Chulin 97

Today's the of we're all familiar with the of if there's a suffic the suffic there are many things they can use at their disposal to try to figure out exactly what happened. One of those things is meaning bestdon has a right to assume that what happened is what is the more statistical probability. It's learned that from a it says in parish if a court judgment is brought in front of a a bezdon and there are several dunam sitting on the bezdon at the end of them doing what they need to do they take a vote whatever the majority of the dion think happened that's what we assume happened it's because we have a right to assume so if of the think that somebody is we'll assume that person's if of think that the person is Zakai. We're going to assume that the person is Zakai. It's based on the concept of it's something that permeates a mitzia. It comes up in seashim as well and gin and yamis and kubis. It's one of the most basic fundamental principles in the Tyra and that is that when there's a sufficenu we have a right to utilize the majority and is the suffix stating that there are many different types of there's a concept of rub which says that if I do the majority of something it's as if I did the entire thing so there's a mitzvah to drink what if I drank royal That's going to be considered as if I drank the raz why because being that I did rub is kakula. Now in that case there's no suffic there's no question what I did or didn't do. We know exactly what I did. I drank the majority of the ra stating that the law of says that if I drank of the ra it's as if I drank the entire ra that of although it has nothing to do with suffic is also learned out from there's another and that's the one that we're going to go into right now and that's of so what's says that if you have au voice you have a mixture of things and within this mixture this is and is we say that the do mu in this mixture is bottle to the do in this mixture and rather than viewing this mixture hakically as if it's made up of iser and hat we look at it 100% as if it is whatever the is so if of this mixture is hat and only a meat of this mixture is is even though technically you should see in this mixture is of a hater is we're only going to see hat because tells me that the do mu is ble to the and as a result all I'm going to see is whatever the is if the is hat that all I'm going to have in this is going to be hat. Now this idea of comes in two shapes and sizes. There's what's referred to as a and is you have three pieces of meat. Two of them are kosher meat. One of them is not kosher. They all look the same. They're all hamburgers. They all got mixed up. You have no way of knowing which is the kosher one and which is the non-coosher one. Thus you have a taru voice. Taruvo meaning you have a mixture. I don't know what is what. It's made up of isser and hater. The majority is hater cuz two out of the three is hat. The minority one out of the three is is we don't say that I have mut and user thus me suffic to the contrary what we say is we say the one that's is becomes but to the two that are as a result I have three kosha hamburgers. I'm allowed to eat all three. does if I'm allowed to eat all three in one shot or do I have to eat them is rush and it goes into thekas of the lumbness of exactly how works. We're going to get to that. But high level, there's an idea of a taru voice where it's yish. Three things aren't even touching each other. They're just all in front of me. I don't know which one is which. The is we say another example of another example of is where it's and that is when you have a mixture of things where you have and you have and they're all combined into one. So, for example, you have a pot of kosher meat that's sitting on a stove. There's it's hot. It's cooking. And somebody took a little bit of non-cooser food and he put it into this pot that has kosher food in it. Right now, it's all going to be mixed together because as the food cooks, it it disintegrates into each other. So, now you have a taru is not of, but you have the where the things are actually becoming one. Or if you took a little bit of chicken soup, kosher chicken soup, and you mix it with non-cooser soup, and now you have literally one taru voice. You took and you mixed it with kosher wine. It's a tarov. It's all one. It's a mixture. It's not just the in the sense I don't know which is which. They actually became one. There two you have the same exact and we say that of this and only of this. We say that is going to be but how do I know this? How do I know whether it's a whether it's also learned out from which again at first glance seems to be because the example of is something very different. It's a case where I don't know. We don't know. Did Ruv kill Shim? Take a vote. You have 23. If 13 of them say he killed him, 10 of them say he didn't kill him. So, we know he killed him. Now, we don't really know, but we'll assume the R because that's what the Tyra says. So, that's a good a good that every time we have a suffix, we could assume, right? So, we can take statistical probability into consideration when it comes to ascertaining circumstantial evidence. when a bezdon is convening or even a person in his kitchen he could use to be but that's all where I have a safic and I'm using the to be saf the of or what we need again have nothing to do with suffic it's not that the is being the suffic that's not what's going on we there's no suffic we know this is and we know this hat is not telling me there's no what is saying is that even though I know this is of but there's a concept called with the mu it becomes bottle it becomes tough to the as a result we don't see all we see is hat if all we see is hat is for that reason the entire voice is going to be m stating that is a very important caveat a caveat that permeates the entire sh this doen and doin of gor that are verbatim word for word that appear a few times a little bit of That is if you have a taru. Even if the taras is such where of the taru is at there and only a mat of the taru is to the