Menachos 24

Today's daf is Menachos daf Chof Daled. We are two lines from the bottom of daf Chof Gimmel Amud Beis. So, if the last two dafin were where Menachos meets Taruvos, today's daf is where Menachos meets Tumah v'Taharoh. Says the Gemara, "Ki Salik Rav Kahana, when Rav Kahana went from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, we'll see hashtag rest of the story at the end of the daf." Ashkichei l'vei Rav Chiya, so Rav Kahana meets the sons of Rav Chiya. lived in Eretz Yisrael, his sons lived in Eretz Yisrael, and Rav Kahana met them, and he saw they asked "V'eema Kamai?" They were learning mesechtas Menachos. And they were learning the following halacha, "Isorim shechokim, if the isorim, that's the shear of a carbon mincha, was divided into two parts, v'ninchu v'veisa, and it was put into the keili where they used to mix the carbon mincha, but the two parts of the mincha, this is important, were not touching each other. The nagaf v'yam nagaf v'yam, somebody that was tamei went to the mikvah, but he has to wait until the sun sets, brochos daf beis, before he's able to eat trumah, before he's able to eat kodshim. During that interim period between the tevilah and herev shemesh, when the sun sets, he's tamei, but he's not as tamei. He has a a limited level of tumah. He's a t'vul yom. A t'vul yom went and he touched one of the two halves of the carbon mincha, the question was mahu. Does the other part of the mincha become tamei as well, or does it not? Meaning, that's poshit that the half of mincha that the t'vul yom touched is going to be tamei. T'vul yom touched it, it's tamei. The question is, what about the other half? Now, Rashi says that the reason the b'nei Rav Chiya were discussing the shailah with a t'vul yom, not with an ordinary tamei, is because an ordinary tamei, this wouldn't have been a shailah. Because the tamei would be m'tamei the half of mincha, which would be m'tamei the keili that the half of mincha's in, which would then be m'tamei the other half of mincha. But, being that a t'vul yom's tumah is limited, we don't have to go into the proton, but being that his capability to be met Thomas limited that chain reaction wouldn't go into effect. So the only way that the other half of the mincha would become Tommy is if you say that being the two halves of the mincha are in the same Kaylee. So the Kaylee is met sorry for them so that if the toy and touches half the other half becomes Tommy as well. That was the shiyala. And the truth is it's a Mishnah because the Mishnah says katanan clean met sorry for mash but they could dish honey made a the nagiva I will have you doing that give a little bit I don't know. No, it's a Mishnah that says that a Tommy that touches a Kaylee of something that's in the Kaylee everything that's in the Kaylee becomes Tommy. But the men of here weren't sure if that's only true if everything in the Kaylee is touching each other. But in the case where the things are not touching each other no or maybe not I'm a mother who. So they asked the shiyala to have Kahana and he told them meet tonight clean my cover clean my cover tonight. That Mishnah that says that a Tommy that touches something in the Kaylee everything that's in the Kaylee is Tommy. The washing of Mishnah is clean my cover and you have to be met like the shiyala of shiyala Mishnah said of Kahana. It doesn't say clean my cover it says clean my cover. Clean my cover would mean that the only time this shiyala is true is if they're touching. Clean my cover again grammar but that suggests that they don't necessarily have to be touching. In other words the men of here weren't sure what the shiyala is. Of Kahana told them what the shiyala is that if a toy and would touch part of a mincha the other half of the mincha even if it's not touching would be Tommy as well. Then they asked him another shiyala. They asked him what would happen if they name him now. What would be if somebody would stick a third part of a mincha into this Kaylee shiyala. See you have a mincha it's divided into two it's in the Kaylee shiyala where they're going to mix the mincha together with the oil and now somebody sticks more soil less into this Kaylee. Now that extra soil less is not part of the mincha cuz you already had the sheer of the mincha in the original Kaylee and then that extra let's call the third half so to speak became Tommy. The question is, do you say the same halakha that kli metzaref mashke betoch leqodesh, that it's metamei everything even what's not touching, or not? On my way to Kahana, said here it's going to be different cuz soreq leqli kli metzaref ein soreq leqli ein kli metzaref. The only time this halakha that keli is metzaref, that's what's soreq leqli. So, the two halves of the mincha have a din to be in this kli. They're not just plunked in the keli together. They have a din to be here. They're part of the same mincha. They're here so you be mekayem the mitzvah of belila and the mitzvah of yetzika and then take this kli sharash and do your kemitzah and and go be mekayem the din of the mincha. Being that they're here for a purpose, it's over there the halakha is that the keli has an ability to be metzaref even though they're not touching. But, if you stick a random thing into the keli, like a third half of a mincha that has no part of this mincha, over there this halakha is not going to be sure. Yes, Rav Kahana's third question. I should ask Rav Kahana. Rav Kahana, what would be if a tful yad would stick his hand into the airspace of this keli? So, the same case. You have a a kli sharash that has two halves of a mincha in and the kli the tful yad stuck in. He didn't touch any of the halves, but he put his hand in between the two halves. The question is, is he metamei or is he not metamei? Now, if you want to think of this shailah from a London perspective, once you say that the kli is metzaref mashke betoch leqodesh, so really the two pieces are touching each other. So, if you stuck your hand in between the two pieces, maybe it's as if you're touching the actual mincha, right? Because being that we look at these two halves of a mincha as if they're touching each other, kli metzaref mashke betoch leqodesh, so maybe it's as if he touched. But, the point is, that was the question. The tful yad stuck his hand into the airspace of the mincha, is he metamei or not? Rav Kahana knew the answer to that as well. He told him, "Ein lo davar metamei elah kli cheres." Kli cheres has a chiddush that it's metamei be'avir. So, if a sheretz falls into the airspace of a kli cheres, it's metamei kol mashke betoch. Or, if you have a clay Harris that's to me and something falls into the ear space of the clay Harris, that thing becomes to me as well. But the hidden dish of coal mash of the cycle yet more was stated after with regards to the tone of a clay Harris. Here we're dealing with the clay Harris that was used in the base of the mid dash for the min it wasn't a clay Harris. Thus you're not going to have this hidden dish of something being to me from the other of the clay Harris as the most after the near up here as of Kahana three shy lows. And if Kahana knew the answer to all three shy lows we can see again at the end of the day of hashtag rest of the story. Then where of Kahana came up there at the stroll, he came with a with a big to me schluffish famously said about of Kahana I read all of me bother. So if near up here that firing questions at of Kahana of Kahana showing a a tremendous Kahana for she was able to answer all the shy lows. But then of Kahana flipped it. He said you know, let me ask you a shy low. Says the human heart of you by me and I use of Kahana as near up here a question and the question was my weak minds me say. How's that? Could you do Kamita on a min that's divided into halves? Meaning that was the theme of the question. You have a min that's divided into two halves a and a is on. And if Kahana said I have a question too. If the two halves of the min were separated they're not physically