Menachos 57

Today's and we have four lines from the bottom of today's being learned as so we're moving along in that's a pretty long name for a per discussing The idea that the carbon ma had to be brought in a state of matzah. It was not allowed to be brought in a state of which in the world of hashka between dafi and I think this peric ranks up there. long per that very much discusses related to which of course is so and as we'll see in the raid of today's that the connection between matzah and the yont of pes is actually a pretty significant connection either way so it's mvu in the in many different places that a carbon had to be brought in a state of mat just to mention a few in par this is peric bay. So the Torah introduces with the carbon the second carbon that's mentioned is the carbon and the talks about different types of says the in the event that the is going to be you have to make sure that it's as a matter of fact the Torah says several later So the Tory says very very clearly that the which was baked fried had to be matzah not just the but really every that you're going to bake or fry you have to make sure is not going to be brought in a state of the repeats the laws of the like it does the laws of all the parishes over we did The says I'm skipping any of the leftovers of the what's known as they eat it in a state of next poss. So again this is just uh smattering but you find that the terra very very clearly says that the had to be brought in a state of matzah there's even lav associated with it not being in a state of parra says in par says bottom line is had to be brought hence the name of the parat there are exceptions to the rule the which we spoke says is not even really a even though it very much comes along in all the sug and the which was very special very unique something that we're going to get to but for now we have another that is going to delve into the related to if somebody would put sourdough this leaven ing agent on top of D. And then he went and minded his own business. And the the D of the was it became on its own. The person that put the issa on top the on top of the issa is going to be just like if he would do the equivalent thereof on chabas he would be for so too if he did this in this context he would be as well. So what's the background toes? The way a person would be over the of making a be its would be if he physically bakes it or if he needs it as we saw in the previous stuff he does some action together with the dough. Over here all he did was he put on top of the issa and then it was it happened on its own. This person didn't make it. He did something that set into motion the process of it becoming on his own. So says maybe this person shouldn't be he should not violate the of says that's not the case that he's going to be even though again in his world technically all he did was a miser that set the wheels in motion but there's a precedent for a person being even for something like this and that is shabas now what exactly does he mean when He says my shabas. So rashi and really coming from the next 20 lines gumar that we're going to learn says it's referring to somebody that would take raw meat and he would put it alabi galum. He would put it on top of coals and ultimately because he put it on top of coals. He put it on top of his Weber grill. So now all of a sudden it starts roasting and grilling and he ends up being did this person says actually cook it? No. All he did was one miser. He put it on top of the coals and then the coals did the work. But la you see he's well just like he's for doing that initial miser for quote unquote putting the wheels in motion. So too when it comes to making a if all he did was put the in that instance he's going to be as well. Now just to put some lish vernacular into the soya what rai is saying is you would have thought that if someone's even though he caused the to go into effect but what he's doing is a mess and gma we know very often is not treated like a misa right this sugamina that maybe all he is is a grammar and maybe gramma is part kamash from shabas you see that gramma In fact, every time a person technically all he did was really was put the meat on top of the coals and that so just like here you're going to bear as a statue meaning made a huge assumption that is if somebody would take raw meat would put and then it would be grilled on its own he would be and if that's the case regarding it that should be true regarding the as well but I don't think that's the in the name of his great if somebody would put on top if he flipped it around. But if you didn't flip it around, he's going to be see it's not enough to just go ahead and put it there. You actually have to be in case he just put the he didn't do anything. So how could you tell me from it's actually just the opposite explain what was telling to was where somebody put he didn't just leave it there because if he just left it there he would have be there but rather he was he was and rai is saying that just like when you the buserabi even though in raami's mind all that is is a So too when it comes to it comes to me you're going to be what's the beer what's the over here what is saying is the only reason and this will be very clear in the next a needs to be in order to be by shabas is because his that the only time a person's is if it is it's grilled it's roasted and it has to be through and through. So if somebody's going to put alabi and he's not going to be mahabak so one half of the steak is going to be cooked but the other half of the steak is going to be raw and that's not sleek. So the reason you have to be mahabak is not because you have to do some ma be because otherwise you're going to be deemed as being a gr. The reason you have to be mahabak is because you just have to get both sides from the fact that all you have to do is be just flip the hamburger around one time. That in it of itself is enough for you to be says really there happens to be