Zevachim 78

We've all learned Kish, maybe even thought we understood. But now with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature uptempo daffomi style, Rabi Bournestein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the deraim of the bass medish meets pushup shot. Discover the shear that's redefining how people learn humish. Reprly Bournestein's humish shear. Find it on the Lakewood Dafomi app or wherever this shear is being heard. Today's and we are at the Mishna the second on the bottom of today's stuff's being learned. So we're moving along in the eighth par which deals with the of where meets the topic of yesterday's was when there were aim whose din was to be misbeh some of the cases that we saw a that with a woman that with an arrive of two versions in when exactly argued but that was all yesterday's d today's is going to pivot very much and talk about not aim that were nisar but rather dam that was nisar and I think it's just to speak out a tiny bit of an introduction to today's so we know the is that when there's a suffic of sorts and there's an opportunity to go bas now now is manifest in many different ways it is manifest in the biblical sense where you have a bezdon that's presiding over it in terra you go bas's also an idea where you have a taru of two min so two distinct things come together whether it's a taru yish where the two things didn't physically intermingle with each other but rather they're all in the same area and you don't know what's what or if it's a taru We are the two things literally become one mixture there too based on the we learn that we go if you have the two things come together they mix together one is the other is do we view now this mixture as being aer or do we view it as a mut the first move would be well is it is or is it if it's would be user If it's right there, it would be mutter. What happened to the m it's how does that work? It falls under the general umbrella, the general concept of which again has so many different applications. To say that every time there's a go would be a gross oversimplification of how we view a taras. We know that there's a of ker. What's keker? It's going to make a cameo appearance in today's dam states that in the event that you have au of is but the of is in the voice even though it's only a do and the rule states but as long as it's we see that mu as if it's here it can't become and the is going to be awesome whe that's a big Shiloh that too will make a cameo appearance in today's these are some of the but the basic premise we have to know going into the and that is that as much as it's true when there's a you go but if you would have but the is being is the would still be awesome Now, how do you know if it's nice and Tom or if it's not nice and Tom? So, the easiest thing to do would be give it to what the Gar refers to as a give it to a professional chef, someone that understands taste. He has the nuance pallet so that he knows whether you can taste the D or not. The other option of course is that if you have 60 times of connected we assume that for sure there's a and as a result it's not nice and if you have less than we would assume it is nice and one of the today's and it's going to be very very murish in tomorrow's is that not every time you have a do we say that in the event that the is even where it's a m the is that it's going to be in fact the only time we say that we go is in the event that this is something that is of it's something that someone's going to eat the question is can I eat it or can I not eat it there we say that with the huge caveat of if however you have au of where there's no can I eat it or can I not eat it because no one is going to eat it for example if you would have d blood that's going that all of a sudden now was with something else no one's eating that right now there's no discussion can I eat it can I not eat it because no one's eating it anyways or if you would have a mikvah and there's a question now where you had that was kasha for a mikvah and now mayan It's not kashaw was in the no one's drinking the mikvah water you're bathing in it you're not drinking it when you have a tu of quote unquote is but it's not something that people are going to taste or eat but rather the question is more of does it have some kosheric status or not then the is that you don't go bust time we don't care about time it could be no time it could be not from today till tomorrow it's not the what then do we look at do We simply say right the answer is no. There is a caveat. There is an asterisk that you have to look at beyond the general of and the thing that you look at is literally you look at it what does it look like if it looks like the mu. So then we say that even though there's but it's going to have the status of the dom. If it doesn't look like the mu then not we don't go bus a but we go bus. We don't consider what it tastes like but rather we consider what it looks like. And really it's that last that when you have a voice of we would suggest but the big exception to the rule of which says that there are times that the extent that you feel it your is not going to be that would be true that would be true with regards to a situation of to the extent that it's going to be true with regards to other things to the extent that you can see it and it's really with that that backdrop that we begin the mission and in the event that dam that has a to go on the that all of a sudden was with water that obviously doesn't have a to go on the question is do we say that this has a dam you can go do a now that it was the mind you can't so the says in the mar in the event that this tarus looks like it's going to be what's the is because as long as it looks like then we say even if the