touching each other. But there's enough of a sheer to do Kamita from one half. Is that okay? Is it not okay? What's the question? The law is clean it mash of the cycle of the that's what we just said with regards to to me. So do I look at the two halves of if they're connected to each other as long as they're in the same cali. So as a result I could do Kamita from half. I it's only half. No, the clay is met out of or not. And the essence of that shy low was serious the right side of the bottom. This idea that a clay is met out of it's trying to the right side level. If that's the case it works even the cooler. Or maybe it's only a matter of the bottom with regards to to me. You have all these cameras. The end of the day we discuss this at length. I mean the bottom of the right this cameras with regards to to me of the Torah in the context of kodesh. So maybe this chiddush of klay meit zar mashiv et hakodesh is not the ikar hadin, it's not shavah d'Oraisa level, it's only chomer d'Rabanan. If that's the case, maybe it's not going to work l'kula with regards to kmitza. And they told him, "Zulay shamayim, I can't tell you that I have a braisa or a mishna to tell you exactly, I know the answer to your question. However, our mishna, shnei menachos tum'in, achas both of which didn't have kmitza done to them. You have two complete menachos. When this was they were mixed up. Meaning if they were completely nisraf, then you can't do kmitza. You're out, there's nothing to do with this. If only part of it was nisraf, but the part that wasn't nisraf is enough that you can do kmitza, then the halacha is kasher. V'im lav, then if not, pasul. So the Bnei Reuven said, "You see from here that as long as you can do kmitza, it's going to be okay." Doesn't it sound like you have three separate parts of these two menachos? Right, the way we explained it yesterday, maybe it was after the shiur, is that you have two menachos, mincha aleph, mincha bet. And half of mincha aleph and half of mincha bet went into klishores bet. So the first klishores has half of mincha aleph. The second klishores has half of mincha bet. And the third klishores is made up of a taruva of the other half of mincha aleph and the other half of mincha bet. But pashet, the way you visualize the case, it sounds like mincha aleph is not together in the same klishores and mincha bet is not all together in the same klishores. So what's the mishna saying? You could do kmitza? Yesterday the Gemara got involved in the lomdus of and they brought the machlokes from Rav Chanina, a very super lomdish Gemara like the shurayan b'mevatel the other mincha make it a a mincha chaser. Super gishmach. But said the Bnei Reuven, "If there's a hava amina that the only time you could do kmitza is if the entire mincha is touching each other, then this case is then an arrival. How in the world could you even do kmitza in such a case?" Elo mai, you see from me you don't need the entire to be touching each other. But on my rubber rubber said I don't think it's a riot. Do you push it on the whole walking maybe it's talking about a case where Mincha A and Mincha B were touching each other but they were only touching each other at one side. So the side that they were touching each other was necessary but it was another side of Mincha A and Mincha B that were not touching each other and if what the mission is saying is that if you could do from the side that's not touching the other Mincha the other side that's not necessary it's okay but the point is you have a case where Mincha A and Mincha B are touching each other and they're also not touching each other. I should know Gale and your name is that the entire Mincha A is by itself and the entire Mincha B is by itself but it could be if Mincha A or Mincha B wouldn't be by itself there'd be no way in the world to do this. My hobby over what's the bottom line? Could you do from a Mincha that's not all one? On my rubber touch my it says with regards to the of Mincha of the but the word we learn may not sorry we learn from there that you can't have the Mincha in two separate and do that way. Says the public of the comes sounds like at the end of the day it's only in two meaning two two doesn't work. So that picture of the mission on the camera you have to delete from your mind. That doesn't work. You can't do that if the Mincha is in two that's for sure but at the same time the says I think you see from this so that the two don't have to be touching each other. Why? Because it sounds like the issue is if they're in separate what if they're in one do me this so they really are one they're not touching each other sounds like from there would be okay. So at the very least let's be that you see that the is meaning that is a right so it's not a doesn't only work with regards to all. It's true even with regards to climates. Meaning it's only if the minchas in two kaylim that you can't do the kumitzah, but if it's one kayli, it does work. Amalei Abaye, that Abaye said I don't think you have a raya from here. Ushnei kaylim maybe the case with Brices telling me that if it's in two kaylim it doesn't work, it's talking about it was in two kaylim, but the two minchas were actually touching each other. How's that possible? Again, kafiza bikava. So, you had two measuring kaylim. One was bigger than the other, and the smaller one was inside the big one. So, what happens is on the top of the smaller one, what's in the smaller one is going to be touching what's in the outer one. So, think of an outer kayli and an inner kayli. Outer one is bigger, the inner kayli is small. The outer kayli Rashi says held a kav, the inner one held three quarters of a kav. So, the inner one is inside the smaller one. It's a mechitza, it's two separate kaylim cuz part of the minchas in the outer one, part of the minchas in the in the middle one. But at the same time, being that the inner one is smaller, so the two minchas touch each other from on top. The point is they were really touching each other in this case. And if you want to make a deyak that if it's one kayli, it's going to be one kayli where it's touching each other, says the Gemara. Ha kayli achas dumi d'bais kaylim achas dumi. You could go in a reverse direction. A trough that was used to feed tarnegolim, where there would be water on one side and they would put the morsen, that was the food that the tarnegol used to eat on the other side. It would have a very low mechitza, and as a result the water and the morsen touched each other. I forgot the mitzvah of mechitza, so even though there's a mechitza between, on the gaylo, being that it's touching, that's why you would be able to do the kumitzah. V'hacha l'negay klal tivay l'cha. In other words, the Gemara thought that if there's a braysa that says that the minchas in two kaylim, you can't do the kumitzah, why is it that the two things don't have to be touching? Because if the mincha all has to be touching, it has to be one solid mincha in order to do kumitzah, then what's the hava mina if it's in two kaylim, it's going to be okay? Of course it's not okay in two kaylim. In two kaylim by definition it's not touching. El o mai, it's only two kaylim where it's not good. But if it be Kailyn the two Kailyn, it'd be one Kailyn and not touching it would be. So it says no. The more saying that when we say a father that maybe the mincha has to be touching. After the mincha is not touching, there's nothing to talk about. You can't do the Why do I need a bracha to tell me two Kailyn? Because it's where it's two Kailyn and it's touching. What's the with the bigger measuring cup, the smaller measuring cup, whatever the case is. And then the is is where it's in one Kailyn the two Kailyn where it's touching, it's okay. Now what's the case? The more figure out what that case is also. But and it could be it has to touch. Maybe not. That was kind of he asked so knew the answer to the three questions that the asked him but the didn't know the answer to his question. They thought it was