a technical in the world of the only if it goes and it's for that reason you have to be but at the end of the day from Shabas I see that if I do a bomb with that in itself is going to be enough and that's why you're going to be so again knew you have to be and was from when all you were was you're going to be again this will be a little bit more said the name of the great and if somebody put if he flipped around if he didn't flip around he's going to be potter says what is the if the mitz is where if he doesn't flip it around it's not going to cook of course he have to be otherwise you are by the way we're using the word bish loosely over here because we're talking about we're not really talking about bish the case must be talking about where even if you didn't flip it around still it would have cooked would have roasted and that's why there's a here that the only time is if you ta flip it around despite the fact it would have been roasted had you not flipped it around well if that's the case why do you have to flip it around doesn't make any sense right is where had you not flipped it around it would have cooked but it would have cooked Right. It's been a while. What's so that's the beer minimum shear of bishel in shabas rashi over here says is when it cooks this is parakita is that it has to cook a half brought down but the bottom line is that it's talking about we had you not flipped it around it would have cooked only on one side and on that one side if however you flip it around then it's then it's going to cook on both sides, right? Because both sides are exposed to the and on both sides it's going to be saying the name is that if the cooks on one side in of itself is going to be nothing. So you're right. There's no bin that you have to be in order to be for which is why am brought from Shabas that you see the mice and the reason when it comes to there's a they have to flip it both sides. It's because the mitus is that if you're not the bust that you put on, it's only going to cook on one side and on that one side and that in of itself is not going to be okay. Now one thing it seems pretty from the is that if it cooks on one side only then it's when you have to be let's say the mus would be that if you left it on one side it would cook but not but it would be a proper bish sounds like then there wouldn't be they have to be is only an issue when it's only if however It's a regular bishop that would be fine. In other words, there's two ways you could be either the is bish. Again, we're using the word bish loosely. It's really either it's both sides or it's one side and it's better than so as much as the sheer bish in is always you see this between if it's only or if it's more than that if it's then is actually not enough then you would really need that it should be more. On that note and with that segue said you're going to in the event that there was a a sheer groggress of the cooked a proper then even if it's only and it's you're going to and this is really speaking out what we segue weigh into and that is that the only reason that is a problem is because it only cook but it would be it would be a proper in that instance would be fine that's what is saying ra is speaking out what we spoke out and that is if it would roast a ra is telling me how much of it would have to cook on that one side properly in order for this to be in effect a shir gregus it's one of So then if it happens even but the is about to be we'll speak it out again said and he added two words. What does it mean? So it sounds like that you would need that the entire be in one spot. Let's say you would have it but it's not in one spot. It's a little on this part of the steak by the cap of the rib right by uh closer to the book different parts sounds like it wouldn't be says the raino told you know I heard what said he said I understand I understand that if it's was but why did he say it has to And as a matter of fact said, I think this president differentiars in order to create a a proper shear. Right. So if somebody drills a hole into a piece of wood so he said let's learn this together the case is what is it talking about literally a person made a hole it's a you're going to tell me you're going to be what is a hole like that uh worth meaning what could you do with such a hole and that's that the only time is for doing is if it's right by the way this is for literally this week's parish it's the that's how we know that the only time is for is for but the bottom line is is that if it's talking about it's not functional and if it's not functional then it's not and it's not the case is probably talking about Not one time but multiple times. So if I do it once and again and again. So now already all these holes will create a bigger hole and they'll bear for something bigger. But the bottom line is it must be it's mak said Ravino that there's a concept of little bits and pieces of shim into one greater share when it comes to hilab. So if that's the case why did why do you need even if it's not if you have just like to as relates to bring I'll tell you that is talking about where it was one hole and it was what's your what's it being used for So says or some have the gear. So it's for the teeth or the tooth of a key. So you can use it as a keyhole. Like is always teeth in Aramaic which is probably the reason that we changed the gear from ba to then again ba is a door. So is it the key or is it the door? But the bottom line is or is it could be used as a as a result you have no from there another of this affirm said. So again made a comment on had said that and that said right if it was says and it's a sheer even if it's as long as it's going to be fine and the question is it's just the opposite said that if it's mitad It's going to be okay. And again is going to talk to but over here when he talks to Raashi is not going to ask on what said but is going to bring right because now he likes what he's saying. What are you going to do