Zevachim 79

We've all learned Kish, maybe even thought we understood. But now with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature uptempo daffomi style, Repsuri 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 Kumish. Reprly Bournestein's Kumishar. Find it on the Lakewood Dafyomi app or wherever this shear is being heard. Today's and we are six lines from the of today's being learned. So we're in the middle of a perv specifically we are done that was of a carbon kosher and royo was nisar with something else. The question is how exactly do we now treat that d? Can I take the dam and put it on the misbak or being that it was nisar with some foreign object I can't put it on the misbeh's discussion of the Mishna the garra brought a me from which is said in the event that somebody would take a kaz of pigle and a kaz of he would chew them together and he would eat them and there would be a that witnessed it and they would warn him and say don't eat the big don't eat the noiser said counterintuitively this person would not get mus and the garra said that this of is predicated on aus and three the mitsus is inevitable that while the person is chewing the pickle and the noiser that there isn't going to be either more pickle than or more noiser than pickle. Once you have of one over the other, the thing that's the is the thing that's the m and the mu now takes on the status of the so for example if there would be ro pigle and me and noiser the little bit of would now become pigle when the person chews more even if he's chewing that little bit of noiser again is going to become which means that from aic perspective even though we started off with a kazay of pickle and the kaz of he's going to end up with two kazim of pigle It's also possible that when he starts chewing this going to be more noiser than pickle which means the piggle will be buttered to the noiser and the more piggle that he's going to chew is going to become vital to the noiser and he's going to end up not with a kazayas of piggle and a kazayas of noiser but rather with two kazim of noiser. So from a Mitsus perspective, as much as it sounds like this nice simple case, Kazayas piggle kazayas noiser in lundus once this person sinks his teeth into the pigle and the noiser then he's not going to have a kazayas of piggle and a kaz of but he's going to end up with either two kazim of pigle or two of because of that mits says I'm going to tell you three and now you're going to understand everything that I'm saying number one Meaning the would have been mocked to say that the only time we say the idea of is when one thing is and the other thing is to the extent that both things are there's says when the piggles the it's working with a real din piggle not using that word loosely and the point is it's going to be a regular bonafide of so that we're going to have either two kaz of a pickle or we're going to have two kaz additionally that because if you say that is the riso then really the pickle can't be mat the noisy and the noiser can't be mato the pickle because although it's inevitable while the person's chewing he's going to have of one over the other but to say that the mu is not going to be no that's preposterous of course it's going to be nice and the terret says noisen is not a riso So from a perspective there's no question in the world you're going to end up with and finally holds that suffic considered and it's for that reason you can't get malus what's the point cuz if you would hold the person can get malus because the can warn him and say listen I don't know if you're going to be eating piggle or I don't know if you're going to be eating nicer but you're for sure you're going to be eating one of the two let him give him astra so that now the person would be able to get Malus the ter is and it's for that reason there's no malus again said if somebody would eat a kaz or pigle you get malcus of noise you would get malcus if you eat a kaz of pigle and nois together counterintuitively you're not going to get malus why because it's inevitable that and like the it's really predicated on number one not only number two and number three jumped on the second of the class. Is it possible that holds we know Tom? What was the kick a safe of a that in the event somebody has a dog and he makes an issa out of it even if there's to the extent that the dog is we're going to see this is the first of two major shout outs that the pes is going to get in today's but and it's for that reason you see that must be because if not but we say so if this over the mid what I have is I don't have how could it be must be that is and if that's the case how could that if somebody it's predicated on three things. You want to tell me I hear even though we'll see in the course of the that not everybody agrees with this but say I can live with that it's one of the but I could live with that but to tell me there's no way in the world could have such a so to answer that made in's case you have to say's case was where the pig and the were they were both flesh. They were both they were mining that it's over there it's rice because there is no and to the extent that it was a it was a pigle of and he ate the kaz of each together he would get malcus because there's no bal over here and as a result for sure he's eating a kazayas a pigle and a kazay in fact he would be like because of that vus that he did assuming that's line up but it's over here where it was by there there is no meaning it's not the because the and the taste the same so being that the is not so it's for that reason over here and only over here you can have not being but the wasn't so fre and that's what's going to segue us into today's theor said I still have a cash because to the extent that is so that by even if you have a but if it's the is not going to be mid well then where it's should be the same thing because the way we should view this is that even though