a then they thought it was a rather than discussed it. But at the end of the day, we're left with that another boy is famous in for asking so that like this you would expect to have any boy you to see if we what happens? Again, you have a divided into two parts. So you have A and B. And they're in the same so we said is it was the first which means that if it full yard would touch one half of the mincha, the other half of the mincha would be tell me as well. The question is what if one of the two halves, let's call it mincha B was connected to more flour. Another a third half that was outside of the it was connected to it because there was water somehow that was touching and being that they were both touching the same body of water that was Rashi has two examples of what the case was but let's just keep it simple something along those lines. And now it went and he touched one of the halves of the mincha that are inside. He touched so it's attached to so and it's to Mincha C because of this keyboard to the mind. Do you say that or not? So yeah, Mincha Mincha B they're through the clay. And Mincha B is keep now do you see Klima that's only for things that are inside the cave. You can't use Klima to then have Mincha B be Mincha C or not. So there's no reason. Everything is going to be Tommy in this case. What would be in the reverse? Klima What would be same exact case? Mincha A and Mincha B are both together in the cave. So the clay is Mincha B Mincha B is attached to Mincha C which is outside the cave. Now in the first case Mincha A became Tommy. In the second case Mincha C becomes Tommy. If you are in touch with Mincha C. So do you say touch Mincha C? Mincha C and Mincha B are attached to the mind. B and A are attached because Mincha B you going to have the same so or no? What's the shalom Mincha B Maybe the only time Mincha B this works is where at the very least the Tommy happened inside the cave. But if the Tommy happened outside the cave or maybe there's no difference. Says the take he saw that's the same principles as the previous class. But a little bit of a twist. What would be if you had Mincha meaning the Mincha was divided into two and one half of them became Tommy. Became Tommy how? I don't know. Tommy was anything. It's Tommy now. And now the two halves of the Mincha were put into the same place. So this Mincha is really dead on arrival because half of the Mincha was Tommy even before it arrived. Before it landed inside the because that is not the Tommy. Now it went and he half. Which half? The half that had already been told me. Now, what's the law? Do we say the other half becomes Tommy or the other half does not become Tommy? Again, the first shilo in today's daf, the question that the mayor of asked when I read was all of me above all was they wanted to know if you have a minchos which was divided into two halves. It's in a cali at for you I'm touched one half. Do you say clean it motion the human when the two things aren't touching or maybe only when they're touching? That was essentially the shilo. Rav Kahana said it says clean it not clean it which means they don't have to be touching. Over here, what happened was there were two halves of the same case. They're both in the at for you I'm touched one of them. We want to know if the other one's Tommy. It's the same setup. The only difference is that the half of the mincha that it for you I'm touched had been Tommy in this case before that for you I'm touching it. So, what's the shilo? The shilo is once it's Tommy it can't become Tommy again. So, that for you I'm when he touched it wasn't a Tommy. If he wasn't a Tommy, you don't have that a lot of clean it motion or maybe no. It was Tommy. But, being that there's a condition in the tumor that would be how if we say that it for you I'm can be a Tommy it again. Because now that for you I'm has been a Tommy inside the you have that a lot of clean it motion which you didn't have till now. Because until now that half had become Tommy before it was in the clean it motion. So, do you say that it for you I'm has an ability to be a Tommy the main after we know so that the other half should be Tommy or no. How can be a Tommy something that's already Tommy? That's the question. Me and do we say so Tommy, it's Tommy. It's already satisfied to show you something Tommy. It has Tommy already. Once it has Tommy, it can't become Tommy again. I worry or maybe no. Or maybe anything I mean it's so Tommy to a degree. It's already Tommy, but at the same time maybe it has the ability be become Tommy again so that you should have the law of clean and safe. the same So by it told Rava, he said of me a minute subway to my Rava. You have a homonym in the same subway to my you there's no such thing as subway to my. I'll prove to you from a missioner that it's possible for something that's already Tommy to become Tommy again. Where is this missioner? Doesn't sound familiar. It's in the 27th paragraph of Kaelin. sheet that was Tommy mattress. So we know that a Zav and Nida and Zava any person that becomes Tommy because of a double yet to me goofa or goofa has a very special place in the of Tommy and Taira. He or she is met Tommy to my mattress. That means if she sits on something, lies on something, rides on something, it gets a special Tommy to my mattress. Tommy mattress is another Tommy. So it's met Tommy special rules in Tommy. So what happened over here was it was a sudden that was Tommy to my mattress. Let's say a Zav lied on this sheet. As a result it was Tommy to my mattress. Says the missioner here, "What happens if the owner of this sudden decides I don't want to use this as a sheet anymore. I'm done using it as a sheet. I want to use it now as a curtain." So it turned it into a view line. The law of Tommy and mattress it automatically loses its Tommy to my mattress. The only time the sudden maintains its Tommy to my mattress is as long as used as something that people would be mattress on so to speak. But once you're switching its touch with you're switching its usage from a sudden to now a view line being that there is no Tommy to my mattress on a view line even though it previously had Tommy to my mattress, it's going to lose its Tommy to my mattress. I've already told you my mattress. But at the same time it's still going to be Tommy. It's going to be Tommy to my mattress. So it's not going to have Tommy to my that special Tommy to my mattress not going to have cuz it's not being used anymore for something that is mattress. But at the same time Tommy to my mattress, of course it's going to be Tommy to my mattress. I'm Rabbi Yossi Rabbi Yossi said "There isn't mattress no gazette." What what's the Tommy to my what's the Tommy to my mattress? I don't think it's going to be Thomas Maga. Hello. Shem Maga boy has off Tommy Maga off. The only way it would be Thomas Maga, the only way it would be Tommy Thomas Maga is if the Zov physically touched it. No, it's Maga it's based on the tiny comers. Tiny comers holds if something is Tommy Thomas Maga it's automatically Tommy Thomas Maga as well. By definition if it's Maga it's it's also Maga. Rabbi Asi said it's not necessarily true physically. And the only time in this case this V line now which was previously a Sodden would be Tommy Thomas Maga is if the Zov touched it. So it would have been first Maga that didn't give it Tommy Thomas Maga. Only afterwards if the Zov also touched it then in addition to the Tommy Thomas Maga it would also be Tiny comers holds no when it became Maga it also became Maga. But Rabbi Asi holds not like this. Rabbi Asi holds when it was Maga it was Maga it wasn't Tommy Thomas Maga. Now it doesn't have Tommy Thomas Maga anymore. You want to know if it's also Tommy Thomas Maga? It would have to have been touched in the Maga way in order for it to be Tommy Thomas Maga. That's as much of this mission as we need. Today's daf. Says the Gemara, "So Abaya tiny kind of Zov Mia Tommy Vafila Basar." Doesn't it sound like from Abaya? What's Abaya