also you're allowed to cook together with So what's included in color also and also actually says that this opening line of the paragraph is really a little bit of a because in the Torah it says so you could have thought that it's only goats meat, but other or maybe would not be included that's the opening of this paragraph is also additionally it's also not only to cook the also together with the oh and by the way eat and benefit from that as well, but it's also awesome says the mission to put it together with on a table again and so all you're not allowed to put on the together with with the exception of we're showing a much a little bit why did the first of the mission discuss and the second the mission discusses and give right? Chalav and g'vina are synonymous in the sugias of basar v'chalav. It's a meat product and it's a dairy product. But either way, the second halacha of the Mishnah is that not only is there an issur to cook, eat, and benefit from basar v'chalav, but you can't even have the two on the table at the same time. So if I'm sitting down and I'm having a steak dinner, there can't be any g'vina on the table. And then finally, the third halacha of the Mishnah is "I know you don't want to basar v'chalav dogim v'chagavim." So he makes a neder and he says "I'm not going to have any hana'ah from basar." So what kind of basar is included? It's all basar with the exception of dog v'chagav. In other words, it's basar beheima, it's basar chaya, and it's basar oif. It's not basar dogim v'chagavim. Either way, what's the sikum of the Mishnah? Mishnah is discussing the laws of basar v'chalav. Clearly, the Mishnah teaches me what type of basar is included in the definition of basar. It's all basar with the exception of dog v'chagav. Meaning, beheima, chaya, and oif is considered basar as opposed to dog v'chagav is not. Where is it nigaya in the laws of basar v'chalav? Two areas. Number one, with regards to bishul, which doesn't only mean bishul. Means everything that's learned from "lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav imo." Which is bishul, achila, and hana'ah. And it's also with regards to this extra halacha of "assur l'ha'alos in my g'vina al hashulchan." We're not allowed to even sit at a table, eat meat, or eat dairy if there's going to be from the other men that's going to be there. And then finally, we mentioned where you have a definition of basar and it means dafka beheima, chaya, and oif as opposed to dog v'chagav. So I'll throw in b'derech agav another area in halacha where this is nigaya. And that is in hilchos nedarim. If somebody would make a neder that I'm not going to have any hana'ah from basar, mutar b'basar dog v'chagav. You would be allowed to have hana'ah from basar dogim and from basar hagovin. Now, just one point as a hack to me to the Gemara and that is the first halacha of the Mishnah kol habosor osur b'ashal ub'cholov chutz mibosor dogim v'chagovin is for sure discussing it in de'oraisa. Lo s'vashel gidi b'chalev imo is mentioned in the Torah. Says it three times. It's a bishul, it's rachil, it's a no. But the ikar halacha of the Mishnah that kol habosor osur b'ashal ub'cholov that of course is an is a de'oraisa. The next halacha Bosor halois al shulchan chutz mibosor dogim v'chagovin that's an issur d'rabbonon. Doesn't say anywhere in the Torah you're not allowed to eat at a table fleishigs if there's going to be some uh dairy product on it. K'movin that's only a issur d'rabbonon. Additionally, when the Mishnah concludes and says hanoidin bosor mutar mutar b'vosor dogim v'chagovin even though that last part of the Mishnah is very symmetrical with the first part of the Mishnah. That's why it's even mentioned. Right, what's the theme of the Mishnah? That when we define bosor it means beheima chaya v'oif but it's chutz mibosor dogim v'chagovin. So it's negating the laws of bosor ub'cholov it's also negating hilchos nedorim. But as it relates to hilchos nedorim the ta'ama d'kra the reason for the Mishnah is completely different than as it relates to bosor ub'cholov. The reason when it comes to bosor ub'cholov dogim v'chagovin are excluded is because from a halachic perspective we say that bosor dogim ub'vosor chagovin is not bosor. So when we include all bosor in the lav of lo s'vashel gidi b'chalev imo it means whatever the Torah defines as bosor. And the Torah's definition of bosor is going to be beheima chaya v'oif as opposed to as opposed to dogim v'chagovin. And even the rabbonon they went and they expanded perhaps on the definition of bosor but they too did not expand it so far to include in it dogim v'chagovin but it's more in terms of the definition of bosor in the Torah the definition of bosor by chazal that it means all bosser with the exception of dog and chazal. And the reason is cuz when it comes to nedarim, definitions are not based on the way the Torah defines words, and it's not even based on the way chazal define words, but nedarim halacha l'fi bnei Adam. This is one of the basic rules of hilchos nedarim, which means that what the mishna means when it says all bosser with the exception of dog and chazal, that