extent that you can taste the meat of iser. We say that the taru is going to be awesome. Mean even though we just said that we learned from that if if I have au of iser we go b. So if is hat, we don't care that a of the isser. We would say the entire is going to be mutter. But there's a very important caveat and that is that if I could taste the that's enough to say that I'm not going to be able to eat from this. It's what's referred to in as meaning I don't have the right now of this doer because the technically is bottle. But what I do have is I have the top. I could taste the and as long as I could taste the that's enough for this is to be now the truth is of is mentioned throughout one of the more important memories in the said if you have a where it's the iser the lake olive if It's then it's but like an olive where which seems to suggest that there's two types of there's a and there's a what's the difference between I wish there was a simple answer it's it's very confusing says big argue with over there so that's something that's that's very confusing not something that we have to get into right now but for now what we're going to discuss is where it was tamo and a classic example of tamoy would be where you cooked a doer together with the do after it cooked for an hour let's say you removed the doer so right now the mamusho the do assaer that cooked together with the da motor it didn't completely dissolve together with the kosher food that you were cooking it in you removed it some of the pleto something came out some flavor for sure was emitted from this darasa when it was cooking with the da m. But the point is is that the do asser itself was removed. I mean that the daraser itself was removed. But we look at it as if it beam the would be where you took the raser you you literally disintegrated it and you poured it in with the problem is Rash doesn't say that but for now what we're focusing on is not in what said we're referring to where all I have is and this is clear a case where you cook the dust or together with the d It's always going to be stating that is what's referred to as said it's but even though it's tomorrow's says that if somebody eats a voice what's referred to as where it's because he removed the it's just some of the plas that came out of this doer the some of the flavor some of the time that came out while it was cooking together with the but you removed it of you know what that means it means it's not says a very big and the Ram says the same thing that even though throughout we know there's something called but it's not the is always going to be There's no such thing as how do I know that says if it's why if you cook together with kosher meat and now there's a time of and you eat it you should get malus for eating the time of from the fact said there's no malus that's just another way of saying that it's not stating that argues Tom argues and tus asks a bomb kash on rashik he says I don't know how rash could say Tomar is namiso. There's so many gumaras that bring a mur toker. In fact, the gumar brings several makuras to tamker. We'll mention two. The garra says it says that nazer is not allowed to eat grapes. Not allowed to drink wine. He's also not allowed to drink mishav. That means if you took grapes and you soak it in water, it sits in water for an extended period of time. The nuzzer now is not allowed to drink that liquid. Why? He's not drinking wine and he's not eating grapes. It's because when you soak the grapes in the water, Tom of the grapes emits into the water and Tom says, "Doesn't that sound like it's a r from a it says in the mish the says that you now you know is learned that from midon after the yidden fought against midon this was revenge for what midon had done to the yidden with the zis and with bum and the end of paras. So what happens? So what happens is Hashem tells the you can take all the kale you want. You can take the whole kitchen but at the same time you have to cash the kale. Why do you have to cu the ka? Because they've been using it to cook their non-coosher food. And when you cook food bio taste emits from the food and it even enters the walls of the utensils that the food was cooked in. Thus you have to have two sets of pots in your kitchen for dairy and for meat. What's the sara? The is because when you cook meat, so you now have bu you have tamik so to speak of the flesh that you cooked inside these pots. But these are the where hashem told the y and go ahead and the pots. If rash is right that time kicker is not and kicker is only then how do you have a parra that's talking about kashering? They should all be on the rabbitic level. Most raans came about by time. Why are we talking about Tom Kicker in the Tory when your mama said you're learning about Tom Kicker says this is clear that Tom kickers bottom line Tom it's also the is that Tom stating that says what about said that Rashi felt that from the fact that there's no that must be that it's not awesome it's a great place how you going to answer this Kasha And here gives a futurism to this says first of all just because something doesn't have malus doesn't mean it's not like at the same time there's no there's no malus if somebody eats a but there's one says that's brought down in that's the last thing we need for this introduction and that it says that even though I hold stating that it's not or is they right? It depends. It depends on the nature of the mixture. If the and the are two different things that two different minim then is going to be and that's what's learned out from grapes and water and that's what the concern was with the midy that's why the yen had a kasha their paths after the war against midan that's because we were concerned about with the dut and the daser were two different men two completely different ingredients if however the daser and the dut are the same. It's over there says I agree that Tom cake is not going to be awesome but Tom cake is only going to be awesome with he was referring to and by I agree Tom cake is only going to be when is Tom cake