dam is but it's the equivalent of being over here it looks like it'll say and is then it's going to be what would be if the d was not with but rather it was with y and this is a very important caveat not any wine but red wine because if it's white wine this is a different circular but we're talking about with the damn with red wine now over here it doesn't matter how much wine how much dam you're going to have it's all going to look the same and the reason is because the color of the blood is red and the color of the wine is red and as a result there's no real of because it all looks the same stating that says the Mishna there's still is the of that plays itself out. In fact, what we do is we view the red wine as if it would have been water and we ask ourselves to the extent that it would have been water, do we have enough of a ratio of blood to red wine, which had it been water, you would be able to see the blood or do we not? If the answer is yes then we see it as and if the answer is no then meaning this applies equally to by you look at it it's a you have to jump through a hoop you have to make believe the red wine was really water and then and then you ask yourself if he answers He has caution. The answer is no. It's going to be apostle. What would be if the dam if you had dam of that's that was all of a sudden with dam of regular behem of it. Now in this case for sure you have no way of knowing because this is literally d and right a lot of people to tell the difference between red blood versus red wine. But as it relates to versus how would you ever know the difference here too the is and we ask ourselves had it been water would there been a mar then if not it would be possible says this is famous throughout who holds so which means that if you have a little bit of dam that's with other you could have a thousand a million times of the dam ple And if you go ahead now and you do it's always going to be what would be if was possible. This is the first time we had this right till now the D was with it was with it was with that's what if it's with that's where there's a physical on top of the that it was with the is already different you pour it into the that's the drain that used to take all the outside of the what would be if the D was with the takes us back to the nishb we know that this had to be done with the dama Not with the what would be if the dam of the blood of the animal that's not here too says in this case it's says regarding this so wait for the for this what would be in the event that the didn't ask any questions where the dam was with or with and he did is if he wasn't and he did but the evidence going to be meaning we're going to see that the only reason it's even a problem is based on and it's for that reason it's only that it's in the event that the went and the is there's no question in the world that it's going to be again the topic of the Mishna is we have that was with something that's not and the question is how do you view it and the Mishna made a whole bunch of categories if it's within so what do we ask ourselves We ask ourselves is there a dam or is there not a similar to is it or is there not but being that this is not a so over here the question is not what does it taste like the question is what does it look like what if it was with red wine so and then we ask ourselves what if it was with so here too is it's like it was with red wine says holds anytime the dam is with yeah with you're always allowed to do because and then finally that's already a separate says who seems to be a big make these it's going to be even according to the is that it is going to be something of the says that's only true if the way that the was that the fell into the fall But let's say it was the other way around. The dam fell into the Mayan then being that when the dam started falling into the there was no way that Taru was going to have a marist. It's going to take a little bit of time for it to have a marist. we would have to build up and the minute the dam falls into the and it's with it at that point it becomes a so is so that even if later all of a sudden it looks like I don't care because what happened is the original dams that fell in before the dam became it's no longer viewed as destroy and it's for that reason this whole now is not going to be okay as it relates to dear too you have to know do I have D or do I not have D in order to know whether after there it's different meaning in the event they have do we see it as D or do we not see it as D what's it going to be it's going to be again not right to be clear this is not we said it's every time you have a where you have a mut of one thing but if it looks like the thing it's the equivalent thereof to if it tastes like the thing is that that is not going to be. So it's true for damin. It's true for it's true for a lot of we'll see soon a bunch of different but the bottom line is when it comes to in the event that you have of dam and the dam fell into the and initially when the dam was falling into the it didn't look like but then at some point it looked like dam then the is meaning what it is going to be treated like there'll be a mitzvah and the reason is because there's What does this mean? So the way Rashi explains it's that understood that the reason said is because of what is says that anytime you have something that's you have a carbon that becomes pushed away for a temporary time meaning something happened that made it now puzzle but then that something went There's a noob. It takes on a life of its own. We said that being that at some point it was knocked away. Even if that thing went away, it's going to remain knocked away. The reason said if the dam falls into the is we don't say that later when it