when a person says the word bosser, he doesn't mean dog and chazal. What he means is beheima chaya v'of. So, the first two halachos in the mishna is more in terms of the Torah's / chazal's definition of what bosser is. The last line of the mishna is more in terms of what the lashon bnei Adam's definition of bosser is. Either way, there's a tzaddah shavah between the three halachos. There's an issur to cook bosser v'chalav. What's the definition of bosser? It's beheima chaya v'of. L'afukei chutz from dog and chazal. There's an issur magvina l'shulchan. What's the definition of bosser? Again, beheima chaya v'of, chutz mi dog and chazal. And the halacha is nedarim bosser obviously is not allowed to have an offer bosser, but what's the definition of bosser? Again, it's beheima chaya v'of, chutz mi dog and chazal, says the Gemara. So, the mishna began kol bosser assur l'vashel b'chalav chutz mi bosser dog and chazal. Hot ofe. It sounds like ofe. Assur mid'oraisa is assur, and not only is it assur, it's assur mid'oraisa. Now, let's just hit the pause button immediately. The fact that ofe is assur, that's clear. The mishna said all bosser is assur with the exception of dog and chazal, clearly implying that if you're not a dog, you're not a chazal, you're going to be assur. And ofe is not a dog, it's not a chazal, and as a result, it's going to be included in the issur. Where do you see that it's assur mid'oraisa? The mishna didn't say a word about is it the day right so. Call up also also the actual make a taste yet. It's also the day right so. So, Rashi says first Rashi on the Gamara cuz so good I talk the Gamara is instinctive reaction to the mission is that hi is it the master is the day right so come on. That probably the is so of the mission is in this day right so. Meaning being that we know so the actual Gamara is in this day right so and you're telling me call up also is included in this is so with the exception of dog and the color of them. So, probably you mean it's included in the actual is so the day right so. So, the Gamara makes a deal call if also the day right so. It sounds like also the actual color of is something that is forbidden with the right so is also the Gamara command who then must the mission and be the like of the keeper. It has to be like of the keeper. The keeper says the keeper of the mark. The keeper has a sheet though the command of coffee or Gamal so later in the period the higher wave in the minute though that mid day right so only also the animals also with color. But, higher wave is not also in a day so. If the mission of is much not the also the color of is in this day right so. It must be the like of the keeper. Which of the keeper who we're going to see later in the period who holds also wave and higher by the way is only also in the rubber of the Gamara. But, if that's the case in the safe to take a look at the safe of the last line of the mission of the hook is in the door in part of the mission of the also with the also the dog and the color of somebody makes another is not going to have enough of also. See now that have the I know from also the animal higher wave. But, you are allowed to have enough of from also dog and the color of wave again this day wave also. So, you see clearly is also also the keeper. This is only true according to the keeper of the mark who holds in the laws of the door in call merely the middle of the actual by the middle of the day any time if somebody would send the actual to go buy something and the actual wouldn't see exactly what he was sent to buy. But, he would see something similar to the extent that he would reach out his mission of and tell him you know I couldn't find X. But, I found Y. Should I buy it? If the shliach would ask that question, that means why is considered the same min as X. This is the shita of Rabbi Akiva. What's the background to it? The Tanya says if somebody makes a neder it's not going to have a neder from a yerek. Loosely translated, a vegetable. What do we do with the halacha? He's allowed to have a neder from gourds. Rabbi Akiva oiser. Rabbi Akiva said, you're not allowed to. Now the chachamim held mutav b'diluan cuz they held diluan is not like a yerek. Poshet pshat is because a yerek, vegetables are eaten raw and diluan people don't eat raw. Rabbi Akiva said no. Rabbi Akiva said that diluan is considered the same min as yerek and I'll prove it to you. I'm going to later bring Akiva. But first the Rabbanan told Rabbi Akiva follow him Adam a person will tell a shliach kach lo nu yerek, right? What happens if a person tells a shliach you go to the store and buy for me or for us a vegetable. Who I am the shliach will say lo matzosi elo diluan. Meaning if he only finds diluan, is he going to buy it? No way. He's going to reach out to his meshaleach. He's going to say, you know, I'm sorry I couldn't find yerek. I was able to find diluan. So the Rabbanan told Rabbi Akiva, what do you see from here? That diluan is not a yerek. Cuz if diluan is a yerek, so why is he reaching back to the meshaleach, right? If he found carrots, he would just buy it. So how come you're not just buying the