Hilchos Shabbos: Borer and Ta’aroves, Removing Bones and Peels, and the Definition of Mixture

Transcript

I know that I confused a little bit. I'm sorry. I thought I would be clear. Maybe it's just that the sugya is a little bit harder. Whatever it is, we'll go through it again. We'll go through it. I think the Trumas HaDeshen is before the Rama. I think the Trumas HaDeshen was before the Rama. Right, so I think, see, maybe I missed a little. What happened? I said yesterday, yesterday, the Trumas HaDeshen is... The Rama was before Trumas HaDeshen. Oh, I didn't understand you. I said that the Rama brings the din of the Trumas HaDeshen, and I thought you're correcting me, and I was thinking, I don't fight with you. The Trumas HaDeshen is before the Rama. I didn't say it that way, that the Rama brings the din of the Trumas HaDeshen? I heard you said, I'm not a good... I said it backwards. Okay. Al kol panim, the Trumas HaDeshen, siman zayin, and that is that even though, svaras halev, he says, svaras halev tells me that if it's two different noticeable pieces, there's no ta'aroves, and therefore there's no borer. But because the Rassag brings it down that way, and there's a chiyuv chatos involved, you can't argue unless you have a raya ברורה the opposite. That's the crux of the Trumas HaDeshen, the yesod of the Trumas HaDeshen. And therefore he says, shnei minei ochlin, and that's this Rama, that shnei minei dagim mikri shnei minei ochlin, v'asser lifror echad mechaveiro b'yado k'dei leochlo miyad, af al pi shechatichos gedolos v'chol echas nikeres bifnei atzmah. Here we have, even though they're big, and even though they're noticeable by themselves, still it's asur. So we said over from the Aruch HaShulchan. The Aruch HaShulchan said... There's big, and then there's very big. This is big. The Ramban is talking about big, big that it's niker. But if it's so big that it's not even choozable, there's nothing to choose. You just take the one you want. There's no beir. There's no beir. And yesterday we spoke that these are very hard gedarim, because what's called big and what's called very big, and who decides what's called big? You know, how does it work? So we said over from Reb Shlomo Zalman, and then last night I saw there in this Karelitz says the same thing: hargashas bnei adam. It's just the way you feel, which is a very hard thing, because it comes out it's subject to each individual person's understanding. Some people— Yeah, so that's the pella. No, it's not a pelladike thing. It comes out that it's something so subjective. You know, some people have an ayin gedolah. Some people like big. You ever see the cars? Some people like big, car, big car. Some people like a tiny little compact. Everybody has a different thing, what's called smug and what's called— Maybe she's a pella; she's a bunch of little pieces. The guy sees the same pella. Exactly. So what are you going to say, a lady is a different beir than a man? That's the middah. But they will say, I mean, that's the rule that's brought down. Now— I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. You don't have each one in the wrong side? We could have a dayah? We'll get to that later. I want to go first through the yesodos, because I think if I give you the yesodos and then each one can apply it the way he understands it. Let's go through the yesodos. The first yesod is, and we're going to learn a very interesting cheshbon. That the Aruch HaShulchan says that even in the Ramos case, you know, maybe we'll do this afterwards. Let's go in order. So first, gedolim v'nikarim is subject to the way it looks like, meaning if it's that big and it's that noticeable, then there's no issue. Okay. So we begin by saying that there's different— Huh? So that's the question. Let's first see what, and then we'll apply the rules. So I want to tell you that there's actually four, four different scenarios of taroves, which the poskim discuss, okay? And I want to be clear about it. The first thing is completely me'urav, completely mixed together, all right? So iso, we spoke yesterday, and I wrote this here. I don't mean flour and water, because that's like really, really one entity, even a little less than that. For example, the case in the Gemara, that the flour had stones in it. Flour and water is a lot more echad. Right, that's what I'm saying. It's so echad that it's—it is what it is. So obviously you don't need the mixture of taroves of flour and water.