right now the word is not being but we should pull the roy card out of our pocket and we should say what would be if it was not it was would it be would it not be nice and if the answer is it would be nice and t it shouldn't be what's the precedent to this idea of our Mishna and that's why this ties into our Mishna because in our Mishna we saw that that's we'll see more about this later in the what if it's we are now it can't be determined whether it has a doesn't have a marrist because the do mu and the red wine look the same. So the Mishna said and we try to compute and we try to would it be nice and if it was or would it be nice and mar if it was M or would it not be nice and mar if it was M. But what do you see? You see that when it comes to a situation of where if it was we wouldn't simply say but rather it' be something that we would calculate in the case of our Mishna Mara. Well then the same should be true when it comes to a situation where and there is what to calculate and that is time. We should say even if it's so right now in front of us there is no mahal of figuring out whether it's being or not but we should make a and we should say that to the extent that it would have been it would have been well then should be that there should be no and if that's the case even if you're going to make a that the but at the end of the day it still shouldn't be bottled and the reason is and the The reason is because we should we should say right now one I think is worth mentioning speaks it out and that is you see from the that of is not just where do you see that because said that the is that if you would take a and you have you would get saying is that even if talking about but you should say so that you should get malus if royan is as faron. So it's very good in the world of BT we say but it's not going to give you malus meaning will say okay it's a from the fact that the gammor is asking as a cash on and the garra wants you should get malus when you eat the pickle even though it's so the hold the and the truth is you see it from the you see it from the mob from the place that you see you actually see it why because where did the The Mishna used where dam was with red wine and the Mishna said that even if you have roy red wine but in the event that the dam would have been with if the dam would have been well then if it's the equivalent thereof of then we're going to say that the dam is now not bottle and you could do what with the dam you could put it on the if you can't take dam using and put it on the it's the terretness it must be that as far but either That's the That's the gra what happened to the but still first one I can live with the third one I can live with the second one I can't live with because and even by's answer so was a half but's answer the shortest version of it is that it's true will say I know this it's But really the is what's this our going I hold like the which makes sense and although I know my is contradicted by the principle of but that's not a problem I can't argue with even my can't argue with that's fine but I have aim the messiah it's the who don't hold the right now what was this and so was discussing the the cases where someone had a delete he had a bucket this bucket was he wanted to tyle it inside this bucket that was tame he had some sort of mashkin so he's taking the bucket with the mashkin he's being ty the niden super high level 20,000 ft is whether or not the mashkin that's inside the bucket serves as a as a so that you shouldn't be able to do a proper or not. Now the truth is and the ben is asks very obvious we know is not right that's like 101. So why would the contents in the bucket be I thought is never so this is just not because we assume if somebody takes something and he puts it in the mikvah there's a little liquid on top of it that liquid attaches itself to the mikvah so that we don't view it as separating between the thing that's t and the mikvah it becomes part and parcel of the mikvah if however that dak is contained inside a receptacle so then already we look at it as a do potentially and the regular is is not going to apply. But the bottom line is is a that in the event that you have a kali that's Tommy this contents inside the kali that would serve as a now to be clear this is also going to play out in the it's only a for the inside of the ki right it's not a for the outside but the of the kal the inside of the kali all of the now has this separation so what's the is or is it not so the short answer is it depends on what kind of liquid we're dealing with in the event that the liquid is it's water so then we today that the water inside the kali is not going to be and the reason is based on the of states that if you take water even water that's itself and you attach it now to a mikvah it becomes part and parcel of the mikvah and if the mikvah is kosher the process of is that and now we look at all the water as if it's okay so that water that's inside the kali is actually we look at it as being part of the mikvah If it's part of the mikvah, certainly it's not going to be. What if you had red wine inside the gali? Then the is that it depends on whether or not the water has the ability to properly dilute the color of the red wine. If it can, if it could, the lion of kazal was maru, right? If it has the ability to go ahead and to somehow dull out the color of the wine, well then we say that the water got the better of the red wine and therefore it's not going to be a if however it doesn't have the ability to do that then yeah. What if it was white wine? What if it was milk? What's unique about white wine or milk? White wine and milk is not water. So you don't have ashaka but at the same time you can't use this formula because it has the same color high level as does the water. So the question is what would be over there that's where there was said that in that case is we ask ourselves what would be if it the wine