Menachos 15

Today's and we are 11 lines from the top of today's being learned. So we're moving along in the pigle sugis. The very first kimar that we're going to learn right now is another very foundational as it relates to the laws of in the event that a was doing with obviously and he had in mind to eat a half a and then when he did this again he had mind to eat a half aas of It says the price of pigle it's considered piglenitar because the he had at the time of the and the he had at the time of this have the ability to be mitarf the background to this is the mishna that we saw in the end of the first paric piggle 101 and that is in order for a machev pigle to be considered a machev piggle it would have to be that the coen was mkashv on a kazayas whether it was whether it was whether it's whether it's the shar is always a kaz says the bra so what would it be if the had he was however he did the over two different avoid so he was mash on a halfas and a halfas pasho is and the words of the are because have the ability to combine. So the says that there were two versions of understandings that the had in this said that when the B said what the B is saying is that it's not all to avoid that it's and the reason is because have something in common that in addition to the fact that they're both avoidist they're also both matern whereas are not matern And as a result they wouldn't have the ability to be mit. Now what does it mean that and are m so if you go through the rashis here in the rashi says is in order for it to now be worthy of going on and there's an idea inad is so that if the madesh the matter what is matter it's matter the dam we know is matter of the bos. So being that and are both m maybe that's why them start but are not m if they're not m they have in common the fact that they're avoid but they don't have any additional common denominator and it's for that reason they would not be able to be by the way asks an obvious and that is that just like the is the we know that the kabala was also the dam are you the so why don't we say that the kabala is also a matter because of the kadesh and the world of rape. But the bottom line is one version of the Bryer was that when the Bryce says as opposed to the other that what the Bryson meant when it said was to which are far removed from each other because the first of the four and is the fourth of the four avoid and if even those two avidas that are very far from each other have the ability to be mitarif Certainly as it relates to or by the way even and or certainly any other combination of avoid would have the ability to bear. But the bottom line is what does the bry say? The ba says that in the event that someone had piggle of kaz but he did it over the course of two avoidas it could be mitar. You don't need that the whole kazay should be in one avoid. You could do it over two avoidas. The shila the two armies are that one holds it has to be and because they both have in common not only are they avoid not only are they avoid but they're also both materi any two avoidas would be okay but asks aasha I'll ask you a stero from another ley because ley to a bry so we know ley used to fif a lot of braces and one of ley's braces it said the following arba avoid a mar pigle the four avoid What does it mean for the pickle as it relates to the shaz soy had a price that said that it doesn't matter if it's or if it's or any other variation of permutation of they don't have the ability to bear and this is a steer to the first if you learn the first means only if you learn that the first means all here we have that says that all are not. So we have a steer between two prices of eyes and one and avatar the pickle or is it not to pickle came to the rescue I don't think these bryes are steer in other words there's no way to reconcile the two bryes so from that standpoint they certainly are steers however it's not a problem because there's a a mur that the tanam already argued this point specifically rebi and the rabbon thus I will tell you one brace is going according to rebi the other brace is going according to the rabban so who's this rebi and raon the gar is going to present the bryo and if it sounds familiar it's because brought the bry already on so we saw this ba featured prominently in yesterday's so the background of this bryer is talking about the kayas that were brought on so one of the unique herbonus that the terra talks about is the kayer that came together with that were brought on the so the were two schlams answer to a trivia question the only example of a carbon schlama that's bought there were two obviously and they came together with breads known as the now the two together made up one carbon just like the together made up one carbon. Additionally, it was the of the was the so with that background says the in the event that one of the to eat a half his of one of the then he went ahead and he shacked the other to eat a half his of the other. So between the of the two he had in mind two combining to eat a said that this is not going to be a pickle and it is going to be pickle says what's the isb who the isb is could you bear two of during two avoid to make it into one rebby clearly cauter that you can't be mitarf the say piggle thus you could be mitarf the first that says that you could bear is going according to the second that said it's the pigle that's going according to said I don't agree with regarding to our I can tell you that although you do have aasi who holds that if you have two of but it could be Rebi only said as when the two of happened during two meaning when did Rebby say of it's when you're trying to combine two where each happened during that's not something you'd be able to do but You would have two of but each of happened not during a m it happened during a mi over there is going to hold that it's notarif and I'll tell you reb is going to hold it is mitarf sobi and as far as I'm concerned would hold that it's in a case like ours you can't tell to le if that's the case just explain what Abay is saying a little bit better and that is