To be aser. It's a lot less. That's what you see from the story, because the story in the Mishkan was, it was the flowers with the stones, the kemach with the stone. So it's not, but it's definitely one entity. No one's going to come and say, Could you pass me the flour with the stones in there? Flour, flour, stones in it. So it's one entity. So that would be called me'urav k'echad mamash, right? Mixed together. Not like flour and water, you don't necessarily need, but as long as it's one entity, and it would be defined as one entity, okay. Then you can have a second situation where it's not even me'urav, bilti mixed. But I thought you said the yesod of borer is ta'aroves, mudbak, attached. How do I know this? Give me the case of the apple. No, the rotten apple, no, Mr. Burris, we spoke about rotten apples. The rotten part of the apple and the good part of the apple are not mixed together. Are they mixed together? There's a rotten part, and then there's a good part, right? Huh? I'm sorry, I can't hear. Not necessarily. I mean, you can have a rotten part and have a good part and still borer. Yeah. Mudbak is a more direct. Right, mudbak. Correct? So the me'urav could be by attachment. You'll soon see a very interesting question. Now, bone and chicken, what would you call that? The bones within the chicken. You would call that... Me'urav as one entity, or would you call that mudbak? If it's bones of a chicken, I would chicken. If bones of a chicken, not because bones are... You say gevald, and you're saying gevald. I have a safek. I write over here in my notes. I found a few more older—these are older papers. I have this safek: what are bones of a chicken? Because l'maaseh it's within, and it's within the chicken to the point that it's one entity, like you said. But at the same time, I don't know if you would call that like one, meaning like flour with stones in it. Maybe it's more like mudbak, apple, and attached. I'll tell you why I'm saying— you'll see. About what? Forget about—let's say it's pesulos. I'm not even discussing. Rav Moshe is discussing if it's pesulos or not. Let's say it's not even the issue. Let's say it's pesulos. But I want to know what it is. What is it? Is it mudbak because the chicken is attached to the bone, or what it is is that it's mixed together as one entity? I'll tell you why I'm asking. You ready? I'm going to give a chiddush. Which part is considered me'urav when it's attached? When you have an apple and half is good and half is no good, would you say both parts of the apple are me'urav, or just the part that's attached? You say just the part. I asked this to Rav Elyashiv. I couldn't. I don't know why. For the last night, I forgot that I asked this. Meaning, I didn't remember. These are one of the things I asked from Eliyash that week that I was in Eretz Yisrael. I asked him this question: which part on an apple? And I remembered even what the discussion. Remember we had a discussion if I peel off some of the good part also, is that good? So I was screaming from the Chazon Ish, no, it has to be a big piece has to come off in order for it to be considered that I peeled off a good part of the apple together with the bad part of the apple. Remember this, the Chazon Ish. And then I showed them from the Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa that he has me'orer that not that way. Why should it be that way? If you don't hold it as Chazon Ish, meaning like the Mishnah Berurah, it should be even if just a little bit. And it's almost impossible not to get a little bit of good. When I cut off the bad part of the apple, it's almost impossible not to get a little bit of good, right? I'll show you how this is negea, right? Let's say you hold that just the mudbak part is the taroves. So if you cut anything more, which means, which is what we spoke, I asked this, it's not shayach. Okay, let's say on the chicken with the bone, and I want to take off the bone, I would take the bone with a little bit more chicken, which means what I take out from the chicken.