wasn't white but rather the wine was red would it be if the answer is yes well then we look at it one way if the answer is no we look at it another way if according to the we don't ask ourselves we don't make a roy right now it's white there's no diamo What then do we do? We go bus arrive. If the majority of the water or the majority of the liquid that's inside this is water, then it's going to be okay. And if the majority of it's going to be this white wine, then it's not going to be okay. But what do you see from here? You see that when it comes to the of whether or not we say or not is and who the one that says it's not going to tell you I know I know that that's contradicted by the says however I know is really I don't hold makes sense and it's for that reason it's not contradict icted by the den of right but either way what emerges from this discussion is that there was a major between and whether we say right or not very much the gay because our said and what's emerging is that our is like but the bottom line is a major whether you say right or don't say right and the now is going to ask a from a mik that deals with the It also deals with the exact case that and the were arguing where you have a delete that was there contents inside of it. You're putting it in the mikvah right now to go ahead and do we say that the contents get in the way they serve as a or do they not? Now to be clear just for the vernacular of the that we mentioned earlier was a ethic of the vermin is going to be from a mishna in the 10th I'll ask you if somebody had a he had a bucket and it was filled with it was filled with saliva and now he was as if he didn't know this is au right in the world of not the first one that comes to mind but it's as if he didn't do the and the reason is because the consistency of it is without a question gets in the way of the and it's for that reason there's no in fact says that even though the mishna says it doesn't have to be even if there's just one layer of on the bottom that would be enough for it to be what would be if the was filled with magic word we look at the meag as if It's what's if the was mlly could be we know it would be okay if it's mlly it' be the same thing now very important rashi rashi says that is really on some level right it's called it's just the name so you see on some level it's may but as much as it's not mish may where you would traditionally think that it should be subject to the law of which is related to real as if it's because it's similar to May. Let's be honest. So we're the as if it's once we're it allows us now to once it's so therefore it's going to be okay. What would it be if the kay was mole with meas that was mished with the of the so over there the is that we don't say that the automatically is a we also don't say but rather we say that really it is a and if really it is a then you have to go bust meaning it's not an automatic checkmate there's nothing to handle it's also not you know keep in mind that we're going to say ash but rather you'll here you look at it as a so if there's of the good water then it's going to be okay and if not then already it's going to be a problem now why don't we say when it comes to the if you say when it comes to why wouldn't we say when it comes to says then even though it's also but it's very it's very and because of it so you can't be and then the punch line is the you can't make from something that's that's So independently and it's for that reason is says the who is the T of this Mishna said now how do you know the Mishna said the second case when it comes to it's who is the T that holds we said it's and it's the one that says well if that's the case let me ask you cashuba. Look at the third case. Look at the case where there was inside. What's that over there? That over there is that you go bus arrive. What's the cash? Why do you go bus arrive? When there's meat, what we should say is that the only way that the Mayan will be able to be mato, the meatos is in the event that had the May been a red color had it been would the meatas had not had the ability to go ahead and give it a mar of and it should be then and only then is that there should be a in other words is that It's clear that the mission is how do I know the mission is because the mission said and the only town I know that holds of is where did the mission say because so we know the T is then why when it comes to the is the that we go you should go you should have to what say in the Rhuda and the Bry said that if you would have the D and you would put inside of it you would put inside of it this white wine or you would put inside of it and now you put it into the mikvah. So what would be the would be you wouldn't say go you' go. So by the you should do the same thing you should also go. So why is it then if the Mishna is that we say you go B we should go B is we should go B this is the same exact case where the B said and how come in the we don't say and is going to say two in the first the second says I'm not it's not it's true the could be but it's the price of that's who is the time to the wheel. The name of that is not what does this mean in English? It means now we know sheet is bottle is telling us right here that this is really not but rather it's the one that holds okay what does it have to do with anything we're not discussing we're discussing it's the top on the that what meant to say was like this meant to say that who holds bottle so he's a big m when it comes to the if he's a big m when it comes to the then it makes sense that he would be and he would say is a tremendous so if you find that then it makes sense that you would also hold another and you would say the of but it's who holds who's also going to hold the of But himself never said and if he never said it's that he doesn't hold of Ryan either. So you're right, the Mishna is Yehuda and you're right the bryo is rahuda and if that's the case you have