builds up to the point that is because there was a short period of time that this dam was for sure bottled to the mind. And at that time when the dam was bottled to the mind you couldn't do with the dam once you can't do with you're out. In other words here's the punch line is saying is that the reason is not it's called and it's for that reason once it's knocked out it's going to be knocked out forever. But holds that even though there's when it comes to being that even though but once you can have a build up now right what's the now all of a sudden we revisit the you always have to recalculate right you always have to recalibrate so now you have to go and you have to make the all over again and now you're gonna end up having enough dam that it's then it's gonna be okay now this papa said, "This is really a shared a few different places discuss was clearly taking sides." But here's the point. The point is held is not a same exact sh that's not in a context such as which according to our puppet over there you wouldn't have this and this me of is going to be the backdrop now of the remainder of the take out the word. So that somebody went and chewed together and then ate them is he's going to be because it's impossible that either the pigle wasn't meaning one of the two the other and it's for that reason you now are going to be so we need a little bit of a background just on Understand the mat of the case of the case. The way Rash explains it is a person took a kaz of pigle and a kaz of and he ate it. Now someone eats a pigle the parallel the people that are and just like one is eating a kaz of orayas of pickle. One is also malus if you're eating a kazayas of noiser and a kazayas of pickle. For that reason you would think if somebody would take a kazayas of pickle of together he makes a sandwich right puts it in rye bread little mustard and he bites in to a full kaz of and a full kaz of pigle malus. In fact, why? Because this person just ate a kaz of pigle and a kaz of stating that gave us the shocking ale and he explained himself what's the mitas says when a person chews a kaz of pigle of it's impossible that he's chewing everything equally right so you're chewing the right side of your mouth the left side of your mouth but ever makes you more comfortable. But the bottom line is this. In your chewing, it's inevitable that you're going to have a little bit more of one than the other. Might be a little more pickle than nicer. It might be a little bit more nicer than pickle. So, we have to go into the gory details of this, right? But the assumption goes something like this. You're chewing now the pickle and the nicer. You have a little more pickle than nicer. What happens is that little bit of nicer becomes buckle to the pickle. Now you have even more pickle. So when a little bit more of nois now goes into that gimish that is inside your mouth it v becomes bottle to the pickle a little more noiser if becomes bottle to the pickle it's inevitable that all the noiser at that point will be bottled to the pickle and it's going to come out that the only thing that you ate from a perspective was pickle what do you mean I ate it cuz I used some noise because I used a pickle but until I actually ate it until I swallowed it until the wasma The noisy was bottled to the pickle. Here's the problem. I don't know if the noisy was bottled to the pickle. Maybe the pickle was bottled to the noisy. Maybe it was the other way around. Maybe when I started chewing, I had more noisy than pickled. The little bit of pickle became bottled to the noisy. And then when I ate more, it became became ble comes out. I didn't eat of a pickle. I ended up eating two of I don't know because I don't know says it's for that reason it's impossible to get malus. You know why? And here's the next hoop. It's because by the way the is talking and says that means in order to get you need that I'm tell the person don't eat this because if you're going to eat this you're going to be the piggle you be this you'll be either piggle or nicer you have to be clear you got to tell me am I being piggle or am I That's what's known as being that. So therefore, it's inevitable that it's either pickle or noer. The maximum don't know what to give. Counterintuitively because you ate pickle and you're not going to get malus. If you ate pickle malcus, if you ate noisy malus because he ate pickle and noer, there's going to be no malcus. Now there's two times but in terms of the there's not going to be from this I can actually deduce three number one you see that the laws are and not only true they're true for why because over here it's now I could have thought it's only true when it's maybe now what's the behind this so But this is that we know BL is based on the tension that you have between the two things in the so when you have two things that are not the same. So then we say that you can't have a mitz where two such different things coexist. So one has to submerge the other. One takes over or the other one takes over. The premise of BL always is the fact that the two things that the taras are different. It's for that reason holds on the top of the because there's no tension there. So let them live together famous not for now. But the bottom line is that the based on the fact that the two parts of the taras are very different. So there would have been when one is the other one is m. So that makes sense. I have what I need in order to have a taru. have the necessary the requisite attention. But maybe you see from here that is not why who cares that there's piggle over or noiser over pigle the mat for sure is nice and you don't have 60 he had a perfect his eyes of each there's no way in mitas he knows for a fact you're going to have shishim YOU'RE