that's where it's but where it's there it's going to be only so what's the bottom line as it relates to the everybody agrees it's only if it's holds that is only is always even where it's those of but that means that time kickers only it's also the raashi and the ram and who both said that Tom is only argues says where it's going to be. So what's the is important not like but rather like in other words if you have a voice then is only going to be awesome. If you have a voice of then is going to be let's say you had a voice and before you had a chance to figure out whether there was time or there wasn't time it was if it's you if it's a then you can have a suffix. This is a very important introduction. It underpins a lot of what we're going to learn about in the next three weeks. This last piece, the fact that we pin like the time, but only where it's like, not where it's also very important. It's important when you look at and you go through the light of the we're very when it comes to we're very when it comes to because in one case we're dealing with a you always have to be the other case we're dealing with you're allowed to be there's a concept of a of a suffix but this is all where you have a tar voice of and this t so even though this versus the of but as long as the m of iser is being that's enough to say that there's going to be a problem. So much so that according to which is the going to be awesome. How do you know if something's nice and time? So if you have a say how do you know if it's nice? You can't taste it because maybe it's nice and if you taste it then you're going to be eating something that you're not allowed to eat. So what do you do? So that of course is going to be today's d. Today's daf has a lot of yoyas. a lot of as it relates to basic if somebody cooked the thigh of an animal and he didn't remove the so we know is the itself is you have to do maybe we don't do nikor today but you're supposed to remove the gid from the he didn't do that and he now cooked them together so essentially He cooked a der and a m together. What's now? We know what that means. What do you mean? There's more kosher than non-cosher in this voice. There's more than there is g. The g is one vein. It's a nerve. That's all it is. It's a sineu. So what's the big deal? You certainly have a right. That's true. You have a right. But is when you have a taru voice of two things were cooked together. You have to make sure that the is not being nice in town. Incidentally, if you remember the right at the beginning of brought a riot from this Mishna that the Mishna inh is of the opinion that because really it's whether the is even capablely speaking to emit flavor is it or do we look at it as if it's actually food regardless it's also the Torah says you're not let but from a from a from aa perspective do we look at the g as if it's capable of emitting time or not. That's a discussion in the from the fact that we say the said that's a that's a that the time that the holds how do you quantify whether there is time or there's not time. So you would say how do you always quantify whether something has time or not? But here there's a very interesting a very big assh from the meaning there really isn't a good reason for why we do it this way other than the fact that this is the messiah this is what told what we do is we look at the g as if it's meat we look at the as if it's turnips we ask ourselves if you had this ratio of meat to turnips would it be no if the answer is yesur if the answer is no then it's going to If you cook together with other if you recognize which g is the then is you remove the and whether or not you're allowed to eat the other is dependent on whether the gan was enough proportionate to the other to be nice in time the if you can't recognize which is the all going to be what about the That's the sauce. That's the soup. That's the the liquid that it was cooking in. That's always going to be the nice and tam. If the gid was able to be nice and tam, then the right is going to be us. If it wasn't able to be nice and tam, it's going to be same is true. If you have a piece of you have a piece of non-cooser fish, we're cook together with kosher fish or kosher meat. If you recognize which piece of meat or fish is not kosher, you remove it and as it relates to the other pieces. So again, if it's the other pieces are going to be if it's not, the other pieces are not going to be. And if you can't recognize which is which they're all as it relates to the right is going to be incidentally the Mishna says if you don't if you can't recognize which kid is the well you can't recognize which is the one that's non-coosher. So all the and we keep on saying it's because how you allowed to eat you don't know which one's the gan. How could you take a g and eat it? It's not so simple. In fact, is going to ask a why don't you say that the non-coosher g the and the kosher g are now in au of y and y is bottle and over here you don't have the of is when you have au voice of where the two things actually merge they became one but when you have au of you have the of and you don't have a problem of Tom. So why is it so in the Mishna that if you don't know which kid is THE OH YOU HAVE TO GET rid of all them why it's saf it's not a suffic isn't this place it's either way the first someone took the hind quarters of the animal he took the thigh where the is he throws it into a pot boiling water he's making a a chicken soup a stew or uh making some sort of food and now he realizes he didn't take out the gdan so what's the isha what's the and the ish And we have a a formula that was handed down to us from Sai. How do you figure out this formula? You view the gid as if it's you view the as if it's turnips. And we ask ourselves if this was flesh and turnips, would it be nice and tough? If the answer is yes, it's going to be a problem. Made a very important only true. But what if it wasn't cooked together but merely roasted together? So it wasn't immersed in water in a pot on a stove. You cooked it. You grilled it together. Then