The bone with a little bit, not where it's attached to the bone. If you learn that the taroves is only where what? Where it's connected. So as long as I didn't take it off over there, then I didn't take away from the taroves and it's mutar. If the taroves is only where the pesoles and the oichel attach, so then if I took a little further away from it, I took a little more chicken, then there's no issue. So you're taking chicken from chicken. I'm taking chicken from chicken. Rabbi Yashiv told us, when I was arguing with them, I remember for some reason that I was right about it. I couldn't remember from where did I get it. That was this nekudah. Yeah, that it's no problem because he told me only where it's attached. And then it's not arguing with the Chazon Ish. I knew this, I knew that. It has nothing to do with the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish's cheshbon was that in order to take oichel with the pesoles and mutar, it has to be a substantial amount of oichel. But if then we're by an apple, ma she'ein kein. Right, and that Chazon Ish, the Chazon Ish speaks out clearly that in order to say that I'm taking food with the pesoles, it has to be a substantial amount of food. It has to be something, not just I picked out the thing and something came with the pesoles. It has to be something. It has to be noticeable that I'm taking, it has to be an emphasis that I'm taking some food with the pesoles. Yeah, because he says it's not really more of so much. That's similar to that. Whatever, the little water that's being some pirurim on top of it, right, that would be considered, right. Now, the apples could be different, but the apple, the pshat is, if I take with it, it's not noticeable, so it's not good. Okay, so let me just repeat the chicken, because this I mamish heard this from Reb Elyashiv. I mamish heard this. Reb Elyashiv told me, and you want to know something? I went searching in all the sefarim that quote, I can't find it. I don't know, it might be something new. It's a very simple question, very simple question. When you have a chicken bone, it's פסולת, let's say, okay? Not like in Eretz Yisrael that they eat the bones. It reminds me, that might when my brother once came home to my mother, and he tells my mother that they don't serve any food in yeshiva. So my mother said, I walked into the yeshiva in Shaarei Torah, and I saw on the plates chicken bones. So my brother said, Yeah, that's how they served it. So when I learned Borer, I said, Ah, I have a ta'ina to the Mesivta, because Reb Shlomo Zalman holds that the chicken bones are not פסולת; people eat it. And Reb Moshe holds it is פסולת. So what's the pshat? That it has to do birur; that was that sugya. We learned it here before you came. We spoke about this machlokes. I said the pshat is very pashut, actually, in America. And then I said, אי, the yeshivos in America, teretz is like the Tosafos. Tosafos says that the yeshivos in America have a din of Eretz Yisrael. Tosafos in Gittin. I said, Ah, okay, Gittin, that's just a vertel. I'm saying, Tosafos says it because... after the bones, okay. I'll explain it like this: when you have a chicken bone, so what is the chicken bone? It's definitely the psailus of the oichel, but the question is, how is it attached? Is it attached me'uriv, or is it attached mudbak? Right, bitul. It's not nafkamina. It's not part of the psailus. How would I go all the way to the area that's connected? That's what I'm telling you. That's what I'm telling you. I'm taking the other way around. Let's say you cut off a piece of the rotten part of an apple, you leave a lot of rotten part. You cut off... Yeah. Let's see, let's see, let's see, yeah. Cut as much as you want from the rotten part. Right, very good. Very good svara, right? The same svara would work the other way around. If it's taroves, whatever psauls I take, it's already a problem. Yeah, let me be masbir the chicken. Chicken. So the first case I brought was the rotten fruit, because that's pretty simple. It's taroves only because the rotten part is attached to the good part. It's not, right, necessarily. I mean, it could be also, but most of the case it's not what it is. Half the apple's rotten. But that's still called taroves. That we learned in the Mishnah Berurah. It's a פירוש Mishnah Berurah that when you cut the apple, you should take the good part instead of the bad part. That we learned in the Mishnah Berurah. My question was, what about the chicken? Is the chicken a taroves because the bone is mixed in the middle? So the whole thing becomes a taroves of...