with a culture? seem foolish. Oh, very good. I have a you see when it comes to the says talking about again just like there was no in the first there's no in the second concludes the very first part of today's d. So what's part one of today's when we talk about when we talk about you don't have to physically bake it. You don't have to be you don't have to be but even if it was that in itself you're going to be isn't that a right sounds like a big I have a riot today right if somebody would take he would put it one second it's not true don't you have to be just if you're because if you're not it's only going to cook and is nothing. You just have to make sure that it roasts and so that's just like saying I have to put it on this side and I have put it on that side but more than putting it on I don't have to do and if that's the case so too when it comes to more than that would be fine as well. then went and had a whole discussion of why do you have to be it's because again is not enough said from here if it was it would be enough what would be the how much of it would have to be would have to be in one spot in the first it would have to be in the second there seems to be a precedent this is whereashi when they're finalizing the writ don't you have a from because for sure it must have been multiple holes and the Garra says no there's no R over there because could be even one hole has a it has a significance it's now we're not going to talk about this today but for sure a related rate bite to the first part of today's is it sounds like for that is something you get a for somebody just puts and then it does its own Then even though it's only a a gramma, right? What would be if somebody put wheat into a aim that does its own thing? I know maybe I I didn't grind it. I just put the wheat into this. I know. Sounds like somebody sets a trap on the ground and a animal finds itself in the trap. Sounds like based on this you should be for right. What if somebody walks into a a room and the lights go on on their own? I know it sounds like it's bashabash sounds like from this but the truth is we know this is not at all and really whether or not is is a shabas or not a talks about this over the years we mentioned chuis from pesak frank in his shuis again this ties into one of our favorite suggest just gramma in general Like how do you treat groma when it comes to this? How do you treat when it comes to that? For sure this is a very important but that's for another day says the gumar part two of the daf. So again, we're focusing on the idea of matzah and the fact that it's mentioned several times in the so the now is going to bring a that's a it's one of the that we mentioned in the introduction to the daff it's one of the that are in par. So again you have the this isn't part the says says the let's say the would have not said the words but it would have started okay I would know that can't be brought right yes I know I would have But I would think that which is the that's included in this but the rest of the and the way Rash explains the rest of the how would I know that if the went and he made the before the so he took the entire before he did the and he made it into how do you know that's why it says It's called the emphasizes that it's not only when you take the of the and you make it into that but if you take the where it's the in its entirety even then you would be this next question this is talking about a a very specific how do you know that this is true for all it's talking about the if you look up the so how then do you Oh, that it would be true for all the other it says and from there we learn oh is always to teach me that it's true for all from the fact that it says we learn that it has to be possible. has to be a that you're able to be to Hashem. But if it's not something that you could be to Hashem, then apostle that if somebody would go and cause a to become it would be a problem. If however he took a make at that point you would be puffed. Now how could you use to teach me? Didn't we say a second ago is for the Rasha? Rashi says yeah before we knew that the entire is included in this. So then I thought was referring to the it was only then I would have assumed that it's referring to the but once it says so I know this is always true for so why do you have to single out the that's why at the end the time of the price is coming back and he's saying one second that's coming to teach me another so What do I do with this? We'll see. There's more Josh is coming, but for now it's true for the entire not only is the rabbi it's not only the is talking about but it's true for any type of that exists. It has to be but if it's a at that point you're going to be this is going to take us back to yesterday's what would be if the was made into very bad but this is what happened and then it was it was and then the made it into what's we saw already in yesterday's that but the question over here is what would If in between the and the it was does that change anything? So what's the sh let's wrap up explain do we say once it left it became possible. So if that's the case, how could you be for making a second time? Meaning even though it's true, but at the same time there's also that it has to be and being that it was or maybe even being that once it was already at that point it was at that point is not going to change anything. And therefore if you make it again you are going to be this was and the says we don't know what the rapid is. If you take a look at Rashi Rashi explains that the sh was as follows. The shil was that's true a mahmet is it's also true that once it's in some other way shape or form at that point is it going to be is it on a that's a there's to say that that's you could be mive when that's but That's it's not and being that it's not. So you don't see it as a that has the only that it has is the of and for that. So it's for that reason you're going to be. So the way Rashi learns that maybe this