we know there's a mat right it keeps on coming up the mission by the way as it relates to we're going to see on tomorrow's it's the mission on the top of doesn't mean all means over here is that at the end of the day there could be a between being when each happened during a matter versus being of two where each happened during matter. Right? In this case, there's no problem because over here you had a by both he had during the of each one of the issue was something else. The issue is each was aias and the question is could you be mitarif says even though this is not an inherent issue of the mat because at the end of the day you had the by both but your mitarif that you're trying to create over here is taking two that you had during two maybe that's not something you're able to do as opposed to is not a matter is a matter Maybe over there would be the bottom line is told I don't think there's a because it could be when it comes to where each happened during it could be over there would be thus you can't to so what emerges then right just to hit the pause button for one second is that how to understand who says that two of during the two of the kips would not be able to bear according to it's based on the fact that holds you can never bear to and if it's true by the it would be true by and that's where you reconcile the serious according to it's only true in that case because each is aim matter. If however the voice would happen during matters over there it would be different and over there rebi would be that the two of could be so it's on that note meaning that idea that emerges very much from what is saying that told if she is that is that it's going to be considered big. It's only that you can't bear. Well, if that's the case, then it would make sense that the should have made and said that in the event that there was a of and another is that at the very least the should be puzzled. What would be if you had a mat of a meaning if then it makes sense should bear now can't make a piggle piggle right can't be but at the very least it should be a problem they'll say if you're going to tell me that holds it's never there's no welcome to make what do making up to over there it's also okay but if you're telling me is it's only that's not well if that's the case made now what's the precedent that we would make where do you find zerus and right it's almost a rarity so where would you even come to do such a thing so the says I'll show you in this where you find because you find who has a Koola and pigle but at the same time he made a raon and raon who have pigle they also made now we know this and we know this go it's the right the beginning of the paract in the event that was doing and he had in mind to be cars make cars say it's pickle olive cars right according to it's a regular pickle being that you were doing the init and you were being right the first of the second par. So whatever the masaur over there was there to a whole bunch of different might be but the bottom line is it's not a real pigle stating that ple it is ple why is a ple must be because it's raan despite the fact there's no real pickle over there but went ahead and made a zer so you see a precedent that we make zeros right you make zeros so how come here we don't make nami where do you find that the raban had a cool regarding pickle yet they came along and they made you find that they And this is the Here we're talking about where was being but then when he was being of course and even though is a matter and matter and you only during one but is and as a result of you have an olive say no there's no unless you're now hold but what's their and it sounds like from theorus that it's only but s is going to be sat to that who holds the holds there's never something called there's never something called so I understand why according to rebi in the event and then it's going to be kasha we don't even make because there's nothing to be geru has to be we don't just say even though it's mut it's going to be this I'm afraid if this will be mut we'll make that mut Also there's nothing to bearer but if you're going to tell me that rebi said his in a very specific case in a very nuanced case where the two of happened during but if it was kilo then it would bear then it certainly makes sense he should make and just like made his and just like made their I think that should have made as well. responded to and he told him I hear it's a nice but there's a distinction at the end of the day the cases are very meaning I understand why made what was right what was the case the case was where someone was doing a and he had in mind to be the two different parts of the carbon And as a result, it's not going to be what would be if the did the and he had a mind to be the Mishna said in that case he's going to be so if you had a mind to be the it's the it's nothing felt those things are too similar to each other came along and he was makes a lot of sense they were the reason they said that at At the very least if you're not only the reason it's because there is an example of a that doesn't have any such as the doesn't have any and over is a matter. So this could actually be in another carbon where you could have a machle. So in this case even THOUGH IT'S ONLY A matter I'm going to say it's not also right now by you being you're doing but there is a situation where matter when is that case they went ahead and they made so was in his case why because in this carbon ga there's another you had the same exact it would be pickle if you were thinking weren't thinking in their case by matter because even though in this carbon there's no way to be but this aid in a different carbon right is this carbon thinking about something else to make would be this in a different carbon but the point is in both of these cases it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and make now The garra is going to continue and the garra is going to bring two other cases where you find both of those additional cases I mentioned of there additional cases of so again the case that we just brought