say? That if the Zov made it Tommy Thomas Maga and then afterwards he touched it and it became Tommy Thomas Maga then you're going to have Tommy Thomas Maga. If he didn't touch it afterwards it's not going to be Tommy Thomas Maga. The question is once it's Tommy Thomas Maga has it become Tommy Thomas Maga? "Am I lame as Abaya Tommy once it's Maga it can't become Maga anymore." So you see clearly that something that's Maga could be Maga. Abaya told me might the highest Maga of the Basar Maga. Tommy McAllen Maga. Maybe what Rabbi Asi meant was if the first the Zov touched it in a Tommy Thomas Maga way and then afterwards he lied on it in the Tommy Thomas Maga way that's where it would be in a Geya later if it loses its Maga it's still going to have that. And the reason that works is because "Dabe Tuma Chamura Tuma Kala." "Aval Hocha" but in our case the individual Tuma Kala we're not discussing the Tuma Chamura and the Tuma Kala we're discussing an ordinary Tuma where let's say a full year and touched it out of the Kli Charash and now he touched it again inside the Kli Charash. It's the same exact Tuma line. Then what does Abaya say? Maybe it arises from the safe. "May the Rabbi Asi Rabbi Asi might be Shas and I'm going to follow If you have two sheets that are folded and not that the one on top of the other and the one on all these sheets are in Tommy measures the top one is Tommy to my measures that in Tommy measures and Maga measures the bottom one is Tommy measures and Maga measures. So you see from here that it's held Tommy measures and Maga measures at the same time. If it's held Tommy measures how can it also be held Tommy Maga measures? But again the Torah says that's not a possible thing. Over there the two things are being held at the same time. When the sits on the upper one everything on bottom becomes measures and Maga measures. We're discussing a different case. We're discussing Tommy already. It was already Tommy. You want to know if the Tommy could be held by the Tommy? That's the question. Either way says the Torah you have no right here from here. One final Torah. What happens if a coin had a the that's the full share divided into two one half was lost. The so now the coin went and it was fresh a third half. And the reason it was a third half is he needed for the second half cuz the second half was lost. The we showing and then the one that was lost was found. And now you have all three and they're all sitting in the what do you do now? If the one that was the one that had been previously lost became Tommy and they're all in the as we saw clean with so then the is the original so if the original became Tommy it's going to be Tommy and original one again the original is going to be the one that never got lost. The original is the one that got lost and has since been found. The is the replacement. That's the third one that they brought in when one of them got lost. So you have the original, the original and the original all three halves get in there. The reason is the original one that he's been there from the beginning till the end. You have the upward, that's when they got lost. The mufflers was the replacement. So, if the upward, the one that got lost, became Tommy, upward version is star fun. It's going to be Tommy and the reason is going to be Tommy as well. Claim it's out my show my psyche is going to say those two are Tommy. Mufflers is a myth star fun. But the mufflers not. Nick ma mufflers, if the mufflers is the one that became Tommy, mufflers for re-shaming star fun and the mufflers and the re-shaming going to be myth star fun. Upward name is star fun, but upward is not going to be myth star fun. The reason is because there's a relationship between the re-shaming and the upward and the re-shaming and the mufflers. Either ones technically was could have would have should have been together. Originally, it was the re-shaming and the upward, then it became the re-shaming and the mufflers. But the bottom line is there's like there's an energy connecting those two and therefore you have the law of claim it's out my show my psyche. The other one is the ticket coming in. As it relates to the upward and the mufflers, they were never supposed to be at the same time. The mufflers is here to replace the upward, but there's no connection between the upward and the mufflers. It's for that reason that upward that those two won't connect. But if the upward becomes Tommy or the mufflers becomes Tommy, it's going to be met Tommy the re-shaming as well. What if the re-shaming became Tommy? Nick my re-shaming is not going to be myth star fun. Then they're both going to be Tommy cuz the re-shaming is connected in this law of claim it's out my show my psyche both to the upward and to the mufflers. I am a bias says no. If you would nick my achem and not my show my psyche, it doesn't matter which one becomes Tommy. Whether the re-shaming becomes Tommy, the upward becomes Tommy or the mufflers becomes Tommy, in all three cases, all three halves are going to be Tommy. My time of cool of the name big sad of the name of literally, they all live in the same min car over here. But the point is being that they're all part of the same min car. It's not like in the case that we had in the middle of where you stuck in a third half of the sun for no reason. Where of Kahana, that was the second question they asked of Kahana. Of Kahana said that whatever belongs in the Kahili, the Kahili's matsar, whatever doesn't belong in the Kaylee, the Kaylee's not matsar. But we here they all belong in the Kaylee, says Abaya. It's true. You were never supposed to have all three at the same time. But at the end of the day, all three halves have a din to be in the Kaylee. Thus, the halakha of Kaylee matsar would apply to all three. Another halakha, the Kaylee and the Kaylee komitzah, same is true. Same exact methodology with Kaylee and Kaylee komitzah. Komitzah min ha avod, if the Kaylee did komitzah from the avod, so again, you have the rishon, the avod, and the mufrash. They're all in the same mincha. Now, nothing got lost. The Kaylee's going, well, actually it did get lost, but everything is found now. Now that nothing became tamay, I should say. And now the Kaylee's going, and he wants to do the komitzah. So he's going to do komitzah from one chelek of it. Komitzah min ha avod, if the Kaylee did komitzah from the avod, so the halakha is shiyur of the shiyurim of the avod, the rishon, and the shiyurim of the rishon are not eaten. We know komitzah and aktarah is matir the mincha lechila. So if you did komitzah from the avod and then you were maktir it, so now the shiyurim of the avod and the shiyurim of the rishon get eaten, but the mufrash is not eaten. Because the komitzah of the avod is not matir the mufrash, because there's no connection. There's nothing binding the avod and the mufrash. Komitzah min ha mufrash, shiyur of the rishon is not eaten. Again, the mufrash and the rishon are connected, avod is not eaten. Komitzah min ha rishon, if you did komitzah from the rishon, it's the same in not eaten. Interesting. Over here, they both cannot be eaten. Why can they both not be eaten? Because we don't know if the rishon is connected to the avod or it's connected to the mufrash. As a result, the chomer and nothing can be eaten. Abaya and Abaya says, I feel like komitzah min ha avod and shiyurim are not eaten. No, we never know what's connected to what. And as a result, you can never eat anything. My time of kulam be said no, because they're all part of the same mincha. And being that you can't be matir all of them, you can't be matir any of them. It's the same machlokes Rav and Abaya. Mascula Rav Papa, Rav Papa said it sounds like even according to Abaya, the shiyurim today may not be eaten. Abaya said that if you do komitzah from one, you can't eat the shiyurim of the other two. But it sounds like in and of itself, you can. Like you could dunk it in the Kaylee. It's like kariv. Lechora, to the extent that you're not sure if which