a stero because how come when it comes to white wine we say but when it comes to the we don't say they're both but one is himself and the other one's the price is that's who was in he's also that you say himself You don't find ever said and being that you don't find he said you don't find that he was and it's then that he's not going to hold either the way we just explained the is the way Rashi explains the gumar tus asks a whole bunch of kashes on rashi it's hard to say over the gumar because there are a lot of very very glaring kashes but I just want to mention one point what emerges again we're not going to go through the study say has a whole different also we're not going to go through but just to bring out one accuda in in short. What was a biased terret? Abias Parrots in short was the Gmorra asked the Gmorra said that I have a missionary. The Mishna says from the fact that must be the who is the must then how come when it's we should say that was what is the ter way Rash is explaining it in short that really this Mishna Mikvoy doesn't hold of Ryan doesn't hold of Ryan Where you getting roy al doesn't know the sea that is because it's not it's for the way we why even talking about in this Mishna the terrorist says the Mishna said and is the only one that we know holds and no this is not that yes it is THAT WAS THE OLD IF THIS IS NOT THAT RABUDA why we having this conversation and now I know it's that Rabuda because it says Mafur in the Mishna Royan so it is Royan so what exactly was Abaya Aani with his what did he answer yeah you want to tell me that this mission is It's not Rauuda. OKAY, JUST TELL ME THE RABUD. That's the easiest answer in the world. You'll tell me it's not Rabuda. That's really what said. But had no business saying that BECAUSE IT'S THAT THE town of the Mishna holds and the only town we know that holds is you want to tell me? No problem. I can live with that, right? I have no way to contradict that. Even though Ra is not going to live with that, but we can live with that. So but at the end of the day at the end of the day so what exactly he gave a very simple answer in very cryptic language but at the end of the day the whole premise of the was it has to be who holds in this because now have a to say that really it's not going according to that who does alib very very sle now to explain just what the Mishna would be saying you would have to say that as much as you see in the Mishna there's a royan you would have to between the railway and then the ofud and you would have to say that not all royans were created equally you would have to say that even though we're saying that it's from case two that we say and from case three we don't say it's not really because you can say there's two different that's not such a big leap because it is then there's the water as if it's red wine I mean that's a whole different type of right so that type of roy maybe we don't say that's a very very plausible mahalik in terms of how to explain the and that's what a is coming to say now what's the sh of the of the wasn't on between the two Royans but a bias being that could be it could be between the two royans twice as much with this a little bit but the bottom line is that's how you would have to come out you would have to say that the helyans are told so and I know that this Mishna holds from case two well if that's true then what happened to case three what's the gammor is this is not that raud I in case two you say roy that's all different type of roy Good. That's probably what Abay is going to tell you. That's and what is coming to say the one thing that you still have to understand a little bit is why is he getting involved in day and why is the in the it's only because we're assuming is the only one that holds a but once you tell me that this Mishna is not really going with that. So let the Mishna be I don't know let it be let it be let it be. I have no idea. Right. Let it be anyone. Fry we just had recently. I don't know. It could be anybody. It could be any has to be. The point is is that the match assume that from case two you see oh this is going with the terance is you have to be between the two roy. Again, this is not the easiest chass. But either way, this is the way Rashi explains if you prefer it. There is a starts on it goes into it's a first and either way moving along secondary said didn't want to say also is not happy with saying that the famous that holds it's And and holds that if you see in this it must be that the town of the is and it's and there's no question in the world I why then do we say when it comes to but we don't say when it comes to but rather going to tell you because we're talking about a very specific the is where The dele this bucket was we thought until now the whole bucket was Tommy even the contents we assumed was probably Tommy but the case over here is where the itself was and it was only Tommy the back of it was Tommy the inside of it was if that's the case really you don't even have to the inside what's going on inside the ki the fact that there's inside right that's the case we'll focus on the fact that there's inside who cares because The inside is tar it's all tar this there's no issue about the inside now you do need a little bit of may to go and the reason is this in the gay it's because we assume that the rim the top the is right if is tummy then the is also tummy so you would need a little bit of but you don't need enough to be so that now we could say this may inside the kali so that now the whole is going to be t because the is anyways so if that's the case why do you even have to to the inside. Why are we saying is they right? Is there not right? Who cares? Just dunk the outside in. Make sure a tiny bit makes it above sea level. And once you do that, everything is going to be K. Okay. Why do I even need to do a proper reason? Because they were worried. They were worried that maybe this person is not