diluan? Oh, must be diluan is not yerek. I'm going to answer Rabbi Akiva told the chachamim kein adova. I agree with what you just said and by the way, that's my rayah to my shita. Why? Cuz klum I'm going to ask in that same exact situation where somebody tells a shliach go buy me yerakos and he couldn't find yerakos but he was able to find kitniyos. Would he say lo matzosi elo kitniyos? He wouldn't say that. Why not? Because kitniyos has no shaychis to yerakos, right? They're completely different. So then why is he saying I couldn't find yerakos but I was able to find diluan? Oh, it's because you acknowledge that diluan is like a yerakos. Now it's not mamesh yerek but it's also not mamesh not yerek. But what do you see from here? Ela she the lulav be yerek. The lulav must be be yerek. The ink kitnis be yerek. Ink kitnis is not be yerek. In other words, we have a machlokes between him and the chachamim in the laws of nedarim. Where you have something that's not mamesh the same men, but it's also not mamesh not the same men. You can't definitively with a straight face tell me it's the same men, but you also can't definitively with a straight face tell me it's not the same men. According to the chachamim, we view it as not being the same men. According to Akiva, we view it as being the same men. The way chazal describe this case is where if somebody would send a shaliach to buy a specific men and he couldn't find it, but he found this other thing, and as a result he would ask the meshaleach, "Should I buy it or not?" That's a raya that it's not mamesh the men, but also that it's not mamesh not the men. In the world of Akiva, it's the same men. In the world of the chachamim, it's not the same men. That's why Akiva is mutar be diluin in the world of the chachamim. For Akiva, it's not the argues that as it relates to the basar of of ayif and the basar of chaya, let's talk specifically about ayif. It's somewhat the same men as basar, but it's also not so much the same men as basar. And if the Mishnah says that of basar is mutar be basar with chachamim, ayif assur. So what do you see from here? That the time of the Mishnah is of the opinion that something that's in between the proverbial diluin as it relates to yerek is going to be assur. Whose shita is that? It's the shita of Akiva, which means of basar mutar be basar with chachamim, which seemed like a very innocent line, really is the machlokes of the machlokes of Akiva and the chachamim. Because basar ayif relative to the general term Buster, is not mama Buster, it's also not mama not Buster. It's like the loin is to your office. And from the fact that the missioner says also by that's a riot that the mission must be going according to Rabbi Akiva. So if you're keeping cashman, we said that the first part of the mission also and it's mashma even Buster and it's mashma they rise and they must be the way to Rabbi Akiva because Rabbi Akiva holds later in the that Buster was only and next part of the mission we have a Buster with the Buster that issue is Rabbi Akiva in the laws of so free to all of Rabbi Akiva is it possible is it tenable to say that the first part of the mission is to the rabbinic not like Rabbi Akiva and the next part of the mission is given that like the rabbinic. I'm Rabbi Yossi Rabbi Yossi is the first says yeah, why not? Rabbi the master of the time of the mission is not Rabbi Akiva, it's not the rabbinic who Rabbi Akiva who wrote the mission. Sort of. Rabbi did. Okay, and Rabbi had a right to pick and choose between different and whether he holds like Rabbi Akiva does not like Rabbi Akiva when it comes to the laws of so Rabbi Akiva he holds that something that's in between it's not mama but also not mama not he holds it's the same man. Thus he holds and also and a Buster is going to be also a Buster the Buster however as it relates to the laws of Buster so over there he holds like the rabbinic who hold that Buster and is also a so not just and it's for that reason over there he asked him to like Rabbi Akiva so you're right the time of the mission can't be Rabbi Akiva because the first part of the mission wouldn't work. It also can't be the of Rabbi Akiva because then the second part of the mission wouldn't work. The it's not Rabbi Akiva it's not the rabbinic it's Rabbi and he he holds Buster he doesn't like Rabbi Akiva. By the way these two Rabbi Akivas have enough to do with each other, right? They're completely unrelated topics. It's not even a daichek to say that. Rabbi in Hilchos Nedarim paskens like Rabbi Akiva, and Hilchos Basar b'Chalav, he did not paskin like Rabbi Akiva. Actually, Rav Ashi is a second Tanna. He said, "Could it be Rabbi Akiva?" No, could be the time of the Mishna is Rabbi Akiva. And by the way, why would we want the whole Mishna to be Rabbi Akiva? There are two different Rabbi Akivas anyways. It's cuz we know stam Mishna is Rabbi Meir al liba d'Rabbi Akiva. That's why Rabbi Akiva was called Rabbi Akiva stam. Ein Rash Migdol Beis Medrash u've'Ois Mikaines. But the bottom line is, said Rav Ashi, that really the whole Mishna is Rabbi Akiva. Fachri comes in this way, you read the Mishna