one of the other parts of the minchas being matter, that means it's we don't know for sure what this comments is being matter. Once this comments is not being matter the entire mincha, so it's like a mincha chaser on some level, you shouldn't even be able to eat its own shirim. The gamora's being mad at the public thought in a buyer that from its own shirim you could eat. It's the rest of the shirim that you're not allowed to eat. Either way, for example, the gamora mask of the user creator of mashie has a similar question. The comments go for a quarter. How can you even be matter of the comments? So you could tell us again if you don't know exactly what this mincha is. You're looking at all three as part of this mincha and and there's there's some confusion as far as the mincha goes. And I don't shouldn't you be able to eat the shirim? I have a problem even before that. You shouldn't even be able to matter the comments. What I says either way what I said comments but I think the coin time and those says relates to this shilo where there was the comments oven and the comments that they were matter afterwards and you're not sure what's what. It really all depends on the mind of the coin. The coin can comment I saw the comments is bungles. He knows in his head that there's always supposed to be an so you never have to worry about the fact that there's a third half that you're not sure what is. As a result, it's not going to be a a commit to say or not on the comments level, not on the level and as a result you'll be able to eat excel. So before we well, we're not going to go by that. We finished the a few hours. So start with a long and we'll go from there. So yesterday's that and really shabbos and Sunday's that that base and given the message is minachus is halachas of taruvas in the context of minachus. And you know what brought him a like this with you with the like this as mentioned throughout shas which notably when you learn the of taruvas, but really the the is kachin and that is member minoy bottle or member minoy bottle. You that have a famous sheet in shas that member minoy is like bottle. Incidentally, the the whole member minoy bottle in halacha this is taruvas 101. A taruvas is minoy is actually more cool a dig than a taruva is a member shaina minoy. And the reason is because a taruva is a member shaina minoy, even when you have a roiv and a miut, the miut is usually with up to a certain proportion noisen tam into the roiv. As a result, you have a tam ke iker, and according to many rishonim, a tam ke iker de'oraisa. When you have a taruva is a member minoy, the miut is usually not noisen tam into the roiv. As a result, you never have a tam ke iker de'oraisa. That's why in halacha, the machaber paskens tam ke iker de'oraisa by member shaina minoy. Minoy, tam ke iker de'rabbanan member minoy. It's like if you have a sofek shishim when it comes to a taruva is a member shaina minoy, it's sofek de'oraisa l'chumra. If you have a sofek shishim by a taruva is a member minoy, it's sofek de'rabbanan l'kula. So really, but either way, that's machlokes Rav Yehuda and and the chachamim that Rav Yehuda holds member minoy is lo batel at all. It's more chamur than member shaina minoy. It's lo batel. The chachamim hold member minoy is batel. The Gemara said "V'shnei'hem mikra echad darshu." That Rav Yehuda got his shitah from a pasuk. It's the pasuk that discusses the work done in Yom Kippur. The pasuk says the kohen gadol should take from the dam of a par and the dam of a sa'ir. He should mix them together. And the question is, the dam of a par and the dam of a sa'ir, to the extent that they're mixed, we know that the dam of a par is much more than the dam of a sa'ir. So here, the dam of a sa'ir is batel to the dam of a par. So how are you even referring to it as a dam of a sa'ir? So Rav Yehuda said, "You see from here, member minoy lo batel. Must be because it's dam and dam. Dam is not batel to dam." That's Rav Yehuda's makor to call a Torah kula. Member minoy batel. What do the rabbanan hold? The rabbanan say it's true. And and maskin to the dik. Something you need to extract from this pasuk. We have to walk away with a big time yesod in hilchos taruvos. But the yesod is not member minoy batel. The yesod is that oilin ainon mevattlin zeh ozeh. The yesod is that two things that have the same din, they both have a din to go on the mizbei'ach, they can't be mevattel each other. And being that the dam of a par and the dam of a sa'ir are both oilin, it's for that reason that there's not going to be any bittul. The Ran in the second Nedarim, daf nun beis amud alef. And this Ran is right for camels and it's right for echos. So it's a big run both quantitatively and qualitatively and literally takes up the entire moment. It's a very very very large run. And the run over there is discussing primarily the halacha of a which we'll talk more about in a minute. The halacha is in the context of that run that's discussing this we would have and the run says the beer in the which is one way and the other way. In fact in the we didn't learn it together. The why did say it the way? The kasha. And why did say it the way? The kasha. The left us hanging. Right? It was very unclear. Like why so it his way? He took out and took out what's going on over here? What's the rest of the story? Says the run the beer is as follows. In order to have in order to say that a could be a minute you need that the minute should be different. Two things that are different that come together force us to make a decision. We have to decide. How do we look at this voice? Do I look at it as the voice or do I look at it as the minute? Do I look at it as A or do I look at it as B? But it's all because of the fact that the two things are different that forces us to now decide. Otherwise let everybody live happily together. You can't do that. Because of the fact that they're it's precisely because of the fact that they're so different that forces us to make a decision and forces us to go down the road of what we know as a bit of two things that are similar to the contrary says the run. There's no reason for us to make a decision. If two things that are alike come together why do we have to say why do we have to create this new metzius known as taruvos where we have to say one is going to now be bottled to the other? Let them live happily together. There's no reason in the world not to be able to say that. And that says the Ran is is taruvos 101. That the whole yesod of taruvos is cuz you have two dvarim hamisnaggdim zeh lazeh that are coming together and that's what forces us to now Says the Ran, Rav Yehudah and the Rabbanan both thought that from the loch param dama asur, the reason there's no bitul over there is probably cuz the dama param dama asur are not so different. And being that they're not so different, you're not forced to decide between one or the other. To the contrary, they mechazek each other, so to speak, and therefore there's no reason to say bitul. The question is, what's the determining what's so similar to them? Rav Yehudah said about blood. They're both physically the same. The Chachamim said they're both oilam. They both have the same halacha. They both go on the mizbeach. Meaning, Rav Yehudah felt that when you look at a taruvos, what matters is the metzius of the two things. So the more alike the things are physically, the less you have a right to say that there's a svara over here thus there's going to be halacha bitul. The Chachamim say I don't look at the way they are physically. That doesn't interest me. What interests me is halachically. The more they're alike halachically, that's what says there's no svara necessarily to say bitul. So Rav Yehudah said, you know what's unique about dama param dama asur? They're both dam. There's also min uminay batel. Chachamim say I'm okay physical. That's what That's what matters? This is physical? This not We're not learning science, we're learning halacha. So in halacha, this is this is