the classic cases where right each one is only there are two additional cases in the one is where there was the of one of the that's the case of right that's a case of additionally where he was during one of the so of one of the in those cases of where that it's only going to be a problem so those are additional examples where the went ahead and the made and we would have to explain why the made in those cases as well again all in the line of abaya's distinction of so the continues along and the says as it relates to the why that if the during one of the of the reason he did that was because he was geyser because you right now had ava during one of the sheep what would be if you would have the makova during the other one as well if you would have it during the other one as well now it wouldn't it would be a matter. So because if you were it would be a problem that's a reason to make as it relates to you doing one of the it makes sense to make what would be if you while you doing the of the other now these are a little bit different right certainly different than the rabban's case of the reason by is because there's a situation where the could be a matter such as the reason that is because there's a situation where it could be a k such as the here we're talking about where the matter is one of the or the matter is one of the there's no parallel case that telling that I'm I'm making but the point over here is right there's no case where being mocked in one of the for example is going to be considered a pickle the gummor says that the over here is that we're worried that the will worry that maybe the person will be and if he's going to be that's where the issue is going to be. If you think about it, this is actually more similar to reasoning of why went ahead and made his where you shouldn't be but he made the you could have been by the right. So it's because if you had a different in this carbon goof it would be a problem. Therefore, I'm suggesting that that would be enough of a reason to to make. But the bottom line is is that what is saying is in all the cases where you find multiple cases by it's not considered but made there was always a very specific reason why the felt that the right thing to do was to make in the case of where someone is doing the mashar even though that's not but I'm going to be because what if you for thear In the case of let's go through all of them where you even though right now it's because you also have to be all you have is the there would be so this in a different garb that's why we're making and even the by one of them but I'm making you may have the same exact mash by another one. Right? That's similar to instead of being mash by the you' be mash by the instead of only being one of the you'd be mash also by the second instead of only being by one of the you by the other one of the but the bottom line is there's reasons in all those cases why we made now it's come full circle wanted that we should make in reb's case in the case where you had a of a bish one of the of the and another one over This says there is no precedent of a case where there's a anywhere that you find would be able to bear and being that rebi holds that it shouldn't bear and there's nothing to bear because there's no way where it would bear. It's for that reason we're not going to go ahead and make the if you want to explain this a little bit better. There were two types of that emerged from the raiser. One was theim of actor what would be if you had the same exact and a different carbon where it's not a matter. So the regular matter but by the it's a matter by matter but by the it's a it's a matter. So we're making by you'd have that same somewhere else where it be a k there's no parallel case there's no situation where if you went ahead and you had a and where there all of a sudden it would be a regular bonafide is pickle if there's no case where here it suddenly would bear right there is no such parallel case just common sense and as a result there's no m to make the other type that we found was which was similar to the in the case of the and that is where we're making a you might have had a a different so instead of thinking you might have thought instead of thinking only bash one of the or one of the you might have thought the other one as well there the is because we're afraid you're going to have the same exact that you're having now there as Over here it doesn't pass to make because over here what's the iss of by something else wouldn't bear. So being that the of the over here is a and it's and there's no way to bear it. There's nothing even to beer. The only thing you could think you would beer is beer eyes. But that said, there's no precedent to make such yet to make of this exact as opposed to or this exact both as opposed to one that you have a precedent. But to make this maka onto a different you don't find that and as a result there's no makum over here to make defended his position and said I can tell you that only said is if it's a and it's a matter if that's the case make what's he pressing for by the first mish the second per the and all their cases just concludes and says the time I'll prove to you from the why is because of the and not just because of the but the of the way that explained the funny if you look at the of the regard where over there all there was was there was no in the event that the coin had that it's going to be considered and even the meaning that if you had it's not going to be considered that's a regular we have if it's however you're dealing with all you have is the so over there it's That's so obvious. Of course, it's not a matter. Why do you even have to speak it out? Is there another matter? You know what has to be what the wants to teach me is the time of the only reason. Forget about no piggle. The reason it's possible by matter is because at the end of the day there is a that's and because of the that's why the hold it's possible. What do you see from here? What you see from here is very clearly that it's not anytime there's no pigle. So at the very least