Kol Basar Assur l'Vashul b'Chalav. You now let it cook with Chalav. Mehein midivrei Torah u'mehein midivrei sofrim. Some Basar is assur min ha'Torah, such as Basar Beheima. Some Basar is only assur midivrei sofrim, such as Basar Chaya and Basar Oif. Chutz mi'Basar Dagim u'Chagavim. And this is all with the exception of Basar Dagim u'Chagavim, she'einam l'o midivrei Torah v'l'o midivrei sofrim. In other words, Rav Ashi said the whole kasha, this whole stira of Reisha Rav Bon, and Seifa Rabbi Akiva, is predicated on a shvache de'ek. It was predicated on a de'ek that when the Mishna said Kol Ha'Basar Assur l'Vashul b'Chalav, chutz mi'Basar Dagim u'Chagavim, what did it mean Kol Ha'Basar Assur l'Vashul? It meant Kol Ha'Basar Assur l'Vashul mid'Oraisa. And if included in Kol Ha'Basar clearly is Chaya v'Oif, that means Chaya v'Oif is assur mid'Oraisa. And if that's the case, it must be d'loi k'Rabbi Akiva. So Rav Ashi didn't say Kol Ha'Basar Assur l'Vashul b'Chalav mid'Oraisa. It could be Kol Ha'Basar Assur l'Vashul in some situations mid'Oraisa, it's a pasuk in the Torah, Lo S'Vashul Gidi B'Chalav Imo. But in some situations, it's only going to be mid'Rabannan. Mid'Oraisa, Beheima, similar to a Gidi. Mid'Rabannan, Chaya v'Oif. If that's the case, it could sh'neim with Rabbi Akiva, cuz even though Rabbi Akiva holds basar chai and basar oif is mutar mid'oraisa, but he agrees it's assur mid'rabbonan. And as a result, the reisha could be Rebbe Akiva and the seifa for sure is Rebbe Akiva and hilchos dam there's no reason to make a steira. In other words, we have a machlokes Rav Yosef and Rav Ashi had to answer this kasha, reisha rabbonan and seifa Rebbe Akiva, which emerges in another machlokes of who is the tanna of the Mishna. According to Rav Yosef, Rebbe. The nosson of lav l'vida tanai. According to Rav Ashi, Rebbe Akiva. But even more acutely, as it relates to pshat in the Mishna, we have a machlokes how to read the first line of the Mishna. Kol habasar assur l'vashel b'chalav chutz mibasar dagim v'chagavim. According to Rav Yosef, kol habasar assur l'vashel mid'oraisa. B'heima v'chaya v'oif all these assurim d'oraisa. According to Rav Ashi, kol habasar is assur l'vashel b'chalav mayhein b'divrei Torah u'mayhein b'divrei sofrim. Now, we started the Gemara, we said that this whole deyak, kol oif assur mid'oraisa, is a little bit of a a shvacha deyak. At the end of the Gemara, we certainly see that it's a shvacha deyak, because Rav Ashi doesn't even agree with the deyak. Now, where was the deyak given coming from? Rav Ashi just said kasol k'daas achai issur d'masnisin mid'oraisa kamma. But if you take a look at Tosfos, Tosfos learns that this deyak was really coming from the next Gemara. And in fact, this very next Gemara, even though we have two dots here all over the place, but really it's very much a continuation of the first part of the Gemara. The reason there's two dots is because we're going to focus on the next part of the Mishna, that's usually we have here two dots, and then again, your two dots in the Gemara, but really it's very much a continuation. Rav Yosef is going to be the one that's talking. What Rav Yosef is going to do is he's going to bring what he believes is a raya, a shma mina, that when the Mishna says kol habasar assur l'vashel b'chalav chutz mibasar dagim v'chagavim and kol habasar includes in the it's much more that all of it is awesome in the right so." And really from that Raya, I think it's place first. There will be insight as to why of Yosa felt that the dick of color blossom being awesome in the right so is a dick which was really the Gamora's initial gisha to the Gamora. However, awesome in the right so says was really coming off the heels of the Raya that of Yosa is about to bring. Anyway, so the mission continued and said the awesome of the right so. The not only I now let a cook of the whole together, but you also now let to have and here the mission said for some reason together on the with the exception of says the Gamora of Yosa. Yosa said I think from this line of the mission you see that awesome of is awesome in the right so. You got to have the whole of these or after the bottom because if you going to tell me it's only awesome in the right so I hear the good there. The is there a hero of is only awesome in the right so. Would it make sense then that we should make a zero don't put and together on the table and sit down and eat. After you may go ahead and actually eat it. If when you eat it it's only awesome in the right so why we making a zero? Why we making a zero after something that would only be awesome in the right so. Now what's this known as? Making a zero after something that's only awesome in the right so. It's known as a zero of the zero. So we know how made a lot of zeros, right? Come out every is a zero of some sort. How make a lot of zeros. But we make zeros to protect ourselves from awesome in the right so. Don't blow on the right so a zero of the zero. d'ola b'shul shalom you'll be over in this day race. But to make a gezeira ought to you might do something that's only awesome with rabbonan. That's what's known as gezeira