These are sugyas in Shas. Sugyas in Shas, we look at the halachic status. We look at the the spiritual essence of these two things, not the physical essence of it. And as a result, being spiritually if they're both oilam, that's what makes them similar. Says the Ran that the yesod of Rav Yehudah is Rav Yehudah also acher dimyon in ha'etzem. The Rav Yehudah goes based on the metzius, whereas the Rabbanan are halacha acher dimyon in ha'hecter. They go based on dimyon in ha'hecter. And that's essentially what it boils down to. But it's all predicated on this mitzva is that the only time you have a halacha bitul when you have two things that are different, they come That's when you have bitul. When this Nobody argues with that. So that premise shnayim mikra echad darshui, both Rabi Yehuda and the Rabbanan agree with. There is absolutely no machlokes. What is the machlokes? Do you look at dimyon in her etzem or do you look at dimyon in her heter? That's the question. Rabi Yehuda was holech basar dimyon etzem. Rab- The Rabbanan were holech acher dimyon in a heter. But when it comes to two things that are min b'mina, the Torah says lishana acher to the contrary that you don't have to worry about it. It's hard to find the Ran here. But says the Ran there, each one is mechazek each other and as a result you're not going to have the halacha of bitul. Now, that's a beautiful Ran here in the Don Dafnin Beiza u'Menalin. But in light of yesterday's daf, it's not so pashut this Ran anymore. Because what we saw in yesterday's daf, what was the whole daf? Machlokes of Rabi Nachman and Rabi Chanina the whole daf. But what was the whole daf from the beginning? Take it from the daf. Now, what was what was the daf? Machlokes of Rabi Nachman and Rabi Chanina. And the machlokes was that even Rabi Yehuda that holds min b'mina like bitul, it's not enough that they're physically the same. There's two boxes that need to be checked off. Number one, are they min b'mina? Dimyon in her etzem. But there was a second box. What was the second box that had to be checked off? You have to make sure that halachically you can bridge the two things. So a nevela and shchuta could be bridged because shh nevela could become shchuta. Once it's not ro'i l'achilas kelev anymore, it doesn't have the din of nevela anymore. Or a mincha could become koimes u'shirayim. Because once you do kemitzah from the mincha, you'll have koimes, you'll have shirayim. So if the two things are A, dimyon in her etzem and B, there's on somehow halachic level, even though right now they're different, but they can become It's only then that Rabi Yehuda said it's halacha. If that's the case, this Ran is a very oversimplification of shitas Rabi Yehuda. It's not true that Rabi Yehuda only goes basar dimyon etzem. Rabi Yehuda takes the dimyon in a heter into consideration as well. Now, two things. Number one, okay, it's not a problem. Number two, the Gemara Rabi Chisda and Rabi Chanina really was saying there in they were saying in who went I don't know if it's that it's true in Rav Yehuda. It could be it's true in the not Gemara base. We have to go through the Gemara a little bit better, but it sounded like it was more in who went Rav Yehuda than it was in Rav Yehuda as well. But either way, this is a very important right. But really, the punchline of the right and the part of the right that's quoted throughout Shas is the next part of the right. Says the right, with this which the only time you say is is when you have a mixture of two things that are those that forces us to decide between A or B. But two things that are the same, you don't have the of right. Says the right, I can explain to you the idea of So we know that not every time two things come together in a do you say there are many exceptions to the rule. One of the is where you don't say right is a matter. So anything that's also now, but something can happen that will make it at some point in the future, you don't say the of Now what's in Rashi is very good. Rashi says a that you want to why should we and very nice have a but at the end of the day you still have a in this So why should I rely on if I don't have a choice? This is always going to be also. So the only way for me to ever benefit from it is through Okay, so now we're going to say but being that it's a that something can happen in which which after after will be so so why should I eat it now on I should know we'll eat it afterwards. The point is is that something that will be there's no reason to rely on this known as but the right answer is a different shot. Says the Ran, you want to know what the var is? It's this of this yisod. Cuz the only time you say bitul rov is when two things are very very different. Let's think in chitas chacham. What does different mean? They have to be different in terms of issur v'heter. Cuz two oilin are not mevatal zuzu. Cuz they're too similar. Why is every taruv voice made up of two things that are different? Cuz one is a dover assur, and the other one is a is a dover mutar. Says the Ran, if the dover assur is a dover she'eino matir, it's going to become mutar. It's not different enough than the dover mutar for me to say bitul. Different means assur always going to be assur, mutar always going to be mutar. But to the extent that it's a dover she'eino matir, and it's possible for the dover assur to switch teams at some point. It can now become mutar. We're not different enough. We need to be different in a a very fundamental way, in a very meaningful way. So much so that it's assur and eino matir in order for us to have this hisnagdus. In order to be able to have the bitul rov. Just end this wonderful part of the daf with something interesting, and that is just one ha'ara on Rashi and one ha'ara on the Ran. As it relates to the Ran, let's work backwards. So the Ran says that dover she'eino matir, you don't have the halacha of bitul rov. Why not? Because the dover she'eino matir is going to be mutar. And when it's going to be mutar, it's going to be like the mevatal. And you need the two things to be different to the point that they're always going to be different in order to be able to say a bitul rov. But really, it's all predicated on this Ran's yisod that there's a fundamental difference between the taruv voice of min b'mino u'min b'she'eino mino. However you define min b'mino. Rebbe Akiva Eiger does it his way, the Chasam Sofer does it his way. Because a taruv voice needs to be two things that are misnaged each other. Otherwise, to the contrary, there's no taruv voice. The two things are actually mechazek each other. So I saw a ha'ara, and if you think about it, it's a good ha'ara, that the Ran's svara makes much more sense in a taruv voice of lach b'lach. But how do you understand the Ran's svara in Taruvos of Yovesh BeYovesh? I mean if I have a Taruvos of Lav Belav where two things are literally in the same mixture, you take the dama par and the dama sor, you literally mix them together. The two minochos were literally in the same mixture so if the two things are different, so then you have to make a decision. What is it? If the two things are the same, they machzik each other like the Ran says. But in Taruvos Yovesh BeYovesh doesn't make sense the Ran's svara that in Taruvos Yovesh BeYovesh you have two hamburgers, you're just not sure which one is which. So what, the two of them machzik each other? There is no svara when when you make one from two, so you have to decide what's the one that I made. Will they machzik each other? I just have more of it or no, now I have to make a decision. Is it A or is it B? But in a Taruvos Yovesh BeYovesh, the where does the Ran's svara play out? As relates to Rashi, Rashi says achal lav be'isser, achal lav be'heter. Why is it achal lav be'isser? Rashi is assuming that if I have a Taruvos right now of isser and heter, so if I eat it now, I'm eating it be'isser. Why is it why I'm not eating it be'isser. Bitul be'rov is isser? Ani meisa? Well, why is that isser? Rashi's what? How do