it's going to be possible. There has to be a sa to go ahead and make and there is a sa. The SBA is because there's a time that is a matter and that's why the Mishna threw it in to explain that part of the Mishna is actually a it's a commentary on the first part of the Mishna on the part of the Mishna that's not so why did a very least it's possible the ter in this carbon would be a matter in another carbon the bottom line is you see that there's a when we go ahead and make it and it's for that reason that the went ahead head and the explain their position in the Mishna. Bottom line, this concludes the first part of the dath exhale. Next Mishna. So the topic of the end of the first parakus and the second paricus is very much related to pickle stating that the mission that we're going to learn right now is a little bit of a digression. It's obviously kachum related, not pickle related. If you want to follow the paper trail, the previous Mishna discussed and piggle related to and our Mishna is going to mention other and what would be if one of the breads of became or if one of the became says that not only the breads that are T have to be treated as if they're T and they have to be burnt in the Basa. But even the breads that are also have to go to the Basa and the reason is carbon because the and were all part of a carbon seabour and there's a rule that you can't do by a carbon core. So if part of the carbon is to you have to treat the entire carbon as if it's argue they say it's true the breads that are have to be treated as if to have to go to however the breads that are there's no reason they have to go to the contrary those breads will be able to be eaten. So we have regarding one of the one of the storm of that became that that became everybody agrees has to go to. The question is what about the breads that are taught according to the said the is talking about where the became became before the once happened if one of the breads become different everybody would agree So the whole that's only if the one that became but if it became oh after this I don't care anymore then say obviously because that's Tommy but the one that's will be able to be eaten now just to clarify one point the Mishna was talking about and the involved the in fact was the as opposed to the didn't involve it involved. you did this with and that's what was so obviously what he means is as it relates to the but as it relates to the when he says he means proverbally speaking what he's really referring to is but the bottom line is gave a very important comment to our Mishna and that is the is where the one that became Tommy became Tommy if it became then everybody's going to agree to the ple what is the meaning what is the of this is why would hold now the truth is if you look at the seems to give a reason you can't make a carbon se so part of the carbon se has a den to gold the other part of the carbon se would also have to have him to go the Basa and the truth is that at the end of this short the Gmorra is going to come out and say that you can't suggest the new reason for himself seemed to articulate his reason in the Mishna but for now we're going to make believe we don't know the Mishna and the says explain butle what is the between said but you want to know what is it's whether or not It sits had the ability to be on of a carbon that was eaten when it became sits has the ability to be that the had no ability to be what does this mean? So we know one of the that underpins is that the tits had ability to be on. You would think that something that's to that goes on the misbeha stating that that sits had the ability to make it as if that to didn't exist and to allow that thing yes to be able to be mirata. The classic example of the sits being matzah is with regards to what referred to as something that went on. So for example the dam the carbon that became tom that sits had the ability to be maratza. What about if a carbon that was eaten became would the tits have the ability to be there or would the tits not have the ability to be says that's exactly the is over here the raon hold the tits is being that the titso even though at the time of this at the time of you have some of the breads that are but it tits as that tits makes it as if the to is not there as a result although because it's but the one that's tar will be able to be eaten Whereas and being that so I can't look at the as if it's not there it very much is there and being that the is there just like the is going to what's the is going to stare what's as well what's the beer if you take a look at and the way the beer is as follows the halls so comes at I see right now of the carbon as being a carbon that's right and upon him is and the reason is is because the that's is the equivalent thereof as if it's now so Even who of course we pas like who holds he can go ahead and he can be the but he holds as we saw several times throughout the beginning of being that so it comes out right now that you would not be able to eat the that's because it's but you also would not be able to eat the that's and the reason is because the only reason the argue is because so they say that this of that's not here is not really not here. It's only to now you'll tell me what's the difference if it's to or if it's right for all practical purposes it's not here. No, there's a huge difference cuz that's so we don't see it as if it's we don't see it as if it's so that's there's nothing you can do about the you'll be allowed to eat. It says very in the between the arguing or holds as if it's and even going therefore even that's going to be whereas that sits and therefore the is not viewed as if it's now that you can't eat and by the way even if you sit You can't eat something that's can make it that it doesn't stare the carbon but it won't allow you to eat it. But the bottom line is whatever is yeah that's a problem but we don't see it as and as a result even though but is going to be so a very here in terms of what and are arguing about but the now is going to ask three kashes the third is from our