NOT GOING TO So if that's the case, this should be no because of the fact that it's because this must be a thing. And finally because then anyways of one of the two and it's for that reason for sure asks one of the which one again is going to be on the middle one the most of the three maybe and that If somebody made a dough from which is wheat and which is rice. Now this is dealing with when do you have to be if you make a dough from one of the is one of the dog or is not one of the dog. So this person made an a one of the other one of the if it tastes like if it tastes like and even if that's so why if it tastes like why do you say must be cuz it's nice and t it's based on the town kicker So you see that on the second of the but no that's not a I could always tell you maybe this is not sometimes sometimes maybe this take a look at the of that says says that in the event that a person made an again and he made it from this even if it's which means that we see it as we see it as if you're going to tell me that whenever it is bottle even when it's only it's only from the maybe not from the but from the says you have to say that agrees that is not you have to say it's really not class it's not or if it's not class the third or the second if you were keeping four is going to be a little bit of a different and that is there's no question in the event that you have a is going to make a difference in the taras and if you want to go back to the case of pigle and in the event that the piggle and the noiser were two different meaning two different meaning so for example the piggle was and the was so if they were two different then it's posit that You wouldn't have because even though it's inevitable that there's a but it's not inevitable that there's no and it's for that reason for sure you're going to have both over here and therefore if you got for both you'd get malus for both or if you got for one you get malus for one what then was talking about he was talking about and it's over there you go bus so in the event that it was you would go busting and would be in the safe of that he was talking about where they were both they were both it was the same both I don't know was the same and being it's the same men over there for sure there's no now what's the like why would there be and not that's very obvious because being that the two things are different meaning they taste differently so it makes sense it could tastes the same. If it tastes the same, so there's no for it to be. But the bottom line is that has to agree that I was that is only by you see you don't go and it makes sense you wouldn't go because there is no it tastes same as opposed to you're going to be nice now brought this and up until this point it's not clear why right we're middle learning I mean this is a it even pertains to but why we're discussing it right here in the middle of this is not clear yet. This next line of we're going to see what the reason why is it that holds that when it comes to it's time but being that physically you can't taste it. So there you don't go buser whether it's nice and time or not you just go buser right even by there's a mechanism of using the regular which is how so what we should do is we should be we should ask ourselves this is a what if it would have been would it be or would it not be if the answer is it would be then we should say I don't care that this it should still be a problem. We should still see the over here based on the fact that had it been something that's able to be it SHOULD BE OKAY. NOW YOU GOT to tell me you say that let's in our mind make believe right convert the it's our in very very very comparable case it's not we learned our in the event that was now when is the you don't go what do you go does it have a marrist does not have a marrist the said that's all good if the d is a with what if the or it's where it all looks the same. So the Misha said there's an idea. We ask ourselves we look as if it would have been water. If it was water, would the D be something that you're able to see then we treat it as D. If not, but what's the bottom line? The bottom line is that you see from here see it inside what the Mishna means to say the way we explained the Mishna when we weren't there. That's pretty obvious that's what the mish seem to be saying and that is there's an idea of ry and we look at the wine as if it would have been water and we ask ourselves would it be now enough to make it that you can't see the dam or not be enough in other words you see that when it comes to a tar we of one and mu of another where the is that if the mu is seen even if the tarus is such where you can't see him because the two things look alike but we make believe it was something else, something that you would be able to see or not see. And we ask ourselves, would you have been able to see or not? And based on that, we decide the same should be when it comes to taste, right? What you could see is the same. is the equivalent thereof to what you can taste when it comes to wants to be when it comes to it makes a lot of sense there's a mus of taste there's no of taste the problem is there's a very very good comparable to this where you have of two things that's totally not whether you can taste whether you could see where we say if you could see it well could I see it or can I not see it and if it's too minimum that you anyways would be ABLE TO SEE WE make we make believe that the wine was really water. say here too let's make believe that was we should ask ourselves could I taste it or I cannot taste it but just in the whole is predicated on the way we learned the Mishna that when the Mishna said what does it mean it means we look at the wine as if it was water and we ask ourselves would you