Or the pshat is that the chicken is mudbak, the bone is mudbak. The nafkamina would be this: if it's mudbak, so only where the taroves is a problem, and that's what Rabbi Yoshef told me. By the chicken, if you take some of the chicken, the good part, not just where it's attached to the bone, then you didn't take it where the taroves was. No, you didn't take where the taroves was. You didn't take it where the mudbak part was. That's one way to look at it, or maybe not. It's not separate pieces of chicken, but that's not the question. The question is that if it's—or if—so then it's whatever, wherever you take, it doesn't make a difference, right? How much? What's together? How much? I don't know. If you don't put it where it's mudbak, if you don't cut it from where it's mudbak, then it's not a problem. Rabbi Yoshef told us. I hear this clear? The whole conference, the whole thing? I don't know. You know what it is? Where's the problem? There's no measurement to all this, so there's anyway no—I mean, even in the chiddush of Rabbi Yoshef, I can't give you a measurement. But as long as it's not in the place that it's mudbak, then it's— Right, that's the point. That's the point. You're saying it over beautifully. Me'urav, it makes—there's no chiluk where. As long as I took the thing out, then I fixed the whole thing. But if it's mudbak, right. But if it's mudbak, you have to take more. The opposite. When it's me'urav, it doesn't make a difference. I took the pesilos out, so I fixed wherever it is, I fixed the whole thing. But where it's mudbak, so the taroves may be, which is what Rabbi Yoshef told me. Right, so you have to take a substantial amount of the oichel. That's a chazonish, because then the pshat is I'm taking the oichel together with the pesilos. If it's mu'riv, and if it's mudbak, as long as you don't take it where it's mudbak, then it's good enough. So I see that it's in the whole circumference. I have to think. Let me explain to you why you're getting confused. Let me explain to you why you're getting confused. The bone is so long. Let me tell you why you're getting confused, because what I was trying to get at, that even without the Chazon Ish, pashut pshat, without the Chazon Ish, any time you take out a bone and it's almost impossible, or an apple and it's almost impossible not to get a little bit of the good, a little bit, a tiny layer of good, pashut that's called pesoles with the oichel, oichel with the pesoles. It would have to be all across the entire expanse of the inside of the peel. If it's just in one spot, so it's already over. You got a little oichel, but over here it's exactly separate peel. You separated peel from the inside. Again, again, again. You don't have to take off — that means even in, like what we're saying, fine, not a davar kashur, but the small little amount is going to have to be... Yeah, but you see, now you're going into another shaila. You're going into a shaila if a person takes some of the pesoles... If it's mu'riv, forget about the chiddush of the Chazon Ish. Just by any time I take out the bone, I have a problem, if it's mu'riv. Any time I take the bone out from the entire piece of chicken — so what I did was I took out the pesoles from the entire piece of chicken. Now we have a chiddush that sometimes if you take oichel together, it might be a heter. So you're going to be taking the bone with the chicken. Then you have the Chazon Ish's chiddush that it has to be a substantial amount, that it looks like you're taking oichel u'pesoles. You can't just say, well, there's pieces of chicken attached to the bone. But if you hold of that, right, that's if you hold of that, then there's really no difference between the psak of Reb Elyashiv and the psak of the Chazon Ish for two different reasons. The psak of the Chazon Ish has nothing to do with that the taroves; it has to do with that I'm taking oichel with the pesoles. If it's mutbak, if it's mutbak, then it would come out that I wouldn't be doing any borer whatsoever by not taking off the bone where it's not mutbak. I could take what's around these big lines here, but on this line here, I'd just leave the whole thing there. Right, if I leave something, so then I took it— Something or the whole thing? Whatever. I don't know the measurement. I can't give you a measurement, but the point is— So I have to take the oichel where it's not mutbak. A little bit of the oichel where it's not mutbak. A little bit of the oichel. How much, I don't know. So it means throughout this is what— Yeah. Throughout the entire area, not just one piece, throughout the entire circumference of the— For what? For which halacha? If it's nidbak. Right. Right. Right. It would have to be an exact separation anywhere. Right. It would have to be that—