Mishna as we mentioned but three kashes on's explanation of the he asked the first as it relates to the parts of the went on the island. Everybody agrees that was on and yet you find that argued this identical is regarding such a case. What would be if one of the became Tommy both of because of like he said in the Mishna there's a concept of incar see here we have which for sure is our right it's the same language said which is almost verbaten what they said in the now they're not arguing They're not arguing where the tum descended upon a part of the carbon that was eaten. They're arguing where the tum descended upon a part of the carbon that was put on the by the way just to read the B some more carefully is saying that if one of the became what does that mean because the wasb comes out you're allowed to do the with the and you could do the with the together with the meaning you don't have to worry about any even on the part because They're niggra buster each other. Whereas the say no that's Tommy is Tommy that's but the bottom line is you seem to have the same because here we're dealing with there's no you can't tell me and because everybody sits when it comes to that's a big second is the one who has the second one from another even if one of the all the any person from another can do the carbon now the context over there is so we know that that's Tommy at the time that brought the carbon he got pushed off to what was allowed to bring the carbon that you don't need or even of to be to say even one shave at That's you have the same and therefore says if one is even if the other a member of the other can bring the current because he's included in this leniency of and he said what's the reason maybe the ones that are that should have the ones that should not have so he explained now over here right sounds like again the same language anguage and there's no why because even but that's only where it's of a carbon right is only if the carbon is but if the sto there's no idea of tit you see the of playing itself out the third and this is the most obvious one said just read the So if you're going to tell me that is not like a den in but it's based on you should have said that and said based on all three of these cases one from the fact that you see they're arguing even by even though everybody else says and from the fact that you see that was said regarding even though everybody else is not on and just from the language of the Mishna it's reviewed something And you have to say there was a a very clear mess that had from a carbon can't be that and only that is the inud moving along next mission. So we now return to our regular program is related to pickle. So one of the themes of the last few daffin was piggle as it relates to corbonus that involved breads. The kyeris that came along with the another carbon that came along with breads was the carbon. carbon to came along with 40 breads known as the our Mishna is going to discuss piggle of the additionally we're going to return to the and discuss related to piggle that's says the so can't be what does this even mean asks what does this In the event that a carbon had in mind your classic pickle he the carbon the become meaning if somebody would eat you would be of what would be if while the was doing the carbon he had a mind to eat from the bread itself would become pickle if somebody would eat from it would But as it relates to the buser of the carbon it would not be pickled. So means that to eat from the itself from the creates on the means that does not create an oner of the mission continues and says the same is true regarding the same relationship that the again the In the event that and he had in mind to eat the soer and will be pickle if however while he was the he had to eat the beigle but the not going to be. So again to eat the ber of the makes does not make says my time. So my time what we just said a lot of things says what's the piggle on the buser of the carbon makes not only the buser of the piggle in that if somebody eats from it would be but it would make the also into a maybe he'll tell me a good basic says If you take a look at Rashi, Rashi says grammatically speaking, this P should have been written a little bit differently and from the fact that it says so I learned from here that as if included in the word is the also if included avid would impact the but says if that's the case I mean I hear it's a good shot but then it should be true in the reverse as well on the should make the tidle because again is the is because the are included in so that's why because it's one and the same well then says because it's one and the same says holy that's not fair because I can tell you it's a one-way relationship that the is included in the shame but the is not included in the shame so as it relates to a piggle in the to being it affects but as it relates to being that it wouldn't be true in the reverse. So again you want to know it's maybe based on and it's only the that's called is not called but say I have a different because this of the was said with regards to the and with regards to the the so it's the same exact right over there. There's no anywhere that the of the is called the is bread and the sheep. It's two different things. And being that the Mishna said this with regards to the as well, it must be there's a one sizefits all for the Mishna and the Hezb of Afghan would work for the ratio wouldn't work for the safe. It must be something else is going on over here. says there is you want to know what is in both cases there's an theor of the is the carbon the tel is the theor of the is the the is the if you have a and the tel gets slept along but if you have a on the the does not get slept along very along the along the and the same is true with regards to the says that the Mishna needed to tell me the regarding and its breads and regarding its meaning we just said it's like the same thing one's a one's a so if you tell me by one I should know by the other says I need to I only had to I would have thought Maybe if you have a regarding the I'm sorry