going to do a proper if you're going to tell him all you have to do is be the outside of it. he's going to end up doing nothing. And the reason is because was very valuable, right? Shane, the paradum is a is a tired gash. So we're worried that this person is not going to want to ruin the paradum and he's going to put it in the mikvah, but he'll never get it to the top. He's never going to do a proper because he's not going to want any little bit of may to get into the matas. So we're worried that he's going to do that. So we told him, you know what? You're not going to play games. You better do a proper fa. If you don't do a propet, you're out. you have to do a proper you have to do a proper again if you tell him you don't have to do a proper then you're worried that he's going to end up not being properly I mean if you tell him you don't have to be you only have to be then you're not even going to get the whole because you're not going to get that top rim cuz he's going to be so sensitive he's not going to want to get too close to the edge so you're going to end up missing part of the so we tell him is you have to be but being that the only reason we're telling you you have to be is because of So it's for that reason that in and of itself would be enough. That's why we don't say meaning if this was a situation where the was really we would say you could have because how do I know because I know from the case of so clearly we're going to the holds we're going according to the Tana that holds. How come in the case of over there it's either way the was that we have a mission over here that says but doesn't say what's going on over here right and the way the gar asked the kasha from the fact we said that we must be how come you don't say by the way we said it by the white wine right that's essentially the gar's kasha and for that we had two one ter is that this is not that holds that's under that's going according to that from the case of you see clearly that we're going according to that I why don't you say when it comes to we're really the and it's only because of that we're even saying that you have to get anything in there and being that all it is is to say in a that's that already we're not going to do ex gave us a very very important cla and you can spend a winter's man on this cl but for us a minute a cl and that is when it comes to the of there are times we ask ourselves is the mu being nice in time or is it not being nice in time if the answer is yeah good Not right is pretty straightforward. Then there are times we ask ourselves is the what's the is the majority this or is the majority that all we have to know is what's the majority what's and then there's other times we ask ourselves could you see it or or can you not see it what's if you have two foods emphasis on foods that taste differently it's so there even if you have of one and of another but if the do is what we know as kicker etc etc so that is you have to If you have two foods that are the same men say that's not that's proven and the way explains this we spoke yesterday that was yesterday in the event that you have two things that are not foods not things that are people are going to eat but let's say you have that was or that was with you we have two things that are not food related so over there it's to there it's tak and not simply based on but it's not only a time right when do you use that's when you go in the event that it's something that tastes that's made for food that's when you would go otherwise otherwise you would go incidentally from the way learn it sounds like the is only it's only weird you don't have foods but let's say you have two foods you're never going to go bare so for example let's say you have two foods that when But it's let's say so over here there's no time because it's when you go. So it sounds like from Rashley the way Rashi learned that the only time you go is when it's something that's not to food but the minute it's food related there's no this is a big either way going back to the very very beginning of the Why? You see from here you see from here right you don't say and you also see from here that is at odds with something just like if you have two mitzvah. So if someone's eating two things and the two things are both just like one mitzvah can't be another so twoim wouldn't be each other either. So hold that and being that knew that so won't be each other either. Now where do you find that? This is the second reference in today's reference. He would be the matzah and the he would eat them. So would he would do from the fact that he did you see this right? You see I love this and that is you see from here you see from here that if ever want to know what a brisket says over by the right he says you want to know by what's the raid this you see for me why this problem was chewing well how The is the truth if you look at Rashi says that really what should happen is the should probably because of the but the bottom line is you see from would be a by and you see it doesn't apply to must be why got the right then did he not get right said it must be that is but mitzvah is not mitzvah and if mitzvah is not mitzvah shouldn't be either what's the if mitzvah is not mitzvah shouldn't be either it's we mentioned yesterday because the whole of is based on the fact that it could be the only time you say bles with his attention we have two things that are very different that's the the famous that we have two things that are different. That's what creates the basis the premise for a bit is and are very different. They can't coexist. Either we are both going to become asser or we're both going to become I'm going to be mash on you and you're going to be mash on me. But you know to have a saddic and a rush to live side by side doesn't work that way, right? Or but the Russian and the someone's going to have the other guy. So that's true when you have two things that are very