should not be a regular situation with your potter for being or being is because being that it was already so it wasn't if you take a look at the London Marag and others they learn the maybe a little bit more and that is it's true there's a that once a ma's ple at that point there's no is anymore to make it stating that there's a special that says that if a possibly course it's at that point is going to be so the sh over here is that maybe there's mock to say that being that this is possible when it became before it was and it was already to that if you would make it right you would do another with it you would bake it or whatever it At that point is you would be that your only being. So it could be the fact that now it was another being that it's already grandfathered in so to speak that could be another in other words is learning that is that's the other side that it's not that's already the saying that you don't have to go so far you could say it's But it was possible for the it was into the so now that it also became possibly maybe that shouldn't change anything regardless of the terret is the same and that is we don't know also had a sh regarding the what would be in the event that was already on the top of the so was physically on the and then the coin went and he made it would he or not what's the says right any that you're going to be meaning you weren't yet you're going to be and you made it into well over here you were already because once it's we know that's already so at that point there was that took place and being that took place. So maybe you can't bear you didn't do the right meaning as much as is true in the once at that point is somear that already took place right that's the lumbness of why is we know this but it's still not the proper so it's still some level of so if that's the case maybe it should be included and this shah like Shiloh is also a Shiloh that we're going to have to wait for to be pushed says take either way. So this concludes the second part of today's daf just trying to be mad. What was part two of today's daf? So it discussed uh another that talks about the isser of making a into we saw it's true for the it's true for the it's true for the it's true for all but it's only true if it's a if it's a at that point already you're not going to be it has to be that but if it's not to at that point you're not going to be. There's one exception to that rule. The exception to that rule is really yesterday's and that is a mah that over there there's a special that teaches me you're going to be the had two shilas. One was the other was both of the stomped these are the gashas wanted to know what would be if it was and then it was then it became again are you for that second or not was what would be if it was do we say that it's not because you already did that or it's still maybe that would be fine either way moving along Now that we already learned from that every of the is included in the what do we do with the words? Now we have to hit the pause button for one second. Didn't we address that already in the Bryce? Right. This is going back to the Bryce that we mentioned earlier that I thought the Bryce addressed it at the very very end. At least that's the way we learned it. It says coming to teach me that it has to be a not right in the beginning of the price. would think it's only true for the but it says I know it's true for the and that's why the price at the end said so what do I do with what I do with is I learned from there that it has to be as opposed to okay so what's the already addressed it's but we spoke this out as being the basis for the very end of the bryer when the gar brought it so what's the cash over here so if you look in It seems like the was basing its not so much on the words but rather on the word. It's from the word and teaches me that it's something that could be brought. It's as opposed to but you don't need I don't need both of those words to teach me that. And if it's that teaches me so now what do I do with I would have thought it's okay but it says already to teach me for that it's so the question is what do I do with it's for that reason that you see the word is actually in parenthesis by the way this is like right so you have to take the word out of the but we have to take the word lashem out because really the kash is not from the word lashem. What the initially had already addressed but the question is not the word. What do I do with that words? I need it for the following. And this is going to be malava us. It's going to escort us till the end of the das. So we have to get this brace says in this what is the words coming to teach me says coming to teach me that even says it's coming to be meaning had I not had I would have thought according to is not included According to I would have thought is not included. So what's unique about the and what's unique about the the upon the truth is really in order to appreciate these gar and a lot of the gar that we've been learning we have to start understanding a little better the nuances of the different which we haven't gone through yet not in this and not in the previous maker really really that suggest on a on a better level starts with the mission on right if you turn the page for a If you look at right, so a lot of the related to the different areas which come along with can move on and really are going to be the topic of the next phase of but for now in order to understand this price the minus was a ma where the entire was put on the misbeh. So most it was the that was put on the and then the was eaten by the but the was that was put in completely on the it was like the right was also was unique in that there was no that went on the again this is another Bryce which seems to suggest that is a right again is in the beginning of the par but the bottom line is upon him is a quote unquote and it's eaten completely. It came along with the was put on the misb and when the was put on the misb that