l'gezeira. And in the rules and regulations of gezeiras, that's not something that we ordinarily do. So Zocher Rav Yosef Mordechai Zocher. You see from the Mishnah that not only are you now allowed to cook, eat, and have hana'a from basar oif and chalav, but also al ha oif and al ha g'vina al ha shulchan. It's something they now even can put on the table together. So b'shlam if you're going to tell me that basar oif and chalav is an issur d'oraisa, so I understand why there's an issur d'rabbanan. It's a gezeira ought to you shouldn't come to eat it together, which would be an issur d'oraisa. But if you're going to tell me that basar oif and chalav was only an issur d'rabbanan, so that would mean that why did the rabbonan make it assur? Probably as a gezeira ought to. A gezeira ought to what? Gezeira ought to basar beheima with chalav. So if that itself is only a gezeira, so you're making now a a double gezeira? A gezeira l'gezeira? Well, hey, that's not something that you ever do. So Zocher Rav Yosef, must be basar oif and chalav is an issur d'oraisa. It's chab gezeira, it's not gezeira l'gezeira. Zocher Rav Yosef, I do not know like a gezeira l'gezeira. How do you know that you don't make gezeira l'gezeira? Now, Tosafos asks a bomba kasha here. He says, "U'mei na teimra d'lo gazrinan gezeira l'gezeira?" We just made a big deal about this, that in the rules and regulations of gezeiras, you never make gezeira l'gezeira. So Tosafos says that's true. That's true. Tosafos b'kama b'kamos take a look at Divrei Maskil u'mei na teimra. Amar he gufha gezeira na neikof gezeira l'gezeira. B'perek kama d'Shabbos, u'b'perek b'eima madlikin, u'b'reish beya. See, usually the Gemara, if it invokes gezeira l'gezeira, it doesn't say u'mei na teimra. How do I know that you don't say gezeira l'gezeira? In fact, Tosafos says Tosafos says something even more interesting. Sometimes we actually do make a gezeira l'gezeira. Even though the rule says you don't make gezeira l'gezeira, I'll find you cases where you do make gezeira l'gezeira. Tosafos says this Gemara is like somewhere in between. This Gamera holds you know makes but you need a card that you don't make and it says these are not serious because not all were created equally. This is actually a very famous England that's why when it comes to very hard to do all of them here then it makes sense we should make here too. England you see it from the way the tackles the zero. Sometimes it's possible that you don't make sometimes you actually do make and then like in Rubenstein you wouldn't make but I would have to have a card to it. Do it have to be a source? So the bottom line is again Rubenstein bringing that the mission holds always is awesome from the fact that we made because if it's only then the for it would be but at the same time he felt that he needed a card that you don't make this so here is the not again and then we learned in the mission. This mission is in the fourth paragraph of so that was made from wheat that grew in in all is allowed to be eaten by a coin together with a on the same table. Why would you think not? Because you'd be afraid that maybe the going to eat from it and is not allowed to eat so when it comes to it is with the real that and if you eat it it would be awesome. So there we say that he can't eat it together with on the same table but being that it's I'm not so worried about. Another that's then he tell us that not just that you're allowed to give it to any coin that you want. Actually says even to a coin ordinarily not supposed to give to my and to a coin that's in but when it comes to challah chutz la'aretz, treat him more leniently give it to any coin that you want. Even if you want to give it to an am ha'aretz, that's going to be okay. Says Rabi Yosef, what do you see from here? You see from here that challah chutz la'aretz, which is assur min derabanan, Chazal didn't take it so far to say that being that it's assur, so therefore a coin shouldn't be able to eat it at the same table with his zar. Now, challah Eretz Yisrael, a zar is not allowed to eat at the same table with a coin. But, challah chutz la'aretz is different. There it's more kuladig. Why? It must be because eating at the same table with a coin is only going to be an issur derabanan. It's a gezeirah. If you If the zar is going to have his sandwich and the coin is going to have his sandwich and the coin's sandwich is going to be challah, what happens if he says, "Do you want to take a bite out of my tuna sandwich? You're going to enjoy it." I'm telling you. We're very worried about that. And as a result, we had to make a gezeirah. So, where if the zar would do it, it'd be over an issur de'oraita, then it makes sense to make the gezeirah. But, when the whole thing is anyways an issur derabanan because challah chutz la'aretz, so now it's only a gezeirah of a gezeirah. Gezeirah of a gezeirah. Says Rabi Yosef, a perfect comp to the sugia that we're learning right here. Why? Because in our sugia, it's almost the same exact thing. With dining, whether or not it should be assur to sit down, eat meat on the table with his gevinah. It's almost the exact