the is then you don't have this. Then we don't say that the is and unless you're able to be the of the g by the using the formula of it's going to be awesome. There the is the G remainser as it relates to the is in fact you can cut you can chop you can hack you can peel up until the g up until the g you're allowed to eat meaning there's a fundamental difference when it comes to is of between cooking and roasting if you cook two things together so then already you need a shar of if however you're roasting two things together then there's no of and the reason for it is Very simple. When you cook two things together, the fact that they're immersed together in water makes physically the flavor of the daraser distribute into all of the da. So as a result, you have a problem because now the t of the is is going to be distributed amongst the entire what distributes it amongst the rashi says the liquid that it's cooking in. But the point is is that they're together in a pot. They're cooking together. So now the T is going to be distributed being that it's going to be distributed. So now you have a really but most notably because the T of the is going to distribute into all the when two things are being roasted side by side. There's no there's no agent that's distributing the time of the as a result you don't have the what is the the simple reading sounds like everything is meaning the g was always and the nothing happened to the stating that says that even though from the it sounds like you could eat the entire you can literally eat up until the g it's not true and says based on and this is really 101 And that is that even though when you roast a daras and a da mut it's not the same as cooking but at the same time we do say that a little bit of the darer spreads outside of the darasa into the da mut. How little either a kad khalipa or kadilo kadipa kipa is a shell. It's a peel. So it's not very thick. The thickness of a peel which is very very thin. Which would mean that when you roast this together with the you would at the very least have to remove a little bit of the yeah but it's something that much you would have to remove says maybe it's a little bit more which is the width of an so that's already a little more but the bottom line is the sounds because even though is not but something of the you would have to remove but regardless we want to ask is that true is it true that there's a difference between cooking and roasting. What would be if somebody took a and he roasted it and he never removed not he never removed the so we know this for him in an animal that are not kosher. So what happens if somebody roasted a gi together with it also you're not let even the tip of its ear even the ear of the you're not let now there's no way that the how did the concern that's the in this get to get to must be like the says we always assume that the is going to spread but if right that that's only true if it was cooked In the worst case scenario, you should have to remove in this case like says but how is it possible that even the is going to be also that's way beyond the or what do you see from you see that there's no difference between say the no raun was talking about roasting a with its fats was talking about roasting a with Gdan the is not fat it's nothing and being that it's a it has no way of spreading is different the fat of the spreads it's what it sounds like it means it's like a flesh of a word so it spreads throughout the meat and as a result it even can go to the meaning it's when he said it doesn't spread he didn't mean every case he didn't mean every he was talking aboutishna Our mission is discussing. Is that true? We always assume spreads from there was a story that happened in the times of it happened in the in the what was the story was brought. Somebody did this real story. He roasted a together with it. And they asked the question to the what do you do and said, "Oh, he roasted it." He passed like he said just cut it up up until So what do you say? You don't say. I mean is going not like so we thought maybe he's not contradicting but same exact not he was also talking about was talking about is talking about said why I only roasted it in the same exact was and what did says the says that case was talking about a animal that was actually doesn't say what means says the first wide line it was a lean animal and a lean animal's fat is leaner as well. So when we say that's a animal but if you have a leaner animal then you don't have that says a different maybe means means there wasn't that much and the little bit of that there was was so but he held it was I mean that he held it was bottle that's why it was okay but either way you have to say there was a difference between the mitus of in Rahuna's case and the mits of the in's case that's the first answer said a different the case of was where the person had cooked the kidneys together with the what's the difference if it's the kidneys because the kidneys we had earlier there's a chrome there's a membrane that separates the kidney from it being that there's a membrane that separates it it obstructs the from being able to be mea so it's true sha but there is an exception to that rule and that's the fats that are on top of the kidney Why can't it be because of that membrane? That's what was referring to agrees with had it been other parts of the he would have agreed that and it would spread even to the ears of the animal. But as it relates to this particular it doesn't really get going too far because of this membrane that's obstructing it. Ra said a third shot and his a total game changer. He said that wasn't the Shiloh. Whoever said over the Shiloh said over the wrong Shil. They didn't come to the and tell him this that roasted together with wasn't the Shil. The Shil was somebody had taken non-coosher fit and he cooked it. This non-coosher fish together with kosher meat and then he quickly took out the non-coosher fish but it had cooked together with the kosher meat. Are you allowed to eat this or not? And he said, "Give it to a nonJewish