different. If the things are the same, maybe not. Well, if mitzvah are not then it makes sense. It's because they're too similar to have a well if that's the case when it comes to it's going to be the same either way. I mean sort of so thison is apta in the fifth per of makis tyrus. The background is as follows. The background is that is to not only is to but any liquid that emanates from a ZV is to an example of a liquid that would emanate from a ZV is his mera his urine. The urine of Isov is coming. The Bryce is talking about where someone had a he had a earn shard that came from a urinal anagashi that the ZV used. The assumption is that the meagim is balua. It's absorbed inside this. If that's the case, if the itself is Tommy, now the would become now the is the assumption is now this shows up. This even this shard is also going to be a little bit of aesh that we see the as being vibrant even though right now all it is is a ble and it's stuck inside this earnard. Ashi addresses what the longest to that is. But either way, this is what we need for that matter. No difference. In the event that somebody would rinse it out, wash it, right? You would think at some point someone's going to wash this. If somebody would wash it the first time, the second time, it would remain the third time, it's going to be t. What's the svara? The spara is because the first time you wash it, there's still ble inside. The second time you washing it, there's still ble inside. The third time you wash it, at that point we assume the ble came out. Being that the maragle came out at that point, it's going to be now you're going to ask a kasha if we're dealing with earnware. I thought earnware there's no way to get ble out of, right? What do you have to do with a sh? You have to break it. There's no in a mikvah. The answer is that's only true when the way the ble got into the this is to 101 came through the medium of heat. If however it didn't come through so then there is a mus of some sort of hagal even when it comes to and being that here it came simply through so it didn't come through the medium of heat. So it's for that reason in this situation there would be a concept of rinsing it out. So once you rinse it out already the third time it's going to be done. Now, we have to speak out one thing here. It segus to the next part of this B. Really, if the person is going to take this and he's going to put it in his uh sink and he's going to go and he's going to wash it out. He's rinsing it with water, right? He's going to wash it. So, you tell me to start. Why is it? Because the third time you rinsed it at that point, it's okay. Why? Why are we not concerned that the water and the ended up going right back into this? It went right back into the it was if it was so to be a problem. The answer is even if it was but the water for sure was enough to be so it wasn't just the it was the water and the lion and being that it was the water and the water was so even if it was it's going to be okay. That segus us into the next part it's because of this last nature. We said that the only time it's true it's only but let's say you didn't rinse it with water rather rinse it with meaning but even right even if you rinse it 10 times still is that it's going to be what's the reason what's the reason Because the T of this is of the opinion that and just like and is not so there's no B there's no B even though when you rinsed it all these times the lime that was came out but it was the lime that and then it ended up going right back in and when it went right back in became to so it's for that reason it's leak holds if you rinse it three times even if you didn't rinse it with water rather you rinsed it with it's going to be and what's the reason because of so even if you rinse it with the who cares the and now if it's going to be okay who is the of this we seem to have a whether or not holds holds that can't be the point is we know who is right who is the of this who must be it's by the way according to it's according to there's Oh, and it's it's the regular. But either way, who is the one that holds it's if that's the case, let me ask you a from another. And for these, it's okay. This is a fourth paragyus. So, this is real obscure says from a different piston spun flax. So is if somebody goes ahead and moves it he's going to be t why would you think the person should be because like any do noisel anything that comes from her right a liquid is to the assumption is when people used to spin flax sometimes they would take a little bit of saliva and they would put it on the flax right just to make it a little bit moist to be able to to do their thing. So the concern is that maybe the pishon has a little bit of ro of which is t. So you would think maybe it should be tongue says the you know why because that even though it's there but it's going to dry up at some point and is not hence you're going to be and the reason is because of the came out of her mouth because of this life and this is why we're quoting this brace because we're about to ask a steud said that if somebody would now take this where the was already but he would be right you would go ahead and you would rinse it a little bit it would be mashkap because we assume that the reich the saliva of the need is balour inside the pishka pish and even though Right now it's but by you going ahead and rinsing it a little bit you're reinvigorating it. You're making it lock and therefore now all of a sudden you have if you have so that's going to be a problem. Even if you do it multiple times again and again and again and again and again it's going to be a problem. What's the gamarra? The steer is that when it comes to the once you rinse it a third time, we assume the mera is out. If the meagim is out, so at that point there's no tomb anymore. Now the holds you have to make sure that you wash it with water not with because otherwise it's going to be you're going to run