be able to see the dam if this was water or would you not be able to say is like maybe had a whole different understanding of what the mission is talking about you know what the mission Means when it says what it means is what it means is that in this situation if there's we look at the dam as if it's meaning it's not because we go buser and I don't care that if the would have been in May you would have been able to see the dam and then it would be dam you' be able to put them because the messa wasn't with it was with and be that was with it's the proverbial right. Now is it's going to be and not do the math but rather and it's possible you won't be able to put on the one has two cases on this number one by the way the word I mean you want to tell me is a way of saying that the dam is I hear I can't argue with that but it's a very funny way of saying it just say but if you tell me it's bottle I'll everything I have to obviously I can't do with it besides I have another problem where I know that a certain we see it's the said murish this concept of meaning even if you want to tell me that you have noish from the concept of from our because maybe when the doesn't mean it means And that price is going to be checkmate because in that price for sure you're going to see what's this price. We view it as if it's red wine. If it has the ability to dilute its color it's going to be the and if not ple it's going to be ple. Now what is the background to this price of rahud. So it's interesting the gamar now is going to bring the ba. So in two lines from now the Gar is going to bring the longer version of the Bryce but we have to speak it out now already. The Bryce is talking about a case where somebody had a delete. A delete is a bucket. The bucket was Tom and he's toing it in a mahar right now cuz he wants it to be t the bucket itself has has some mashkin inside of it. There's a mashk inside and when he was he was toy it with the mashka. The question now is whether or not the mashka that's inside the bucket serves as a for the mikvah to say that the inside of this bucket never became because there was mashkin inside and that was or whether it doesn't serve as a and what from the bright is going to bring is that it depends really what that mashka was. So for example, if the mashka that was inside was water, regular water, then for sure it's going to be okay. And the reason for sure it's going to be okay is because there's a called hash. Hash says that if you have any water that comes in contact with a mikvah, even if that water is water, it's inside a ki that's in a mikvah, it becomes part and parcel of the mikvah. So I look at that mashk as a mikvah. So the entire ki is in the mikvah. I don't have inside a ki that's inside a mikvah. All I have is a k that's inside a mikvah because that m that's inside of it is is part of that and it's for that reason is it's for sure going to be okay in the event that you had red wine inside that lay that's what was inside. So then the is we ask ourselves whether or not any water that's going to get inside the actual ki is that enough water to dilute the color of the red wine in a significant way. Well, then the is that we say that we look at as if the Mayan made a hashah it really made an inroad into the and then the is that it's going to be able to be titled if however it's not enough in order for to be able to do that. So for example this just too much red wine inside so it's filled up nish almost to the top like you're making kish so now the little bit of water that's going to get in is not going to be able to make ashba on it. So then already the is that it's for sure going to be a problem. We're going to view it as being a where Yehuda comes in. Rauda said, "What would be if you didn't have water, so you don't have but you also didn't have red wine. What you had was something white. For example, white wine. If you had milk, so you had something white. What's the over there?" says Rabudo that in the event that you had some white we make believe it's red wine and we ask ourselves if the water would be able to weaken its color then it would be that in wouldn't be able to be pos but what do you see from here you see the holds there's a mus of what holds there's a mus of there's a mus of mur is an idea of right how could it be thatish told that some of rice like we saw in the south but being that it all tastes the same anyways it just goes why don't we say now I see from the you see it from the case with this with right but the even if you want to be which the doesn't like but even if you want to be that when we say it's not And being that here that there is a concept that we do say that really this just brought to ask a second onesh that is the lifeline for. So really the gumar was the the gumar's objective was to knock out then by bringing the the second the actually worked against itself because in that in that why because as we're about to see now that is only one in that he has a and what it's going to emerge then is that really it's whether you say is right if it's just speak well that's going to be the easy way out for the extent that it's always has a right to say I'm sorry always has a right to say that I hold like the other time it's the longer version of this so there was a bucket that had in it white wine or it had in the middle and then somebody was told we make believe that this red wine what's the bottom line what do you is and the way speaks out is going to tell you who are we like that you don't go says that's why I don't go ask me audishna even our even though it's not like me but really this must be right has to cuz I know that from that Bryce over there in the laws of Miko and we pass from like for that reason we are going to go like the