was m the but there was no of him that ever went under his bottom line is says you want to know why the I would have thought that the only time in is when I have a that goes on the and doesn't go on the just like the that the is talking about in par and even though it says it's any similar but if I have a that's so different where the goes on the you don't even have the and I would have thought it's not included that as long as it's a itself would be enough so it's a long rashy last says oh by the way it's posture to me that would hold that it's not only the it's also the right and any that has a goes on the I would have thought it's not included in just the opposite it's not coming to be the was put on the it's coming to the wasn't put on the at all I would have thought that that is not included no it's part you're bringing the that goes like gra a little bit. It's the but at the end of the day at the end of the day this is being and that's what we're being upon. Let's understand this for a second. This next is like a made is made pay was made not using water. And if that's the case, how do you know? So if you look at the big time, but either way fake, how could it even be a over here says you can't physically make it? You know why you can't physically make it? because it was needed with May payro and may pay in mit. So what's the the background to this? What's the mayor when it comes to the and why is it only by the understands it's made as opposed to tell me 100 times that don't make it and make sure that you're going to eat a mat. So Rashi explains very very good and that is that in order to need dough you have to have liquid. A regular ma most had one log of she per is of right. So for every of that was there was one log of she one leg of she was not enough in order to go and to need properly the dough to make a a that's going to be befitting. It's for that reason they used to add water. Now T doesn't say anywhere add water to the go through the maj twice with the you're not going to find it anywhere but at the same time it was understood it was move that the only way you can eat it the only way you can make it is if you add water and that's why they used to add water to the ma and that's why the ma was sh to become because if you take dough and you add water well then it's something that's shak to turn into now what about the oil? Isn't the oil enough for it to make it into? So oil is considered me, right? She comes from aas which is a pre that's me. But the reason it can turn into is because of the water that the ter never mentioned but it's understood that you have to add and the dough and the water that's what turns it into potentially becoming the was brought with three lugan per is. a lot of she if you have that much she then there's no reason you should have to add water and if there's no reason you should have to add water it's very you're talking that it's to add water cuz doesn't say add water so you can go ahead and start adding ingredients the only reason you're doing it is because even though the didn't tell it to you the told it to you because there's no other way to do it but when it comes to the where there's three lugan of so over there I have plenty of liquid I plenty of mashkin and as a result there's no reason for me to add water if that's the case all I have is made if all I have is telling me that there's a with regard to the didn't have any I all the other didn't have yes they did where does it say it nowhere but being that it was only of it's that they had as opposed to when it comes to there's no and if that's the case the understanding would be that it would be user to go ahead and to add Mayan him said didn't say right addressed this he used to say that if you want to add water you're allowed to add water that's where it's being that if you want to add water you're allowed to add water who holds that if you want to add water you could that's how he holds that's what say even with regards to the says Moving over to the second part of the price. So said that coming to me the ponu was put in a kali but the kali that it was put into was it was one of the dry measuring kalin in the bdash. So we know that there were different kum that were used for measuring someone known as midas or and the other one known as invades talks about why the were known as and why when it came to the was known as but the bottom line is is that there were and there were the cle was used to measure the and it was also used just in general to madesh and sanctify the and then yaves was used for yavish. Okay. Now was made primarily of silus which means that when it was put into its measuring cup what was the measuring cup? It was a what's the issue? We know is that the were this is the but is that the will. So what's the kasha? So what's the kasha? If the midcha that means when the were being prepared so the for example was put into the it didn't get any if it didn't get any this is the assumption of the it can't be subject to the is and means it has already that's not enough for it to be considered a quote unquote if the says it has to be talking about where and And being that it was only put in so it was never and being that it wasn't how could it be subject to the say now the truth is there is a time where it's going to be when it's going to be put on the but that's already after it was baked right they used to put the boiling hot on top of the the but that's already after it was baked but the point is that at this point it wasn't baked baked yet. And being that it wasn't baked yet at the time that you can make it, right? It was baked. It's at the time that it's to make it into it doesn't have based on that. It shouldn't be to be subject to. Now, if it wasn't that said, you wouldn't have a because it's only that holds that was who holds that. How could this doesn't have it shouldn't be considered it shouldn't be subject to this right it's pretty obvious that the gear is not reuven all of a