chef. Let him taste it." And when he tasted it, then we'll know exactly. The bottom line is it wasn't a case of it was a completely different case. It was a case where somebody had cooked non-coosher fish together with kosher meat. Oh, very good. We're going to talk about that. What was but rather was I used to be very bothered with the following price if somebody has a don't cook in it and if he did so then it's meaning he has to see if the flesh emitted any flavor into the dairy that you cooked inside. If it did, but it's a problem. If not, then it's going to be okay. Another says somebody has a pot. He's a cayenne and he cooked truma on a regular basis. You shouldn't cook if you're not a cen in a pot that was already cooked. If you're a cayenne, that's not a problem. But let's say I'm not a cayenne and I want to make dinner in a pot that belongs to a cayenne where he had previously cooked chuma in it. It's an issue because when I cook in the chuma pot, a little bit of chuma is going to emit into the food that I'm cooking and it's going to there's going to be a tar of truma as a zar I'm not letting you eat chuma the ambisha let you do do it but I said you're supposed to taste it see if it gives time so said this always bothered me this always bothered me what bothered I understand when we say with regards to chum I know what it means what it means is you give it to a and you ask the kan to taste it If this Truma what's the problem is allowed to taste Truma anyways says it's a very easy lipmus test a very easy way of knowing whether it's nice and dumb or not you find a someone who's allowed to eat truma nice and t who's going to taste it how you going to find a you need someone to taste it who's going to taste it you can't taste it because maybe it's nice and tid if it's nice and tid you can rely on a that when it comes to tasting food to determine whether something is in time or not in time. you're allowed to give the food even to a non-Jew then it's not a big deal says in fact came and summarized the laws of in a few lines he said sometimes the said that when you have a what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to determine whether or not it's time what are examples of that number one the rabb just mentioned So most times talk about the and they say what does it depend on is it then there are times where the said give it to a non Jew a non-Jewish chef that's what is says like a baker a chef you give it to him to taste where did you find and say that that was that we just mentioned and sometimes you findish says over there you find the laws of of but bottom line says which one is it is it is it or is it sounds like you give it to a taste means you can even give it to a nonjuda taste and sounds like just do the math so which one is it said if the is two different meaning where you could taste it it's discernible meaning the two things taste differently and both ingredients a mut what does it mean is to the head they were both a mut such as truma and the truma is mut as long as you're the is to everybody so it's the truma and the not the same men they're both mut to someone then you find the find let him taste it the if it's but this is such it's two different and it's the isura because in the event that it's nice and t is not So then you find the nu to taste it and if the then nobody can taste it because they taste the same or if it's and it just so happens that you don't have somebody to taste it. So then as a default option if you don't know what to do then you're going to have shish. So it sounds like there's three ways three methodologies that we have as resources to determine whether something's nice in time or not. Give it to a y to taste. Give it to a nonju to taste. It sounds like the preference for sure from this gar is give it to a yid. Option B would be to give it to a non-Jew. Option C by default if you don't have a third one of the first two available. So now what you do is then you can rely on shisha just one. I mean there's so much here but just one. So we mentioned over here you give it to a non-Jewish. What does that mean? You trust the non-Jew right? says a few short rashes on says Rashi says the only time you can trust a non-Jewish chef is if you don't tell him that you're relying on him. Once you tell him you're relying on him, then it's not so simple that you could trust him. So what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to do it. And as long as it's meaning you don't tell him that, you know, we have a sh we're not sure. Do we can we eat this? Can we not eat this? Do we have to throw this out? It's going to be a big hassid. Way too much information. What you have to do is you engage him in a conversation and you try to in a subtle way get from him whether or not this thing has the taste of the double asser in it or not. But if you're going to ask him point blank and he's going to give you a point blank answer, then you can't trust him. So the only time he's believed is if it's just the opposite. Tyson says that the didn't say just go over to any oral. What the Gar said was go over to go over to a professional. Why a professional? Why a chef? It's a P. What do you mean? Because he he has the pallet that will be able to ascertain the 159th of Isra that there might be. He says that's not what it is. What it is is that you're going over to someone who does this for a living. He's a professional. And anytime you're dealing with a professional, there's always an there's an that a person is he's not going to tell you that you don't taste the raser. We're really you do taste the cuz it's bad for business. So therefore, you can trust them. It comes out Rashi and Typhus are saying diametrically oppos according to Rashi the is not allowed to know that you're relying on him. According to Tyus he has to know that you're relying on him. According to Rash if he knows you're relying on he's not believed. It has to be according to Typhus. The reason we're trusting him is all because of an if he knows you're rely you're asking him a professional question