if you have a regarding the is not included because you don't find anywhere that you're doing with both parts of this carbon together for example there's no that was done together why we're talking about because but as relates to you find they were brought together for being that there was of that was done with the and together. So there would have been that that creates a zik that creates a very strong relationship between these two parts of the carbon. So that if you do or you have avle by the breads maybe that is piggle would go ahead and it would affect the as well. So it's for that reason even though I know already the I still need to know that the is because I could have thought there it's one and even the one's the but the makes us look at it as one and being that we're looking at as one maybe I would think that the is that's why I need to know not only with regards to the but even with regards to the that the is Now doesn't explain why once I know the by theim I still need the Mishna to tell it to me by right we just said had I only known by I would have known by okay so tell me and I would know so Rashi adds to that and Rashi picks up where the garra leaves off and Rashi says had it only said I would have thought maybe the only time avas piggle in is is by the because they're one unit as opposed to by the as we just mentioned they're so different. So maybe that's why I need both cases. So I need that and I need by the toad that even by the doesn't have the ability to be either way that's why I need and in the mission asks Rob the following question if somebody and he has a to of the what does this mean? actually says what it means is he had a so between the he was but it was only half his eyes of half his eyes of so what's the sh is it or is it not so the garra says like this as it relates to the told I have no why if a person would while he was acting the toas of the it wouldn't be ava's pickle like the mission said so certainly if he had a to eat only a half of and half of it wouldn't be able to be what's the become do we say that being that at the end of the day you had a of and of Each one of these makavas has the ability to make bigle. So maybe it's going to be considered a mach or maybe the and the can't bear as it relates to making the into pigle meaning do we say that it could be mitarif or do we say that it can't be mitar. Let's just take apart raash wanted to know like this. Somebody's bringing a carbon to the he has a mind to eat a half as of the and he has a mind to eat a half a zas of is it or is it not? Now he said as it relates to making the buser pickle it's part it won't be pickle. Why not? Because a on the buser can make the ber pickle but a mash on the can make the boss a pickle. and being that half of sheer of the pickle was the and made this won't be pickle. Now if you notice the lion of the was what's the and by the way if anything you would say maybe if you have a 100% on the that can't be the but if half of the was on the and only half of the was on the maybe it could be the but the is and the way Rashi explains it is because anytime you're working with it syrup to create a pigle so it's always leap of faith. It's always a little bit of a stretch. It's easier to make avigar than it is when you do have to. By the way, exhibit A for that is the beginning of today's. So anytime you have to come out to it makes the so that we have a on you can't make the toy the piggle certainly we have to come on to it where half of it is on the and the other half is the buser even though the half that's on the buser you would think would make it better but at the end of the day I have to come on to it and if I have to come on to it look it wouldn't work. What is the shil the shil is with the leim become pigle what's the should become pigle because both half and both that I had areas that can render the piggle so the makes and even though the said so that half of zas is also for the what then is the question the question is could they be mitarif or could they not be mitar this is question that asked he told him in this case too meaning just like in the case of the becomes it's just a that's not bigle in this case would be the same thing in other words the half of the half of would bear to now make the pigle however as it relates to the the would not become very gishma stating that the gmorra asks a very very chickavic question I don't understand why this is the why don't we say we should invoke the first of the and based on we should say that it's impossible that of would be when it's not what's the misfeld Now, this sounds a lot like right. So, what does this even mean? So, Rashi explains like this. The is the methagle. Why is the tofagle? Because the has the ability to make the lem into the is a [ __ ] of because the doesn't have the ability to make the into the is than the [ __ ] of obviously right the methagel can make the can be the le the which is of the cow because it doesn't have the ability to go ahead and make the into pickle which is the which is a because it has the ability to make the into because but in this is it itself doesn't become the which is only a but it doesn't become pigle it's a fagel it doesn't have the ability to be the faggle. So certainly it shouldn't be piggle either. That I understand Rob's Rob is coming to say that and oftle not to make the pickle. Why? Because both halfim are considered as it relates to the but only the half of is considered regarding the half of is not but there's a mid called and based on the of this would seem to be debunked and the reason is because in this scenario the is and the is a a cow. So how could it be that the which is the is not pigle yet the which is the is going to be the which is which means it's doesn't become now why doesn't it become because the is not the which is trying maybe to be but doesn't have the ability even though it should work but based on the work do we say like this was a story a person this person went into his friend's vineyard and he planted mother. So the background to this uh story and the background