sudden tucked away right so obviously the gear if you look on the side is wasn't ruining somebody must have somebody made a mistake and it's first day on the job and instead of thinking Robin he wrote reuven but uh We should add that. So Robin sent from in the name of the great right. Usually it was it sounds like he didn't even wait for this. He sent a telegram. He said before I even get back and I better know this. So really the or more properly the is the way we have it. However you have to flip around the names. was the one that said him was the one that said if you change the names then obviously it's going to be good because again like we mentioned the whole but if it's not anymore in this so everything is going to be okay what does it mean that Robin said over in his name switch the names in the that it's that and it's that not the way we have it. There's another seems to be saying the same thing said and one of said the same thing. Which one of them is the one that said this? It's the great we learned in so it says in the Tory this is in par it talks about the hamish. So this is also a little bit as it relates to the be this is when the actual took place. So it says right went and he smeared the with the gave it. So he went ahead and he did to them. Who's them? It's all the Now the word is a little bit of a daare. It sounds like an exclusionary word, right? He went he did on the but it sounds like yeah other what's going on over here that's the background to this price again says both from the inside of the ki and the outside of the kali however as it relates to it had but it didn't have so you want to know what was coming to be was coming to be that the had from inside from outside as opposed to the they were that's true but they were not he agrees with but he saw a little bit differently he said as rel but as related to there was no at all and I said I'll prove it to you. I'll prove to you that it has no this is referring to what does it sound like from the one of it's after they were baked already right then must be it's after must be it was after the actually took place so we have a this between and what to from there some meaning there some that was used in the Bikto that did not have from as much as the is saying that they went and they did to the is and there's something that has to be in his mind and it was between said it's coming to said it's meaning that there was no at all. What's this is really it's in how much they did in the according to the hadim and thus when we go ahead and in the it's so instead of according to the itself was only and not so if you can go ahead you It's going to emerge that you had nothing at all. What really is I mean we just explained but what's the of that? This is the way the presents itself. But what's the it's holds the whole and if that's the case so I don't need a to be married it's coming in other words otherwise the way the is coming out now is saying a little differently than the way he said The reason that Rabio said it his way and said it his way is understood that the mid was aesh if it's aesh so it's included in the thus I need to be so what's going to be it's whereas holds that is a it never started off in this so when you have a that says it can't be because was never included in the cloud that I have to go ahead and be might see it from the cloud. What then is included only the so it's going to be for the in other words agree that means right they're both coming out with the same exact way the question really is is it and what is that that's the or is the notes but what's the bottom line let's hit the pause button what's the bottom line you see over here isia and with regards to whether or not the werees or they were holds they were now had said the great he said and one of the who's the said it's this who holds that to me were in the they weren't but they but they had kadusha who is the rail holds that from the par of the we learn the rabbis if he holds the rabbis it must be that holds that what that had kadusha because if mean didn't have kadusha that would mean that does not have kadusha until it's already baked and if that's the case it's not of for it to be included in the say that the terrorist says regarding the of the which is if that's the case also holds that that's means when he said that and wanted to tell me they both said that to me when Scottish And that's who flipped the gear who said that is the one that said he's the one that said asks one here and that isan is acutely aware of this of his version of it is he's also aware of the Scottish who wasn't a Scottish and he said that to me of this and one of the of that is the same for the same price could have taken this to the finish line he could have also said of this and one of the Rabi Raben right so there's a lot of history in this gamar we now know and who are compadres throughout right like and but you see they both learned together we're in the but the bottom line is he could have said they're also and how were they because they both seem to be of the opinion that the was not in Scottish. What do you see that the was in Scottish? Now you don't see it as sh but you see from the fact that he said upon him he holds upon him is not alive anyways he said that as opposed to and the reason is just like why didn't he also say answers I'll tell you is because they don't have the same as it relates to how is that it's whereas the says that the is only he holds and it's for that reason that they don't have the same sheet regard that's not what we're handling we're handling the but that they don't have can say means they said the same exact thing they actually didn't say the same exact thing. Now, by the way, this is really a sug. The bottom line is for now what we need to know is is that are literally that's it as opposed to and are not and that's why he didn't say one more is assuming that if so there's no way for there to be an with regards to upon him and the reason is because