same case where the zar and the coin are going to eat together on the same table. Are you worried, oh, you you may uh you know, mix the foods. That's exactly what's going on over here. And just like you see from the laws of challah, that we only are worried about Shulchan Aruch when it comes to de'oraita, it's not when it comes to derabanan. So, it makes sense for the laws of challah to be the same thing. If that's the case, when the Mishnah says basar v'chalav al hashulchan, even by ayif, it must be because ayif is min de'oraita. So, Rabi Yosef, shma mina basar v'chalav is de'oraita. And if that's the case, the reisha of the Mishnah must be like Rabi Akiva and must be like Rabi even basar v'chalav min de'oraita. But, either way, this was Rabi Yosef's raya. So, who brought the raya? Rabi Yosef. Who's not going to like the raya? Only Abaye. Abaye told Rabi Yosef, he said, "One day we have to tally up all these. It's a lot." Bishlo yomar Yashmi nan challah chutz la'aretz ba'aretz. And Abaye, I'm not masking for the two star meeting. It's good, but I don't agree. He said, "Bishloima, if the Mishna would have said that you're allowed to eat challahs chutz la'aretz in Eretz Yisrael. So, if a kohen is sitting down with his challahs chutz la'aretz sandwich, and he's sitting at the same table with his wife, who's not allowed to eat the challahs chutz la'aretz with the rabbonan, and this is taking place in Eretz Yisrael, and you're telling me that it's okay for what reason? If you would have told me that you would hear everything that you're saying, then but Mishna didn't say that. The Mishna is talking where all of this is taking place in chutz la'aretz. This is happening in the United States of America. It's not happening in Eretz Yisrael. You need a long plane ride to get to Eretz Yisrael. Well, if that's the case, then maybe the reason it's muttar is mishum the leka miksar it's because really there's no makom to be gozer at two a real issur de'oraisa. Aval hacha, but over here it's surely as oif and gvina. If we're going to allow you to eat oif and gvina together on the same table, maybe also basar and gvina. Maybe you can end up eating basar and gvina mechal basar and challah de'oraisa, and if you do that, you can end up eating a regular basar and challah de'oraisa. In other words, what Abaye told Rav Yosef was that when we talk about making a gezeira challah al hashulchan with regard to something that's assur mid'rabbanan, there's really two nekudos that you have to look at. Number one, should we make a gezeira, don't put basar and gvina on the same table because if you eat it, you're going to be over an issur. So, there I understand it wouldn't make sense to say don't put basar oif and gvina on the table together and eat from it together as a gezeira that you might actually eat the basar oif and the challah because if you would eat the basar oif and challah, you'd only be over an issur d'rabannan. So, we're not going to make an issur d'rabannan to prevent you from being over another issur d'rabannan. And that says Abaye, I hear and I see that m'furash in the Mishnah in Chalav. Because you see clearly that we weren't worried about making a chok as issur d'rabannan. Because you see the chalos chutz la'aretz, the kind of kiddie together with the zar on the same table, and we're not worried that the zar might end up eating the chalos chutz la'aretz. And the reason is because to be concerned that they might eat is only a g'zeirah. And even if you eat it, it's only a g'zeirah up to the real chalav. So, therefore it's a g'zeirah d'g'zeirah. I think for that you have a clear right. But when it comes to basar not eating basar oif on the same table together with the chalav, I think there's another reason s'achta b'aya you have to make a g'zeirah. Not just because if you're going to sit and eat this together on the table, you may end up eating the oif and the g'vina. Yeah, that I'm not worried about cuz that's a g'zeirah d'g'zeirah. And that type g'zeirah d'g'zeirah I have a precedent from the fourth part of the Shulchan Aruch. We're not going to be goizlin for. But why are you not worried that if you're going to do this with oif and chalav, you may end up doing it with basar b'heima and chalav. And if you're going to do with basar b'heima and chalav, and then you're going to eat them, you'll be over an issur d'oraisa. Now, I know says Abaye that's also a g'zeirah d'g'zeirah, right? Don't eat oif and chalav on the same table. I mean, just don't have them on the same table while you're eating. Because you might end up having basar b'heima and chalav together on the table. And then you may end up eating from the basar b'heima and the chalav, which would actually be an issur d'oraisa. That's also a g'zeirah d'g'zeirah. But being that Rab Yosef already proved, this is very nuanced, that you need a makor that you don't make a g'zeirah d'g'zeirah. We're not saying m'd'oraisa d'g'zeirah d'g'zeirah. Right, this is the type g'zeirah d'g'zeirah that you need a makor that you don't make. So, Rab Yosef if you need a makor, you don't have a makor from chalos chutz la'aretz. The only part of this