you understand Rashi's loshon? Achal lav be'isser, isser. I might as well wait until tomorrow and then it's going to be mutar. And today it's ossur? No, it's not. It's not ossur. There's no bal nefesh yachmir when it comes to eating a Taruvos of isser and heter. What, you have to be from the katchila and be machmir? I thought it was mutar. I mean what, the whole Taruvos is only it's a b'dieved really eating a dover ossur but it's it's nitzach somehow the isser? No, yeah that's not logical right. So Rashi tells me okay, this is din em b'vakum and it's still katchila. That's Rashi. Just a derabanan and the Rashba brings a ra'aya in the that the Shach actually brings a maybe it's deraisa. But that's a das yachid. Em b'vakum and it's still katchila, that's din derabanan. But but what's the problem? Lehora'a if I have a Taruvos and there's a bitul b'rov and rov is a real din, rov is deraisa, so so what should be the issue? So I saw a hora'a that maybe a good susta to this Ran, it's a little wild but maybe a good susta to this Ran is the Rash in the sugia of takfu kain. So you remember the sugia of takfu kain, the Gemara discusses kofa tzelem one of the animals that already went and I would jump back into the to the herd with all the other animals. Everything is knocked out. Why is it getting knocked out? Because once you count something, you can't use it for the minute anymore. What do you mean? Let that one sheep that was be bottled to the other sheep that are not in the herd. And say to the right and the rush famously says that doesn't make and as a result and being that by my behavior you need to also you need I mean that is right can't give me that so you see that as much as right works in the context of but you see it can't create so to the degree that it's not that's where you have that side. Let's use terminology that's not that. It's over it's over here. No, that's the that's manifest where it's not that so you have side either way that is the first star second star is is the began with so came from so he met the so there's no answer to all three kind of new answer to all three kind of new answer to all three didn't know the answer to all three regardless so the just mentions fleetingly so came from the truth is that there is the rest of the story and it's the rest of the story from all places the very end of the very well known story that the rest of the story is discussing the rest of the story those are the same the end of the week of the camera. The laws of moisture are mentioned in the camera and the tells the story. Who got with the person that wanted a master on his friend? He came to him and he asked is it okay for me to be a moisture? I'm a lecture. I told him no, it's not okay. Don't do it. On my way. So this year was a and he told me no. No, no, no, no. What what what I'm going to show the government where this person is hiding his heaven. I'm going to be a moisture. I have was sitting next to and he saw the way this person spoke to his rap something like he killed him in short. Bottom line is is he told you're right for killing him because a moisture can lead to damage and he was putting this life at risk. You had absolutely every right to kill him. Stating that rap told rap that as much as you had a right to do what you did but at the same time once word gets out that you killed somebody your life is going to be at risk and as a result I highly recommend that you pack your bags, you go to exile, you leave bubble. You have to go somewhere. He says that where should I go? He told him go to Israel. But when you're in Israel the way you should go to Israel and you should learn from Israel. The camera is you're not going to ask any questions of learning. So you're going to listen to and share and you can have a that you're going to want to do but at the same time control yourself. Don't do it. Now why did he have to do that? So clearly he needed some sort of passion. He needed for killing this moisture as much as he had a right to do it but on some level he needed my show says the reason he had needed because he was a with and he had so he needed to for being more than a rabbi. He jumped the gun. Really it was Rav's job to kill this person if he wanted to, not Rav Kahana's job. Says the Maharsha, he was a more than a rabbi for jumping the gun, pun intended, and as a result, he needed As a result, he needed kapara. His kapara was don't talk in learning. Then the Yada says that how's that a kapara? I mean, if he needs kapara for shichas damim, certainly according to the first shot, how does this how does this match? He says because for a talmud chacham who's listening to a shiur and he has something that he wants to say and and he can't talk, it's it's kamisa chashuva, Also ask Rav [ __ ] Kluger, so Rav Kahana goes up there to Israel, he goes straight to Rav Yochanan's yeshiva, and when he shows up, he's in the chatza there and he sees that Rav [ __ ] Kluger was saying over shiur to So Rav Kahana knew of Rav Yochanan's famous talmud Rav [ __ ] Kluger. So he asked one of the talmidim, he says, "Tell me, where can I find Rav [ __ ] Kluger?" He points, "Ah, you see that Yid who's saying over shiur? That's Rav [ __ ] Kluger." So he goes over to Rav [ __ ] Kluger and he says, "Can I listen in?" He says, "Of course." So Rav [ __ ] Kluger is saying over Rav Yochanan's shiur, and everything Rav [ __ ] Kluger said, Rav Yochanan Rav Kahana went Rav [ __ ] Kluger was there, he was he never met such a talmud chacham. He was he couldn't believe it. I'll tell you Rav [ __ ] Kluger, so odds are Rav [ __ ] Kluger told Rav Yochanan. So the next day, Rav [ __ ] Kluger goes to Rav Yochanan and he said, "Well, you know, there's so somebody came from some distant land, he just showed up, and he's not shy in learning. Now, I am sitting in the make sure if he comes to shiur tomorrow, you give him kavod, sit him over noon, give him mizrach, make sure that he gets the respect that he deserves. Next day, Rav Kahana shows up to Rav Yochanan's yeshiva, they put him literally mizrach, he's sitting next to Rav Yochanan. And Rav Yochanan prepares shiur, and he keeps on looking at Rav Kahana, he wants to hear a vada. Rav Kahana had already taken an oath. He had told Rav that he would sit in Rav Yochanan's shiur and he won't ask any questions. He was able to talk to [ __ ] Kluger. but not not to say the says actually kind of didn't say anything. So my said another actually didn't ask him anything. And he said over seven each he looked at nothing to say ostensibly and as a result had to move back another as seven rows and he was now sitting on the seventh row. Says the that he turns to and he tells him that I read that you said was all not so sure. It's not an he's a all night. So he hears all this and he was embarrassed. He turns to and he says that the that the seven rows that I had to go back the bush that I endure when publicly made me go back a row and a row and a row should be it should be a the seven years of exile that I need to be. So the says he must have felt that his was answered. So the said and how he knew his was answered but he must have felt that. Come on got up and he goes up to and says can you please repeat so the says now how did I do it from now on so he said actually and started ripping it apart. You can come and move them up a row. Oh my actually and he kept on till finally he was so impressed. He was mesmerized and got up. But had every long eyelashes he couldn't see. So he he asked his can you please I want to be able to see this yet. So the says he looks at and apparently had once had a wound on his lip and he looked at it was like he was smiling. And when he saw thought that he was smiling at him and he thought he was mocking him. Like you're the great I just came to your share and I was able to frag up everything in your share. The Gamara says to him and the great passed away. The the next day I'm sorry passed away. He went and he told everybody see what see what goes on. This big London comes from and