he's going to tell you the truth because as a professional if that's the case he has to know you're relying on him cuz if he doesn't know you're relying on him then you don't have the one question that grapple with the in the beginning of is the seems to say the way learned it oh you know why you could trust an what's the big deal is that So there's like a new concept that anytime you have a question you want to know could I trust a nonJew or not trust a nonwe it's a problem because the says that the only time works is by the only time it works is by the only time it works is by this is not so mean there is a concept you go through you know Chu with regards to a big sha comes up all the time but that's based on a foolish 114b where says you can trust the of an isha and a when it comes to isa but it's it's an where do you find anywhere this idea in an outside of that's what many one that say which is very nice in lie of the introduction that we spoke about is that that's only on a dissa level. So when it comes to then that the only time works is so of course it's my works even for people that ordinarily we would not trust because of the is there's a lot of coolers in but as it relates to their works even outside of and that too who holds that is always a question of a it's never a question of so really we're discussing a but not a level discussing a on a level I mean they're discussing on the level by work this other very important to this we'll have to save that for another day either way another very tons of there or yidden in the house of des galusa. A lot of the stories that the garra brings went down in the house of dish gala. So somebody had salted the thigh of an animal and he didn't remove the gdosh. He didn't cook it like the he didn't roast it like he salted it. What's the question? And they brought it in front of the brina. Ra says he can't eat it. Then they brought it to take out the word ash. They brought it to he said it's also then they brought it to he told him I have from my father said it was so you have and who held it was ra was also told why do you think it's aer he says oh I know why you think it's aer you're basing it on something said what did say another one of the more important members in the sugu something that the Gar is going to discuss in great detail in if you salt together we have to look at it as if you cooked or roasted is together the same chemical reaction that food has to cooking and roasting food will have to saling. So if you have and you salt it the is you have to start worrying about andas and the whole the of and are invoked when salt is a medium because salt somehow has an ability to create please don't play this even a discussion if you're allowed to salt food on shabas maybe it's so said like this that when you salt food as if you roasted the food if you soak food in pickling spices. No heat. There's nothing hot. But you pickle it. It's as if you cooked it. In other words, you see and now you went ahead and you salted the together with the so that's why you said it's told I know why you said it's oh it's because of right said. So if the Gdan was salted together with the so the salt constitutes if it constitutes thus he gonna have a problem but what was the followup this was all a setup what say if you meant that then you forgot the other say means it's like it's as if they were roasted together himself said that if you roast together you have to take But there's no and he contin said it can't be said two things. If you salt together, it's if you pickle together, it's so what does it sound like? Is not cuz if was also then would use the same word to describe what happens when you saw two foods together and to describe what happens when you pickle two foods together. From the fact that he used a different word, you see that only. So the bottom line is told if you sort the together with the I don't understand why it should be at worst is means if you would roast if you would do real with the it wouldn't make the like the garra said if that's the case why should salulting the be any worse and the says when we assess every time we assess shish like in the Mishna's case you cook the together with or anytime you have where you cook the together now we're trying to determine whether it was nice in time or not and we're relying on so how do you assess the we take the that's the soup that it's cooking in into consideration says that's the little bit meat and spices that go to the bottom of the pot. You take all the into consideration, all the kosher pieces of meat, you even take the pot into consideration. Some say, some say the entire pot goes into the calculation. Some say you have to figure out and Rashi says it's not easy to figure this out, but you have to figure out a way to calculate how much he is absorbed in the walls of the and that adds into the calculation of shish. Meaning when we take the kad thera counts when we figure out shish why would the count because we assume that some of the iser gets distributed into the so of it gets distributed into the ker there's no reason the kera shouldn't count as part of the matal as part of the shish the question is is it the entire meaning what's the maximum volume that this pot can contain and we're going to throw that into the heer side as far as the shishim goes or no we have to try to figure out how much of the Heather versus the Iser. How much of the he is in the walls of the And it's only the ability to count towards the shish the says some say the entire the maximum volume of the is what counts the you have to figure out it's only the amount of that are in the and again it's only the ble of not the of because if you cook together just like this he in the walls of the going to be Also the isser counts towards the not towards the so it's not clear how practical this this is but the bottom line is those are the two that the gives one more and then we'll speak some every time you assess the way you look at it is you look at the as if it's either onions or is leak and you ask yourself if this is leak