that you have a makor from this is that I wouldn't make a don't eat it when it's on the table. You may eat it together being that even if you ate it together it would only be awesome issue of zero. But that's only in a situation where even at the worst case scenario not coming to an day but over here it's much more that you could come to an day because if you're going to eat ice when there's giving on the table you might eat when there's giving on the table and if you eat when there's giving on the table you may end up going ahead and actually eating the together with the now I know that's also but the bottom line is you need a in this that you don't say again it was my why but that's what's you need a and you don't have a that you don't make such a just explain this a drop better right why do you have that second when it comes to you know what the second when it comes to the spoke it out it's because in the of it makes sense you should have to be up to the real right why does it make sense because I live in a house where I have I have I have everything so if I'm going to put my together with the on the table while I'm eating so I may end up doing it with the and then you may end up eating the together but when I'm in all I don't have all of and even though all of is awesome issue of all of but it's it's a it's a full step removed I don't really have it here being that I don't really have it here so to make that don't eat together with the you are don't eat together with the in the all of on the same table because why because you might do it with all of and then you're going to eat the there is no all of what are you talking about so a direct comp to tell me that you see you don't make all of don't say also the all of but do I might eat that thing together that you have but you don't have a direct comp you don't even have anything close to a direct comp that you wouldn't make it there. Don't put this the rabbinic degree things on the sugar together. After you might put the day rise of the good things and you might eat that together. Because in the case of Khalid, you don't have the day rise of the good things here. Here you do have the day rise of the good things here. So maybe as that sort of saying like say you would make. And if that's the case, I'm only a bio. Again, nuanced to have you say so. I hear a partial riot to what you're saying. But I might say complete riot I don't have either way. So Rabbi Yossi said, I thought I have a smart riot. That the time of the mission holds the bus over Khalid and it said they rise and by I said I disagree. But the more I have one cash. And this cash is not only cash on Rabbi Yossi, it's really cash on the entire mission. That is master for Rabbi Shaysha. Rabbi Shaysha says the cash. So if so if so you know what I'm saying now. This whole idea that you know that sit down and eat meat on the table if there's going to be green there because of the green. Why isn't it always green? Even if it's possible to hang more, it should be green. No, you do it this after mention the cash. But this should never be such a whole line of the mission I don't really understand. You know why? Because the only time there's a bus of Khalid they rise and we said is if it's there and it was but if the bus is going to be turning and the green is going to be turning, right? They won't cook together and they're not mom is boiling hot. So that if they touched each other, you they could be by layer map with from each other. In that kind of situation even if you ate it it wouldn't be a bus of Khalid they rise. So isn't every type of situation like this anyways going to be a bus of Khalid they rabbinic. So if I think more so if so if so you know what I'm saying now. Why is this bus of Khalid bus of Khalid they rise? By I say green should be yellow but it was right there. No, because sometimes people used to put the food on this very hot tray, this boiling hot tray. And if that's the case, it's very you're talking that the bus and the green are going to touch each other and that's what we're worried about. But the more I say so if so if cliche new here. Even if you did that, but isn't that a cliche new? We know cliche new even if it's like that it's by it doesn't have the ability to be my version not in Shabbas and not in Hilchos Basar v'Chalav either. Right? The klisheni ain mivashul the maser gzeirah sh'mayala of shishim. Yeah, the gzeirah is sometimes they used to literally, right? You take the pot and you put it right onto the plate. It has some fancy name in the restaurant. So, if you're going to go ahead and you're going to do that, then you're going to have basar v'gvinah together. It is all of that this can come to a real issur d'oraisa and it's for that reason Chazal in the lo plug d'goy said assur l'havis gvinah al ha shulchan. Meaning if the only way the way in every situation would be only an issur d'rabbanan, then Chazal would not have made this gzeirah. But being that it's very possible it's going to come to an issur d'oraisa, it's for that reason that Chazal did. A little more Gemara or Mishnah. Oif oileh magvinah al ha shulchan. Oif is allowed to be