into a problem but leave the problem at the front door. The bottom line is the bottom line is once you rinse it three times at that point are cuz we assume that any of inside the meag inside the sk is already out yet when it comes to the pishon that may have the mashia may have the saliva of says we always assume it's there it's there it's therein it a 100 times it's going to be why by the Three rinses and you're done. Yet when it comes to the pishon that has inside of it and for the very simple terra you have to say there's a physical between removing from removing from reich gets more absorbed inside the pishon and seems to say and it's for that reason there you can rinse it a h 100 times there's always going to be a little bit of something there. So the minute you make it moist at that point you're running into a problem as opposed to when it comes to here it's not going to be such an issue. One more going back to the mission. So the which it feels like we learned a long time ago on the bottom of discuss of that was now what? So the says depends what it was. If it was with then you go that's third in his What if it was with fame? What if it was with Oh, here it too. who holds because holds we know it might be might be good the last case in the Mishna was what would be if it was see that wasn't with it wasn't with red wine it wasn't within it was with okay oh because it's right so what's the so the said over here I don't care what the ratios are there's no royance you automatically take this down and you pour it down the drain and bas says that even if there's way more dam I don't care it's irrelevant the ratios you're automatically going to get rid of it what would be if it was with the damatis that's the of the that's not included in this said didn't ask any he went ahead and did his says but what is the beer and between and really we could even go one step before the and that is what's the between or it sounds like ordinarily we're open to a conversation it's a negotiation I'm more this I'm more that right it's a numbers game there open up and try to figure out what you're supposed to do when it's much more cautious I don't care you're automatically discarding it right the doesn't ask that the goes right into the teeth of the but it's implied right so number one you have to know what's the difference between and all the other cases of the and the versus this situation additionally what is the between and so the says said you want to know what the is and you want to know why it is that when it's different what's going on over here is they were arguing whe this is the way Rashi explains the when it came when it came to that was a pleazaw were more worried. The reason were more worried is because that's something that's why is it because there's always going to be a lot of dam in the mdash right the chances of being with the chance of being with red wine seriously what the was drinking on the job you're not let do avoid so that's not and the chances of it being with you're not even so the chances of those things happening are very unlikely being that they're unlikely. It's not it's not. So there we can apply the regular rules and the regulations of and we're not going to start saying I'm afraid that with this of the good blood maybe it should be a problem up to a case where there's going to be of wine and there's all cases we're not going to make the case of regular being that's very much because there was always good blood bad blood you have to of everything going on there. So that's already a being that it's a mus is a mock to say that maybe we should make maybe we should say that even with the damos is olive will beer to a situation where the dam is really the and that is the of the hold that to make and it's for that reason in the mikt we don't make why not so truth is we know there's was mikdan's reason. But Rashi over here speaks out something different. Rash says because you're going to go ahead and you're going to make a on the expense of right now you have d this is to put on the because the d is based on the rules and regulations of go do but you're going to be and you're going to say because of but not at the expense of and that is could be holes there is a but over here not because here you're going to take and you're going to get rid of it. So in a situation where there's a you're not going to last really everybody holds even at the expense of okay so what's then is the second case is not in the case where the dam was but rather in the case where the dam was with the and the is it that there should a situation where there would be or not that is the yeah that's something that could happen I mean that that's something that could happen so we have to make just like the in the case where so we're going to be hold in a situation like that we don't have to make in other words and Papa both explain eerily similar but there's one huge according to is arguing on both parts of the said in both of those cases and the reason is because the only reason you should say we're if the is because on the expense of we're not going to make according to who's only arguing in the second case as it relates to the it's and there it's a much more nuance is it there would be more according to the yes therefore it makes sense you should make just like you made by co it's not much if it's not much it doesn't make sense Did you make things right? Just like we didn't make things by and by and by it's not it's not so as it says when it comes to it's not something one last that holds that between is only in the case where it was not in the case where the sign of the is very Right. The Mishna divided the case of where it was and separately. So according to it's very why we were why because has different in the first case there's no in the second case but according to that holds is arguing on both cases then that's a pun we should have made it between the two cases and we should