or onions and it was mixed together with this amount of meat Would it be nice in time or would it not be nice in time? Meaning you don't taste it. You don't even do shish. This is what you do. You make believe it's but now Rashi says this is all before the said shish. Now that we have shish this is not true because we have shish but preish right pre this was the was you look at the is as if it's butel or and this is the way you assess it why onions and leak like what does that have to do with anything oh probably because that's like something really sharp and we want to go with we ask ourselves if this was like the type of food that's that really knows how to be noisy Sing is that the sharpest food though and real spices, pepper and the real sharp stuff. Why don't we take that? And by the way, you see in that those things are so potent when it comes to being. So why don't we take that? He told him had this cloud that from all the things that are there's nothing that has an ability to be more than exhale. So we just learned a lot and we went through a lot of this as it relates to the but just one and that is the had brought a story. There was a sh that was brought to it took place in the bases of and there were two versions of what the story was. The first version was uh gi was roasted together with its and they asked on is it okay to eat or is it not okay to eat said you could eat the you can't eat obviously but the itself you could eat you have to remove but other than that you're allowed to eat and the thought it was a very big because didn't theor say and the gave two explanations why this was different but there was another version of what the story was the second version was what happened was there was somebody had a pot of kosher meat and accidentally put non-coosa fish into this pot of kosher meat and they broate they asked him what the question was told him that no Jew can taste this to determine whether or not you have a tom of the non-cosher fish they removed the fish obviously but if whether any tom was left over but at the same time you can give it to a non-Jew and Ruba was very taken back by that he said, "Wow, I never realized that." He says, "Now I know this Bryce and and and Raik got very excited with this this but the bottom line is take the non-coosher fish out and then give it to a non-Jewish chef." According to Rashid, you can't tell him that you need him. It has to be just the opposite. He has to know you're relying on him. His license, his professional license is on the line. This way he's for sure going to tell you the truth. there's anus over here even which in of itself is aes bottom line is that's the but asks and that is that we know that say and this of has ramifications says as follows we had just now in the sonar saidur so this is in a context the context is are you allowed to eat meat and fish together said raashi you cannot eat meat and fish together even if you didn't add any milk there there's no question about everything is kosher it's mahin it's with a all you did is you put some salt kosher salt it doesn't matter why for two reasons number It's not good for your breath. It causes bad breath. But more importantly, it can cause a person to have in other words said a person is not allowed to eat meat and fish together. This is brought down in says person has to be careful not to eat and together because it can cause a a person sarass. The Taz brings a big what would be if somebody cooked fish and meat together and he realized kosher everything was kosher and he removed the fish or he removed the meat but at the same time it was nice in town. So is there a au like how do you look at this this one line that has affected Jewish menus for millennia this one line that's the whole line he said what happens when this line of meets how do you look at it says the like this if there's no of course it's going to be a problem I mean you have a nice and if is true when it comes to regular it's going to be true when it comes to fish and meat together that says the t I'll tell you where it gets interesting what happens if you do have what happens if it's not what happens if you know for sure the dust has not been into the motor says the brings from the said then it's going to be because just like the if the shisha meaning it's not in time so the is so when it comes to fish and meat this is going to be the same stating that says not everybody agrees with that. He says holds not that way said that when it comes to fish and meat there is even if it's not still it's going to be isn't there we just said now there's a concept of says yeah that's when it is but this is and thear says and the context over there is the gamar says you can't go when it comes to even though always works yeah but there's no when it comes Oh, THERE'S NO RHYME. THERE'S NO EITHER AND IF THERE'S NO said from the is this is in the Zion days and in it's bottom line this is a big time whether or not we say when it comes to au of sak of fish if that's the case what's going on over here said you know what the mak was You know what happened over there? What happened over there was somebody had cooked fish non-cooser fish together with meat and he was HE TOOK IT OUT BUT THERE was a question now is the shishim is it nice in town or is it not nice in town and he br and this ISSUE HIS SACK THAT you can trust the non you can give it to whatever but the point is you can tr what were we trying to determine we're trying to determine whether or not you taste the fish forget about the non-coosher Forget about the question of giving it going to work. But there's another problem. There's a issue. And when YOU'RE DEALING WITH SAK DOESN'T WORK LIKE THE DARKASH who holds that bit never works when there's a question of sak then what was this will help you for the fact that the fish was non-coosher for the component for the malus component but the psychonic component is not going to help you for says the rash I believe that this gamorra is a ria to a tremendous that says in that is that the only time there's a to eat fish and