To really carve it out well, you're going to get so close that you don't want to, you know, have to come onto the kula of the Chazon Ish, right? And there might be some places that you might get exactly the peel right next to the hole. Oh, why? When you're peeling an apple, is it shayach to take off just the peel? Or the chicken, the chicken, the chicken. No, we're talking about an apple, okay? Is it shayach? You're right, you're saying good vart, you're saying good vart. No, you would— Right, in Europe they could do it. Right, but he's saying good vart. It would have to be in such a way that in all places I didn't come close to the places that it's more, a hundred percent. So good vart, right? But chicken makes more sense, because the chicken you just cut away, huh? Reb was saying it gets into another shaila with just a little psailes. That's—you're talking about something, I thought you were talking about something else. If you take out some of the psailes and leave some of the psailes, that's stam a shaila lahalacha. Is that called—it's a different story, right? He's saying in rebbi Yoshef's psak it would have to be that you got everywhere, because if you came to a place in one spot where it's too close, you just got your borer over there, because in that spot it was taroves, a hundred percent, okay? Okay, now, and this was the nidon with the apple, okay? So everybody understands what I just said? Let's repeat it clearly. Me'urav as one entity—forget about flour and water, because that's for sure, that's even— But me'urav is flour and stone, okay? Then you have where it's not me'urav, but it's mudbak, and we have Reb Eliyashiv's shaila: is mudbak, the whole thing is me'urav? Even the part that it's not mudbak, or just the part that's mudbak? And Reb Eliyashiv told me just the part that's mudbak. That I heard from him clearly. And I heard, clearly, adjust the part that's mutbak. Okay. And if the whole thing was, then what would— If the whole thing was what? The whole thing, if the oichel was also... Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Only where it's mutbak. Only in the section that it's mutbak. Oh, that was the point. The point was only in the section that's mutbak. You ever heard this before? You never heard this before. I'm gonna have to research. I heard it from... Clark, Clark. I don't even remember the words. I heard it from. Okay, now. Okay, look, I don't know. What book? I'm living— I'm already preparing myself for the next book. Let's go, that's it. Kitzur, we have a third case. You ready? Mufrad, separate. Mu'arev, mixed. And it's not mesudar. Different entities. No, I'm giving you a third case now. Mixed nuts is a problem. You know why mixed nuts is a problem? Because mixed nuts, it's not really noticeable. The problem with the mixed nuts, the poskim say, is not noticeable. Huh? The mixed nuts could be is not noticeable. So let's talk noticeable. Mufrad. Okay, mufrad, it's separate. Yeah. Mu'arev, what? I'm saying, it's not attached. Mufrad, not attached. Separate, okay? But it's mu'arev, but it's not mesudar, okay? Which is really our Mishnah Berurah, right? That wasn't that the Mishnah Berurah that we learned? Yeah. That the chatichas dagim, they're mufrad. Me'urav v'not mesuder. That's mamish the Mishnah Berurah we learned, okay. Shaila: does mufrad mean touching, though? These chatichas dagim are touching. Pick up six. Pick up six. They're touching. That's touching. One, the other one is going to be affected? Affected. And that's definition of borer? Maybe. Or even when it's not mufrad, even when it's not nogea, even when it's not touching. I don't know. It's a good kasha. It's a very nice shaila. Pashut case, the case of the fish in the Rama. They're mufrad, yeah. Shnei minim dagim, chatichos gedolos, kol achas nikeres bifnei atzmah. Are they touching each other? Right there. That's a good shaila. That's a good shaila. You hear a good shaila? That's a good shaila. If it was dafka touching, the Mishnah Berurah should have said that. I don't know, so that's a deal. Maybe, yeah, maybe. See? Now you understand why it's not a deal? Here, you have two pieces of fish, tzvei shticklach fish. So there's a problem of borer. Are they touching each other or not? Well, maybe if they're not touching. Who said what the way? Because it's me'urav, it's mixed.