to this bry is that there's something called kilakam. What's kilakaram? You're not allowed to plant any types of plants in uh a kum. What happens if you do it all becomes so there was a story where somebody went and he planted something in his friends. Okay. Now the story came to the and said they said this is going to be but the is going to be now we'll see the is going to say that the reason said this was is because so you can't go make somebody else's thing is I don't have the ability to make your field into so the person that went ahead and planted this he did it that was a shalom So therefore when he planted the his became but his friends Karum he didn't have the ability to so it's for that reason the said that which was done that's going to be a problem but according to your logic we should say the same over What's the over here? Why are they the because they're making the right was saying is yet they themselves don't become we just said that the which is only because I can't make the in certainly shouldn't become meaning in this case seem to be the and the seem to be the the don't become So that should not become. Now again this is interesting but it's the same methodology of the previous. So the Gmorra said do we say like that if we do then in this case we should say the same thing it's not in the case of the reason the approached it the way they did and the reason maybe they were completely not impressed by the is because ham canvas full The only types of that becomes if they're planted together with aim areas. Why? That's not for now. But those are the only plants that become being that what we're dealing with over the years is so felt that we can go ahead and we can make up our own rules. So we're going to say that you who went and you planted this thing, we're going to give you a even though it shouldn't be it's going to be but the who didn't do anything wrong. There's no reason for us to go ahead and for us to penalize him. However, but this is a real case of this is a it's not a we're dealing with piggle. We're dealing with real day rice situations over here and is the rob you're telling me that to make the I think you can argue you don't say it because there it's not a sh anyways there it's only have a right to do whatever they want but over here it's rice there were those that said that whole not regarding the but with regards to so it was the same exact sh but not in the context of in the context of so what would it the was if somebody wanted the to eat a half a of the of the and half as of what is regarding and explained again it's the same exact we'll see it's the same exact shock of this is like literally on the but we're talking about it in the context of it's not in the context of the carbon so again as it relates to making there's no sh if the was on the if you have a of it wouldn't have the ability to make the piggle. Why? Because the like the mission says so certainly if you have to come on to if it's only a half his eyes there's no okay what then is the become do we say that being that a half of or being that have the ability to make the so half of each or maybe no maybe being that you have to come on if you can't be mits with a half a she of and a half a she of so told him as well the same sack of as well that yeah I hold that is obviously not going to be pickled you never even entertained that but as it relates to the yeah you do say same why do we say meaning the which is thus it's still ain't a misfle. So the which is the it only is trying to be but doesn't have the ability to be mafagle in it certainly shouldn't be pickle says the same rebuke after we get the version we don't speak out the whole but the same exact sh is awesome. But the person that did this, the person that planted, he's the one that we cancel. There's no reason for us to cancel. But over here, maybe we should say either way. There were two versions of what happened afterwards is the same. It was the same Rav had the same the same the from the case of the same but the question is was Rav said regarding the where somebody was bringing a carb in he had a half of half of and that's where Ravkin that the two halves with regards to the becoming or was it with regards to the The one that had Rob's regarding the he would certainly have it regarding the one that had it on the it could be could be by the and the reason is is because we find there's a zik there's a connection between the two of them there's a mitzvah to do with the two of them so being that there's some sort of connection between the two of them over there of which would be which was really a little bit of the or a little bit of the but as relates to the we don't find any connection between the and between the it could be this is the same that either way but the one that said it by it could be he said it only by could be he didn't say it by the taught that this is what had asked from somebody and he says I'm doing it to eat a from his friend tomorrow what's the when he says his friend who's the friend of one of the other well if that's the case because I'm bringing one I can't have a mash pickle on the other maybe when he says he means to eat the maybe that's the friend of the and if that's the case it would be now if someone has a to eat the bread only the isle that was the mishna but albeit the would be so according to was a slightly different shil the shil was I mean not slightly actually very different if someone'sing one of the kips and he has a mind is you didn't explain what means could mean right is the compadre of this does it mean the other or maybe it means the breads right I could hear both if it means the other it's not at all if it means the bread then I'll cl the breads it's going to be so at first glance it's enough it's the pigle What do you see from here? You see the word means right? Just read the pick of the other is if he had in mind they're both going to be cautious. So what are we referring to as right here? But the says maybe in that he said meaning the video is not getting involved in what the is trying to tell me as it relates