on the same table with gvinah. Meaning if you're eating oif and you want to have gvinah next to it, that's going to be okay. However, d'ein ain nachal, you can't eat it. Divrei Beis Shammai. As they held Beis Shammai who be so lame. Beis Hillel says lo oileh ain nachal. You're not allowed to have it on the table together and you're not allowed to eat it together either. By the way, the stam guy schnot earlier, which said oif basar chutz m'daga v'gvinah ain oileh ain nachal was clearly going al yedei Beis Hillel. Al yedei Beis Shammai it says kulo b'shammai chutz m'basar. This is one of the very few cases where Beis Shammai is meikel and Beis Hillel was machmir. Right? Beis Shammai says you want the oif and the gvinah on the table together while you're eating, it's it's okay. Beis Hillel says it's not okay. By definition, Beis Shammai is being meikel, Beis Hillel is being machmir. This is one of those examples. Beis Shammai what shulchan b'chlala we talking about? It's dafka b' shulchan sh'oichel oileh v's. It's the table that you eat on. Aval b'shulchan sh'tzedadi oif tavshil, but the shulchan where you just you know, put the food out on, you know, the shmorgasbord, nice and zibbitzats, chashish, you can have one next to the other and in that situation, you don't have to be worried. Talk to your mar. The Mishnah began oif oileh magvinah al ha shulchan d'ein ain nachal divrei Beis Shammai. Beis Hillel oimrim lo oileh ain nachal. So, again, the Mishnah is talking about basar oif and gvina. It's discussing having the two on the table while you're eating. So, I'm eating oif, I'm going to have gvina. I'm eating gvina, I'm going to have oif. According to Beis Shammai, they could be on the table together. They just can't be eaten. Beis Hillel says, obviously they can't be eaten, but they can't be on the table together either. In other words, our stam Mishnah in the beginning of the perek was a little bit of Beis Hillel. Rebbe Yosi said, you should know, this is me kulei Beis Shammai u'machmir Beis Hillel. The Gemara assumes that Rebbe Yosi is coming to add something, right? He's coming to be mechadeish something in halacha. Not just making a cool observation, right? He's coming to actually say something in halacha. Exactly what he's coming to say. Rebbe Yosi said to the Gemara, "Tanna Kamma, I mean, he's literally the Tanna Kamma of chitem u'venei ayil." Maybe Rebbe Yosi was coming to say a chiddush. He was coming to say that even achila, a little bit of Beis Hillel is going to be mutar. Meaning, this is not just mikulei Beis Hillel that Beis Hillel allows them to be on the table at the same time. It's mikulei Beis Hillel that Beis Hillel even allows you to eat it together. Well, how so? The commentator on the Tanna Kamma by lo kam iflei gei. The Tanna Kamma said that machlokes Beis Shammai Beis Hillel was whether or not they're allowed to be on the table together. Oh, but b'achila lo pligi. But as relates to achila, everybody holds it's going to be assur. V'amrei Rebbe Yosi, and Rebbe Yosi said, "Achila gufei mikulei Beis Shammai u'machmir Beis Hillel." Then no, I think even achila is the same way. But the Gemara says it's not true. So, the Tanna goes to the braisa of Rebbe Yosi. Rebbe Yosi says, "You should know, mikulei Beis Shammai u'machmir Beis Hillel. There are six times where Beis Shammai Beis Hillel argued and Beis Shammai was meikel and Beis Hillel was machmir. Beis Hillel achas mehen, and this is one of them. Oif, oileh in my gvina al hashulchan v'eino ne'echal d'Rebbe Shammai." Come and Beis Hillel say, "Lo oileh v'lo ne'echal." It's clear that what Rebbe Yosi's version of this machlokes Beis Shammai Beis Hillel is, only with regards to whether it could be oileh or not, not whether it could be ne'echal or not. There's no Rebbe Yosi that holds that a little bit of Beis Hillel it could actually be eaten together. So again, what's the kasha? What is Rebbe Yosi coming to be mechadeish? Rebbe Yosi hainu Tanna Kamma. So, asked the Gemara, "El hakochash maran." Now, I'll tell you what's going on here. You know what's going on? The Tanna of the Mishnah wanted us to know that man Tanna Kamma, who is the Tanna Kamma? Rebbe Yosi. And why do we need to know who the Tanna Kamma is? Why can't he just be the Tanna Kamma? The reason is because maybe right Esther said and then the came. So when you say that brings the so the reason we mentioned it's just to know that you're right there's no over here but it's just because you're saying over from somebody you have to give credit to the person you're saying over. Yesterday's postgame. But the bottom line is maybe and that's the reason this is mentioned. Now if the purpose of mentioning in the Mishna is because why you just say in the beginning of the Mishna? We should have started with I say. So it's Rashi's kasha. So the Tanna forgot when he opened up the he forgot to say I say. You could always make up for right? Stealing somebody's data. So you could always say yeah you know something I should have given credit where credit's afterwards he came back and he decided to mention his name and we are going to not stop here but exhale here.