Where does it say that me'urav has to be that it's touching each other? Where does it say that? Me'urav, it's mixed together. It doesn't have to touch each other. You don't have now. Nikah, we just learned from the Rambam that it's aser. Didn't we just learn that? Yeah. Who said they're touching? Find me one word of they're touching. I write in my notes, I write, yesh li ra'ayos. I have to remember. I don't remember what they are. I have ra'ayos that it's not touching. That's what I have. I don't know. It could be that it's, you have a plate of fish, tons of different fish, and it's not touching, and it's still a problem maybe. The chatichos gedolos mitoch tanur. Who said it's touching? Okay. Then I'm going to give you another case, okay? So this is mufrid, separate, me'urav, yet not mesudar, so that we call mixed up. How about mufrid, separate, me'urav, and it's mesudar? Cold cuts. Cakes of plate. Cakes of plate. Plates of cake. Cakes of plate. Plates of cake. It's separate. It's touching, I understand it's touching, but it's mesudar. It's not even—not mesudar. It's not even this mishteh berurah. So I would say that it's mutar. I would say that it's mutar. Rav Kohn, today I saw in his sefer—I didn't even know he had on borer, just for the first time in my life. I didn't know the kitchen has everything in it. You knew the kitchen's borer also? I thought it was just bishul, Rav Kohn's sefer on bishul. No, it's everything. The whole kitchen. First time, I didn't know about it. No, no, he has a kitchen, a special kitchen sefer. Kitzur, he has borer in there. Kitzur, he says—I don't know—he brings a machlokes, Yahu, that quotes Reb Shlomo Zalman, Reb Elyashiv, that cold cut plates and cake plates is an issur borer. Pilei ployim. If I would take the one I want, it has to be laltin. If I take the one I don't want, then it's borer. Did you know that kol kach plates? You knew that? Pilei ployim, huh? That's what he writes, Rabbi Cohen, the big rav, Rabbi Cohen. Yesterday I said not like that. I still hold it's not like that, but... huh? Again, let's start again. Mufrad, me'urav. But Rabbi Cohen said, but what's his... nothing. The kol kach. Kol kach plates. Platers, kol kach platers and cake platers. Yeah. Of course not. It's mesuder. It's not this Mishnah Berurah. What do you want? You forgot there's a Mishnah Berurah? Everybody look at Mishnah Berurah, sif katan yud-daled. He says it clearly. It's nikar bifnei atzmo. It's mufrad. Yeah, but if it's on the same plate, it's on the same plate, you're going back to the old... it's rising from... But to move it to the side would be a problem. To move it to the side, you want to move it out of the way so you can get this whole... Yeah, it would be a problem. That's what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about: to take the one you want, unless it's tzeluk, which is a Mishnah Berurah, which I hold is... right, he holds tosafos in the Cholti. He says, You're not allowed to move away the potato. He says it, same thing, You're not allowed to move away the potatoes, huh? So again, I can only tell you that what I said yesterday was that tzeluk is mutar, and that mufrad and nikar is mutar, and Rabbi Cohen in his sefer says not like that. So what should I do? Rameisha, that's why we're here tonight. We're here tonight to come and tell you that I'd say different than Rabbi Cohen, huh? Don't send the letters. He's a talmid chacham. He paskens beautiful. Leave him alone. Don't send him any letters. He has the right to say whatever he wants, and he proved himself with a svara, beautiful svara. But he's sending him letters for? You hold differently. What are you telling him? We learned up the sugya. Am I right or am I wrong? Doesn't the Mishnah Berurah say that it has to be lat mesuder? Didn't we learn siluk is mutar? Maybe if it's touching, it doesn't matter. If it's touching, what's the difference? Where does it say? We medayek in the Ramo. Who said? Maybe the Ramo is talking about when it's touching, when it's not touching, I don't know. Oh, so that's what we spoke yesterday. That's what— oh. So Reb Yitzchok's tiny good.