have said why are we between the two cases of puppets this not so much and the oblives with a either way this concludes this next segment of these intense sugash. I just want to end with one and this is arisis and that is the primary topic of yesterday's and today's d was the of how did come involved because we had the what the Mishna say the said that or if Then so there's an idea that that's even if the dam is the mu but if you could see the dam in the dam doesn't become bottle. What would be if it was with something where you can't see it, but the only reason you can't see it is not because there's a the reason you can't see it is physically because the look the same, but if they would have looked different, you would have seen it. It's up to and to the extent if it would have been you would have seen the well then right now we're gonna say that the is not going to be right. where the came into the ethical it's a become a whole if it came because said if somebody would eat a pigle and a so the is that he wouldn't get malus pigle you get malcus you don't get malus but if you eat them together you don't get malus So the said is talking about a case where it was being said there's no time there's physically no time by so if there's no time that's where it's going to be negated but the garra said even if there's no time but what happened to our mish you see there's a concept of right we should say right what should the royan be the ryan should state that if you have a taru of two different we taste the same and as a result one can't be no in time to the other but we should say as if they were and say that in the event that had they been the would be well then so that was the how could that there's no time when it comes to what of course there should be based on trigger the whole that is the following said why is it that if you have a of just to pick a case we have a dam but you could see the d and Why is it that the is that right now the d is not ble I could see it that's why it's not ble so what I could see it why is seeing the dham a reason shouldn't be ble the reason is said because in order for something to be ble has to be bottle you have to see it as being insignificant in the tar to the extent that you could see it so it is significant and being that it's significant said it's for that reason there's no mus meaning THE FACT THAT YOU CAN see it said is a sim that it's and if that's the case if that's the case it makes sense that it should be what's the reason that if you have of and you could taste the mu is that the is not it's based on that the is that the was that just like if you eat a if you eat something that has the time of that you're also a vera the ver OF KICKER IS NOT THAT BECAUSE THIS TIME so there's no ble THE GH OF TOM KICKER IS TIME KICKER IS A NEW TIME KICKER so that it would be very very that we should say when it comes to but we shouldn't say when it comes to what's the reason by mar the whole reason where you could see the dam in the it's not is because the fact that you can see the iss that it's a double so if it's a double you can't be this there's too much of it nor says said that that's not only true where I physically see it. But that's also true if I could or would have should have seen it because the holy sight of Royan is it's a sim. It's a sim that there's too much to be. Now in this case I rather don't see a furish who cares I DON'T SEE HIM BUT I KNOW FROM Royan I know with my glasses I know just based on the concept that if there would have been two different medium I would have been able to see it. That means there's too much of it over here. There's too much of it TO SAY. SO THEREFORE even when I can't physically see it might say now is it a LEAP OF FAITH OF COURSE IT'S a leap of faith it's the it's only I'm don't even hold this whole concept of there's no one that's going to debate that is aish not coming to is a Ius the lumbness of it is that being that if I would be able to see it there it'd be too much of it for there to be bit so makes sense to say that even when I can't see it but I know there's enough here that IF THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE COLORS OKAY. SO FOR THAT FOR the for that already I could say and like this would be that we would say that there's no even if it's a but the is that there's a new well IF I DON'T TASTE it then you don't have the newer so there should be when it comes to Tomasha that if you say you have to say byris could is that there shouldn't be a is a new we all it is is a that there shouldn't be maybe for that you say makes a lot of sense it's very logical you should say if however we're dealing with which is either you have the you don't have the by I don't have the I can't taste the so to the extent that I can't taste this as if I could taste the doesn't make any sense where it's a sim that there's too much of it to say. So I know for a fact that I have a sh that wouldn't be ble if it was a if it's also shouldn't be ble that makes sense albe it with the and the institution known as but when it comes to Tom not now there's a big that we're assuming in this kasha and that is that there's a fundamental difference between how works and how Tom works specifically is just that there shouldn't be as opposed to Tom is not that there shouldn't be but it's an is truth and it's very how exactly Tom works seems to come out that there's two there's two when it comes to Tom there's a new there's called but also Tom is like and just like just like there's a mus that if I could see it that's a reason it shouldn't be bled by Tom there's also a reason it shouldn't be bled with that answer of kasha the London say not so fast because if there's two din you probably need both din and Tom the way the London say is the only reason is that there shouldn't be is because the was again there's so much to talk about that's why we're leaving it as a but this is definitely here in the of Right.