he made from me. So he said what are you talking about? He said I saw him and he was smiling. He said no no no no dark that's what he looks. He's always smiling. That's his disposition. That's who he is. So the Gamara says realized what had happened and caused to die and it was all it was all a mistake. So the Gamara says went to the of cause of that so it was a by his cave. Bottom line is the Gamara says he ends up being bottom line is that is pretty much the rest of the story as it relates to exactly. That that's the story over here with we have a Gamara where the Gamara says this is the rest of the story. came so the so just to digress from our digression for one moment. So just one so it's a fascinating Gamara. We but we spoke on this but I told you a that I saw and that is in the safer so the like there's different where they have in when it comes to we like going through some of these and the it's in it's always I have it printed out but it's always I don't I believe 557 and he's discussing over here the idea which is really a Gamara a Gamara where the Gamara discusses which which one is the person that's considered a big boss The Oiker Horim is the great salamdun. Sinai Oiker Horim is an is an amko. And the Gemara says that Pliggy bar Rav Shimon kodem Sinai kodem Horim Rav Yosef the Gemara says was a Sinai. Rav the Gemara says was an Oiker Horim. Shoklu the tan is an amko. Shoklu they said Sinai oddif. That the Sinai is oddif than the Oiker Horim. Tosefos in Maseches Eruvin daf mem amud aleph says whenever there's a machlokes between Shashas and Rav Chisda, the halacha is like Rav Shashas, not like Rav Chisda. Why? Because the Gemara says also Maseches Eruvin that Rav Shashas was a major bucky and Rav Chisda was a major salamdun. And that's why if you pogel with Rav Shashas and Rav Chisda, Rav Shashas was always afraid to talk to Rav Chisda in learning because he knew he was going to say some super duper salamdus. Rav Chisda was always afraid to talk to Rav Shashas in learning because he was going to have a Yerushalmi somewhere that that freaked him out. So Rav Chisda and Rav Shashas were always afraid to talk to each other in learning. Rav Shashas was the bucky, Rav Chisda was the salamdun. So Tosefos over there is discussing the Gemara in Maseches Eruvin and Tosefos is not sure what the halacha is. So Tosefos says, I'll tell you, in the Gemara there's no raya who the halacha is like. But I know from Shas that Rav Shashas was a Sinai and Rav Chisda was an Oiker Horim. And I know the Gemara and the stuff you download from that Sinai Oiker Horim, Sinai oddif. So as a result, the halacha is going to be like Rav Shashas. The halacha is not going to be like Rav Chisda. So that's the theme. That's the backdrop of what the Yad Malachi is discussing. And he brings other examples of this. That the halacha was always like the bucky and the halacha was not like the salamdun. Meaning, the great salamdun, as much as he can make the most noise in this medrish, but when it comes to halacha l'maisa tachlis, the mesoirin klal Yisrael never followed the biggest salamdun. It followed more the Sinai than it followed the Oiker Horim. One of the rayas he brings is from Rav Meir. The Gemara says in Maseches Sanhedrin daf kuf dalet amud aleph that kol roeh Rav Meir b'beis medrish k'ilu oiker, not horim, horay horim. So I'm not sure exactly what that means. But he wasn't just an oiker horim. He was an oiker horay horim. Exactly. He wasn't just a lamden. Super lamden, right? That's probably what it means. Greater hiker, hurry hurry. That was R' Meir stating that. The Gemara says, one of these talking about R' Meir. All the different beautiful about R' Meir. And the end of the end of the day the Gemara says the halacha is not like R' Meir. Says the Gemara. My son, there was no one in the entire dor like R' Meir. So why wasn't the halacha like R' Meir? You know what? Because he was too big of a lamden. It's precisely because he was an hurry hurry. Amazing. That's why the halacha is not like him. R' Meir could have came and he could have told you why a dovor tomei is tahor and why a dovor tahor is tomei. The Gemara says there's a story with Right? He also had the same koach, but R' Meir was an hurry hurry. And the kid, that's goofball why read the Gemara. If he was the biggest lamden in the dor, why don't we follow R' Meir? It's because he was he was too much of a lamden. His talmidim couldn't understand The Gemara says R' Shimon was also a a phenomenal lamden, but the halacha is never like R' Shimon. R' Shimon is also an hurry hurry. And the halacha never follows him. Who's the halacha follow? Follows R' Yehuda Hanasi. by because he was an hurry hurry. And the halacha doesn't follow. R' Shimon said where the Gemara tells the story with the they went to talk and learn in to Hurkenus who was from the talmidim of and they were discussing the first mishna of Yevamos. Also known as Sora Erva they were discussing that halacha. And the Gemara says that those men who can wipe the floors with the talmidei chachamim he proved them this way and that way he was mevaish them. At the end he said he told Rebbe Akiva you're you're the Akiva you're Rebbe Akiva you're you're Rebbe Elazar ben Azarya and he was mocking them. And it's mevu'ar in that Gemara that really the talmidim of Beis Shammai were much more charif than the talmidim of Beis Hillel. So why is the halacha like Beis Hillel? Because the halacha doesn't follow the charif. It's very nice that big talmidim they can ask all the great kashas in the world. But at the end of the day there's a certain mesorah and the mesorah would followed more the Sinai than it did the oiker harim. Fascinating idea. And in this Gemara in Eruvin it's mevu'ar a kneitch that it's precisely because they were such oiker harim. In fact the Bach says that the reason the halacha is like Beis Hillel over Beis Shammai is because of lo yachlu chaveirim la'asos da'as echas. Like the Gemara says in Eruvin 13b. And it says that's why loss of life and that's why loss of life when Mashiach is going to come the halacha is going to be like Beis Shammai. Because then it's going to be a mal acharei acharei hayamim we will be able to be omed al sof da'as. So we will be able to omed al sof da'as. That's why the halacha is going to be like Beis Shammai. Says the Yad Malachi "Teich dvar Ra'a." He says I'll bring you another raya and this is beautiful. He says that there's a Gemara in Maseches Bava Kamma daf kuf yud zayin amud aleph. The Gemara says Rav Kahana met Rav Yochanan and they started talking and learning and Rav Yochanan was giving shiur and Rav Kahana was asking kashas to the point that Rav Yochanan said that it's an it's an amazing story. A real olam mebulbal. Rav Kahana seemed to have been a bigger talmid than Rav Yochanan. Now Rav Kahana was a talmid of who? Rav. That's how the Gemara started. If Rav Kahana was a bigger talmid than Rav Yochanan says the Yad Malachi says in the name of the Chavas Yair I couldn't find it inside in the Chavas Yair. He brings the Chavas Yair daf tzadi gimmel. I think he means the Chavas Yair siman tzadi daled. That's the Chavas Yair that we always speak about. We go through all the kol hash'aot. It's very very long. It's probably there somewhere. I just personally couldn't find it. But anyway so he says that if Rav Kahana was a bigger talmid than Rav Yochanan then Rav Rav Kahana's rebbi was certainly a bigger talmid. Yeah Rav Yochanan the halacha is always like Rav Yochanan. Where is that Gemara? Also Beitzah daf gimmel. But anyways we're coming full circle. That was always like Rev Kahana or that was like Rev Kahana or Rev Kahana or Rev Kahana. What's going on over here? Even Rev Rev Kahana Rev Kahana was a bigger lump than Rev Kahana. You know what the terrorists is? That doesn't follow like Kahana. And being that doesn't follow like Kahana, that's why just another thing of another thing of another but the common of the day which somehow relates to Menachem of the Kahana of the day.