Because that's really what I said yesterday, okay. So I wanted a ta'ina, yeah, could be, could be, could be, ken sai, that if you have one, one, one, one, one, one, one, like one piece of turkey roll and one piece of bologna and one, whatever, pastrami and then, okay, whatever, whatever, whatever, okay. Yiddish, they have something called ovshnit, ovshnit. You remember ovshnit? This before your time, ovshnit. Ovshnit. They used to put whatever, okay. But kids, if you have different types, all right, maybe that's a different type. That's like a taroves, which even if it's mesudar, it's still called taroves. Who does like that? I don't know. Yeah, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, maybe. Colorful, maybe, maybe, maybe. But, and hachanami, if you have like four pieces of sponge and four pieces of chocolate and four pieces of, I don't know, he brings down, he brings from Eliyashiv, he says, and Machzeh Eliyahu, I don't know. That's what he said. Again, unless that footnote is not going back on the cold cuts. It's going back on the yesod of the cold cuts, and he's poskening with the cold cuts. I don't know. It's mashma that it's going back on both. I don't know. I don't have the Machzeh Eliyahu, the sefer. I can just tell you that he asers the cake plates and the cold cuts, that it's borer, and the way we're learning, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't know. I quoted from there. I don't remember. You have a Machzeh Eliyahu, you have it? So look at Rav Kohn's sefer. What do you need to... So look at Rav Kohn. So take a look at it, Rav Kohn's sefer. Yeshiva should have it. Huh? No, that's different. That's the same min, nidonim u'ktanim. That's not shtei minim; it's min echad. That's not. Okay, now, rabosai, he's not, what, acquainted to me? It's siluk. I'm pushing something to the side. It's siluk. Exactly, exactly. Exactly. Says Tosafos, go look. Now, I didn't say—what? I didn't say that. What I said was, if you push in a way that it's noticeable, the potatoes from underneath the meat, then it's mutar. Maybe you said by the Yad HaMichta, Yad HaMichta, that since you're not eating right then, it's not derech achilah, you're pushing away the potatoes. I said it to you. That's who I said it to, remember? That's asur. So let me just, in my mind, work it out one more time. Again. L'choira, l'choira, l'choira, l'choira, l'choira. See, because I'll tell you what I was thinking. I'll tell you what's going through my mind. I don't know if I can compare one salami on top of a turkey roll compared to a cholent, which is really a mixture. That was what I told you then. That's what I told you then, right? Yeah, it's like one cheftza. That's what I was thinking then, right? Any takanas in the seif, to move away the potato—no, but I was, because my real nekudah wasn't so much the taroves as much as the yad haarichta then. That was really, I was focusing on the yad haarichta of the spoon. But l'choira, in the text of it, could be it's not the same thing as a platter or a cake thing. But ein hachanami, even the cake thing, I zicher is mutar. I don't see how it could be asur, huh? How can you say it's asur? Okay, now. Aruch HaShulchan says, Aruch HaShulchan, Aruch HaShulchan. Again, it's, it's, it's, it's tziluk, it's, it's nikur, tziluk. I don't know, I don't, I don't see it. I don't see it. Okay. It's mesudah. When it's mesudas, not more. Unless mamish, that's not called mesudah, even though it's mesudah. One, one, one, one, like we spoke. Maybe that's not called mesudah. All right, ken zayin. Aruch HaShulchan, se'if yud-zayin says a gevaldige chiddush. You hear? And I don't know what he does, because the truth is it says, shnei minei dagim. You ready? Ready for diyuk? Shnei minei dagim. Right, the sevara is called min bifnei atzmo, is mashma not each chituch bifnei atzmo. Right, min bifnei atzmo. Right, so that's what I'm trying to say. One, one, one, one, it'd be meduyak, right? It's like different sections of, for the salami, for the... Yeah. I could hear that it's tziluk, but it's still asur. I see. Yeah, because it's not attached, maybe. Yeah, because it's two different pieces. The chunk could be one big thing.