in order for it to be a it has to be and as far as we know the only kali that it was put into was so let's explain a little bit about it what was the midh that was put into it's the is right because there was an isarin or few but the bottom line is you have to measure per is so there was a measuring cle called an isar and that's uh that's amidish papa told abaya I don't think that's true because They had to need the upon him, right? You had to make it into bread and with it they need it. They needed it in some sort of kali. what refers to as a bis that ki is not just a that that's a perfect that's like a bowl a mis that's one of the and the had so this major of part three of the d which is that there was no way for him to be what do you mean went into when did it go into a sal when they did the some it could That's a clear. So what are you telling me that it's not going? You didn't have to put the soil into a bisa in order to do the you could always be katalia. So what's a katala? Rashi says that's like some mat that's made of r. So if you want to do it over there, you could do it there. So it's not that you're going to put it into a clear being that it's not that you're going to put into a clear can't go ahead and say mean it could be if you put it into a clear it would be but sounds like in all situations it's going to be to this and here it's not but he said right what held that the he said is coming to How did he know it? He learned it from it sounds like it's only it's only that it gets to and that's a that what that's says I don't know what's saidio should have told was going Maybe there is a where it wouldn't be until after the when you used here means the measuring of as opposed to if you used it of but if you use it of maybe the one is and in that situation really would give it meaning what the is saying is is that seems to be being that even though there were that we use in the preparation of the but it was optional. You wanted to use it, use it. You don't want to use don't use it. You want to use the pis that's a clear lock that was in Scottish. You want to use a use that also. Oh, it's optional. If that's the case, then what brought from the fact that you see that didn't have until after the wasn't maybe Scottish where I DIDN'T USE IT. I I always taught you how to use it. I also always told you how to use it. But then A TOLD ME HE WAS THAT IT'S OPTIONAL. SO IF IT'S OPTIONAL, it's optional. But the it's not by the doesn't say anywhere a word about this bis right. So if that's the case you want to use a bisa, use a bisa. And when you use a bisa, it's going to be in Scottish. But you don't have to use the but when it comes to keep being that the Torah said make this and measure the in it. Do you have a right to go ahead and just interchange it? The bis was optional wasn't optional. Tyrus says clearly making is actually says the one of the that says soilus is actually referring not to the amount of but it's the measures the talks about the talks about the it's not an option not to use it as opposed to the so that's already optional it's optional that's not going to be an issue what's the bottom line part three of today's means every part of the subject to the It's called not only is true for it has to be but what's that coming to teach me the answer to that is who said what two different the way the brought said it's coming to me is not any that the entire was put on his back said it's coming to me upon him that's a where no of it was put on his It was flipped the he said it's the other way around that is the one that was upon him was the one that was why did he flip it around because whether or not it makes sense that there should be a regardon is really totally in a whole another which is where they with aesh with is and by the way what emerged from the is that yeah is the bottom line is this concludes today's da as it relates to raid so the topic of these is as we mentioned many times it's very much from the standpoint of And of course on Pesak there's a mitzvah to eat matzah. There's an issu. So really the very much mirrors the sunis over here and I think it's to be the Indian of specifically as it intersects with the so just as a will start the raid today to be a part two and a part three this is not something that we can do a regular so the says many times The Torah doesn't say why like most mitzvah the mitzvah are not mentioned the furish and the so why is it that the carbon mah had to be matzah why is it that there's two lavin and when it comes to preparing the carbon in the state of if you take a look at the ramban it's peric says the ramban The reason that you're not allowed to put and more specifically the reason the carbon which is made of carbs couldn't be in a state of it couldn't be in a state of says it it's probable it's plausible it makes sense that the is based on what said in the said he found in their books so who's them, right? Who's there? He's referring to the pagans. He's referring to the that we've spoken a lot about most recently in the in that the custom amongst was that every time they would bring a they would make sure it was additionally they would mix honey together with their said. So that reason the Tyra said that this is not going to be okay. So it says it's that the reason there's a lab of when it comes to the reason the Torah says it's probably based on what the Ram writes in the that he saw by the pagans by the and that is that they were that always was and had as well says we find said this regarding the so we know that once upon time there was a misbehto way to bring a carbon in the times of the of but hated it. He despised it because it became very much a ritual of the says I think in the same vein that's why the says that's why there is now this Rambam that the Ramban is referencing is the Rambam in Pericv in That's the ram where the ram talks about the over there says an unbelievable the says that the whole reason we have such the whole reason we