meat is if the fish and the meat are both kosher. However, the fish is non-cooser. There's no says being that we were dealing with non-cooser fish. Oh, it was non-coosher fish. Therefore, it's going to be a moot point. I saw in the he brings a chuva from the init it's a long chuva at the end of the chuva the says that I remember that I saw in the shuves so the shilvas Ira was written by theam ash theam ash was a talifer he's also our in-house mayor Rosenberg's grandfather and namesake so theam ash who was uh who was a Talmed of the asked for this kash once he brings in his troub that he once asked the reb this and told him the same terrors he told him often he said it's a riot in that says that it's only it's not and this was that was the case over here and mean that it was for that reason it's not going to be an issue but that chuva of the chib is a fascinating chuva the original shil that was asked was as follows there was a woman. She's making shabas. It's er Shabas and there's a lot of pots on the stove and it's a big tommo, you know, the kids, everything is it's it's wild. It's 2 hours before Shabas and she had her chicken soup cooking and she had her water that was boiling. She was had her gapilta fish in her hand. She wanted to put the gapilta fish into the hot water by mistake. She dropped it into the chicken soup. She cooked it together with the chicken. The question was and she come she quickly took it out. It sat there I don't know a half hour and the sh are you let to eat it or you not let it. And she sent the Shiloh to her local rabbi and the local rabbi came up with a hesh. He wanted to say it's mutter. He said why is it mutter? He had a spec. Bottom line is this r sent the shil to the china. So nice shil. See that assuming this is already after shabas. I can't imagine this all happened right before shabas. So he sent the sh sent it to the and he asked the what's what was the so said like this as it relates to spec faker is a mistake cuz could you rely on spec when it comes to s you can't rely on and the says you can't rely on it's not so posh you can rely on speech fake now the truth is in the d we spoke out of f the truth from the we didn't speak it once twice in the beginning of the about sex fake with a pri with festerate but the bottom stop you can rely satisfaction is fake either. So the question was is it going to be okay or is it not going to be okay? See he said twoas and we have time for one. The one that we have all of time for as he said there's a rule in it's called what does that mean that if a person is doing a mitzvah he has nothing to worry about he doesn't have to worry about questions of he doesn't have to questions of of said this woman was cooking for shabas this IS A SH OF oh he said you have nothing to worry about that was he said everything was going to be okay. So I'll just tell you one I found in a shamar was written by Leo Rabinowitz. He was one of the who lived before World War I. It was nifer in 1911 and he discussed a similar shah not a case of chicken soup but he discussed a similar sha of of when it comes to a question of meaning but there's a there's a school the school is called you're doing a mitzvah he brings that about this a big spoke about this where the place can discuss If a klanis is allowed to do yum, right? So when you learn there's this the it merges with right. So is is a kalanis allowed to do yum. Is it okay? Ordinarily a woman that was married twice or three times rebels now get married again. Why not? Because she's a what about in the context of said that it's a where he said and as a result it's okay for a to get married. Raenovich took umbrage to this. He said it's not posh at all. It's not so it's not oh very talks. Excellent. But he said that that's the whole truth is about but he says like this just one we're going to end with this. He says that if someone does a mitzvah doesn't absur he won't be informed of any. So someone who does right and brings this because he's bothered with this. So he says a he says that the word mitzvah is me if you flip it with is and which means that the word mitzvah withash on the first two letters the me and the become a y and a then you have the v those are the last two words of the word mitzvah make up the hav says the you means if someone does a mitzvah and is the word mitzvah the word mitzvah has the shame without then you have the sov he hasn't mind 100% but said the it sounds like from this that it's only But if you don't do it's going to be a problem. He says now everybody knows who's said we stopped we don't do today stopped. The reason he stopped he said he said because the only time works is if you mitzvah and if you don't have a mitzvah then you're getting involved in which means you're getting involved in you're getting involved in very bad things. So said Abash we don't do anymore because I'm worried about a Vlad and even the Raan that argued with Abash then arguing with the mitz everybody agreed that there's a WAS SAYING SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE that you're going to have a mitzvah and if you're not going to have a mitzvah so there's an ISSUE this is all the raid and all the in the beginning of parag BUT FORGET ABOUT all that raid practically speaking there's a good chance that when a person He's not going to be if he's not he says I don't know if you have the rule of you only have if you're doing it but if you're not doing so he said to go ahead and allow a person to go into a based on this makes it not so simple it has to be which is and then otherwise note was between mitzvahless tibio I'm sorry sacono tibio and sacon that are not tibio meaning there are certain sac that are real saconist can't walk on a right go on a tight rope and say mitzvah because you're on your way to to do exactly right to go do a mitzvah but you're eating fish and meat so you have to know is that a sakono tivvy is that not a sakono tiv either way fascinating raid a troo from the chabina a troo from Rabanovich There's a troop from the it's 101 that we're leaving on the table.