The cholent is one mixture. Cholent is mamish a real ta'aroves. It's not the case of one min on top of another. Here he's talking about fruits. The story over there is fruits. Min shelo ma'aleh, he's not talking about—okay, salad, mixed salad, tomato. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Now let me tell you a chiddush in the Aruch HaShulchan, you hear? Rabosai, these fish, these fish, how many pieces do you have? Shnei minei dagim. Is it mamish with two pieces? Yes, but how many? Maybe you have one and one. Let's say you have two pieces of fish together, you take one and not the other, so you push away the one you don't want. Is it even by two pieces, three pieces, or it has to be a full plate full of pieces? When you read it, but it's a mistake because it's lending, because it says shnei minim. So when you read shnei minim, you think two pieces of fish. It's not true. Sounds like at least four. Sounds like at least four. So I'll tell you the Aruch HaShulchan. He says four, five pieces is not borer. It's got to be a lot, a lot of pieces. He brings the Rama. He brings the Rama. You probably want to look it up tomorrow. Sif yud-zayin. He brings the Rama, huh? Yeah. Siman yud-tes, sif yud-zayin. He brings the Rama, and he says that the case, v'li nira, not less than five pieces. If it's less than five and under, there's no ta'aroves. So even if you have a piece, unless your wife is cooking for chvezvas, you really don't—I mean, how many pieces of chicken does she put already on the thing? Tops, bottoms, five. I mean, how many? Four, four pieces, five pieces. So technically, with this Aruch HaShulchan, you avoid a lot of borer. Okay, now. I'll tell you the emes. I'd rather go weiter. And, you know, after Maariv I'll talk to you. You know, I really want to finish. We have to move a little. Okay, now. Exactly, exactly. We spoke about mudbak. We can go back to it. Okay, you ready? Bottom line, bottom line, I believe that the yesod, and I want to repeat this again, the yesod of boirer is where you have to make an effort to choose it. The word selection is with effort, without effort, which means I don't have to, I just take the one I want, or I take away the one I don't want. Choose it. Boirer is, there has to be something. It can't just be that I took the one I want or I need to take the one I didn't want. Okay. The next point I want to bring out, I believe, and again I believe this strongly, yeah, boirer is only shtei minim where the minim have a connection to each other. A chicken with a rice. So then it has some makor for taroves. Someone's going to say, a key, keys, and in the keys, you know, between the keys there's rice. What are you going to say, it's boirer? It's not boirer, and I'll prove it to you. Are you allowed to take, are you allowed to take, are you allowed to take, yeah? Okay. There it's because real taroves. No, that's not mixed together. Mix together. Give me a case where it's two minim. Okay, give me a minute. Are you allowed to take the hanger off the jacket? You say it's borer? Is it borer if I take a hanger, I pull out the hanger? Is that borer? Tell me another thing. If I take my pot and I spill out the psoles, is it borer from the pot? Spill the junk out. I have a cup. I don't want what's in there. The tea is cold. I spill out. That's it, you got borer. You were borer the psoles from the... It's a different activity altogether. It's not because it's two separate... I have another... If I pull out... It's nikar. I have sand in my shoe. Perfect, perfect example. Perfect example. You hold it's borer? ... Yeah, perfect example. I have another beer which no one ever thinks about. I pull the fork out of the chicken. Huh? If I pull the fork...

You ever see that you put this fork into the chicken, right? Then you want to clean up the table, so I pull the fork out of the chicken. Is that borer? Why not? You can't get a better tareves than that. It's in the chicken. Not choosing. It's not a choice. It's a different activity. Chicken and rice go together. Sand and shoes. It depends whose shoes. Pashut, sand and shoes don't go together. The borer of shtei minim have to have some sheichus. It doesn't make sense. Now the truth is, Reb Nissim Karelitz says what you say. It's a different activity. It's called cleaning. You know the poskim talk about if I have food with my beard. Is that borer? Taroves. It doesn't have to be ochel, ochel. When do you need ochel? It's anything that you want. Reb Nissim Karelitz says you're allowed to pull food—I think Reb Elyashiv also paskens like this—you're allowed to pull food out of the thing. It's called nikui. It's not called borer. It's a different melachah. Okay, rabosai, we'll daven Maariv and we'll continue. But this is my raya. It has to have some sheichus, a hanger with the clothing. It has to be two minim, shtei minei dagim. But you're saying the chicken and rice would be considered? Chicken and rice is good. So sand and shoes? Sand gets with the shoes. Or dirt. Dirt on the bottom of your shoes. It would be machlokes. Right. The chicken and rice belong together, and I'm borer them. If, let's say, I took—if Reb Nissim Karelitz asks if I clean my—if I take a thing off my jacket, a piece of dirt from my jacket, borer? I would have thought it's a different activity. Nikui. His word is that it's nikui.