to the relationship between these two in the context of but you want to know what means maybe that Mishna is not talking about when he said maybe he said that's not the objective of the Mishna but if he would say that could be a shil the bottom line is I don't think you could be push says from the one in the event that somebody had piggle while he was bringing a carbon. The question is that came together with the carbon do they become piggle do they not become says yes but only it's only once in the event that a person would bring a carbon he would have a pickle regarding the so here he had a pickle to do something with that that already would not create any pickle on in the event to eat from the boss of the sob if however he had in mind to be will be pickled but won't be pickled. So this is very very similar to the of the meaning the relationship between the mirror the relationship of those breads and the carbon where the is that now but the bottom line is similar And presumably the reason is the same reason because what's the is then just like we saw if the of the is the is the is the tel theor is the tuffle the tuffle can't be on this note So in the event that a carbon was brought when so that come together with are included in the somebody would eat from the drink from the and the reason is because the dam of this carbon was mim to be brought on is so that reason it's included in the laws of pickle. So this is of course pickle 101 as we've been talking about the relationship between two things when it comes to pickle has to be a relationship right you're doing and you're having a that the thing that becomes should be done being that became to go so it has that relationship as a result it's included this He just explains himself a little bit better. Mayor, but in the price we have another sheet. We have the told when it comes to a person can bring a carbon today and he has up to 10 days to bring the if that's the case. I'm not sure you can view the as being that it should become piggle as a result of with the carbon I may have told him even when I said I meant it when it's being brought together with the meaning if it's being brought together with the then it's included told him even if it's being brought together with the but meaning it's being brought right now what if I decide not to bring it with and I want to bring it with another I could do So at the time that I'm having the mach's pickle in the carbon even if I have in mind for the to be brought even if I was but I could always be I could always bring it with another as a result I don't think it should ever be included in this mayor what's holds they disagree with the whole premise of mayor because even if I brought in right now but I could always uh change it so it's not considered part of the ra disagrees with that he says that if I bring the together with the carbon it becomes part and parcel of the carbon it's hook at that point that you have to bring with this carbon you want to bring with another carbon you can't similar to the with the breads become part of the at the time being that you can't change it so now it becomes included so interesting that in the of between everybody seems to agree that is what it is because for sure the and are part of the carbon when it comes to the it's mayor who holds this that the is considered part of the carbon regarding piggle disagree and the reason the disagree is because the hold that the is never really considered part of the carbon number one I could bring it in 10 days and even if now I I'm like together with this carbon I'm but I could always change my mind and being that I could change my mind I could always bring it with another carbon meaning once it gets kadusha you can't just use Right. But I could always bring it for something else and bring that I can bring it with another carbon. So it's not part and parcel. Therefore you don't have the den of another in the event that a carbon or was doing the carbon that was brought with the right. So the ash together with a what would be if he had piggle while he's bringing the asham would it infect the would that now be included in the is or pickles so if somebody eats from it would be so the bra says yeah because the is it relationship who says this but the other You don't have to bring the L together with the so if I can bring it in 10 days it shouldn't be included as part of the it shouldn't be subject to this of told he only said this when it's coming together told I could always change it and bring this with another meaning once it gets kad so it's a I can bring it with another explain Once I bring this together with this it becomes with and as a result I don't have the option to switch it. If I don't have the option to switch it it's stuck with it now and therefore and therefore it's considered part of the thus if I have a on the is going to be on the and the reason is is because the is the carbon the tuffle is the and this is going to be the same. Really if you just do a sikum on the last two mishnas the last two mishnas we're discussing again laws of piggle where there's like an and a tuffle of the carbon you have the carbon the is the carbon the and then the is the is the carbon and the tel is the or the comes together with the carbon where is the carbon is a tel or the which is considered to the so the is the asham and the tel is as it relates to highle pickle. A on the would render the tuffle pickle. So if somebody eats from it would be a on the would create a problem for the tuffle but it would have no impact on the stating that when it comes to the already it's remain for a different reason because that the is never really part of the and is never really part of the because you could always be number one you can bring and even if you right now it doesn't become one and the same in contrast to the of the and the of the literally becomes one and the same held not that way because explained that once you do the and you have in mind these and this like it does become one and the same and therefore it's going to be included in that very same