have a is because and it's because the was steeped in and wanted to be mirable terrible way of life. So did was he gave the yidden a parish of carbon and all the of the parish of carbon are 180 degrees. They're the antithesis of the des that they were accustomed to when they were in Mitim. And the Rama goes on chapter and verse to explain every cotton in the world of based on this that it's all coming to try to eradicate this idea that the once steeped in right the says that the used to worship the the and the for that reason we take the thef and the a and we use it as the sacrificial We use it to worship. One of the things that the Rambam says, he says, I'll read it inside. the swarm that I've already referenced. He adds to this salt. This is the Ram that is quoting in Vay and he says IT'S WHY IS this a Raman is because everybody knows we've mentioned this so many times that right in the beginning of quotes this and he says regarding the Rambam right and he says he says about this Rambam he's making the table of he's making it disgusting he goes on with again sharp sometimes but to say like this right you you'll never find any precedent for this there's no to this very very much didn't like the Rambam's understanding of Tanakon we mentioned over the years many times that says The says and says, you know what it means? any that BELIEVES THE RAM SAYS it in the way I said it goes he brings the but I just thought this was so interesting that THE RAMBAN WHO TOOK SUCH umbrage to this he said I have no weights over here I think I have to tap in at least as relates to this detail of why I think it must be related to this rabb which again I'm not comfortable able with at all but at the same time I don't have another it's by the way you see also how excuse the pun but you know sometimes when uh someone like goes fire a brimstone you have to take it with a grain of salt right that's the pun you see it clearly because and then eight pages later's quoting and he's extrapolating something from this Ram as much as he said the of he's talking about right that's who he's talking about. I think it's a little bit of a clinic in understanding sometimes then says again something that needs to be taken in somewhat moderation but the truth is that if you take a look at some of the other in the beginning of of he has a whole different understanding of this of and not surprisingly he connects the idea that the carbon had to be matzah and it couldn't be with the fact that ones have a mitzvah they have to eat they have a he says that the idea of needing to be mat is very much related to the of pes and I think it's to speak out this goes without say but I think that in order to properly appreciate it, we have to take a step backwards and we have to understand a little bit better. Why is it on PES that we eat matzah? Why is it on PES that we're not allowed to eat? We're not even allowed to have in our rish. And I think if we understand the role that matzah and plays a little bit better by pes so then we'll be able to understand a little bit better the suggest that we're learning right now. This is not by the way the name of the peric is every sing we're learning is related to this but I think in order to properly appreciate what is being and other we have to have a better understanding of the oft now if it wasn't we'd probably take the shorter approach of going about this but being that it is it's already so I think Mat I think it's to take the long scenic route and just expand a little bit on the mitzvah of matzah the is oft not in today's but we'll close the loop we'll come full circle and hopefully have a better of the of so every Jew knows that on pes at the there's a mitzvah ris Now says the says that really it's only the first night that there's a rest of it's a spoken many times over the years that said that really the whole there's a you have to eat matzah calls it relative to the first where even if you're not hungry you have to eat a kaz it's a rishada mitzvah sometimes times says the go is referred to as a but for sure there is that's not but for sure there's a mitzvah the first night of pes to eat matzah why is there a mitzvah to eat matzah why is there a mitzvah and by the way you have to know the answer to this question number one could be that when said he means you have to understand the mitzvah. So why is it that we eat matzah? So I think a pretty solid answer to this question is why do we eat matzah? It's because the Noshim Connius as they were leaving Mitsim they were preparing fishik they were preparing breakfast and they were kneading their dough and before the dough had an opportunity to rise himself the baked the mats in a state of You know why? It didn't have a chance to rise because they were sent out. They didn't have an opportunity to wait around a little bit. And by the way, they didn't even have a chance to prepare. They had to take everything to go. And as a result, we say it's because of this And the truth is that the to this paragraph in a truth is this Mishna that we quote in if you think about it is a player. There's two very very very basic ashes that need to be asked. We went through them briefly but I think then it was in but now we have to be in it a little bit and again this is like the I think it's in just being intelligent about one of the most basic mitzvah inh the mitzvah of matzah two bashas I think you could stump your friend with both of these kasha number one it's because of the fact that when the left mit When did the leave? They left on when right they left in the morning happened by we spoke a lot about that in the but when did they physically leave they left in the morning of the first and then says there's no about that everybody agrees when did the leave they left Nissan on your Nissan 24 hours earlier the Yidden brought a carbon pes right they brought a a carbon pes they took from the DM of the carbon pes and they did a not they didn't have a misbeh but they did a on the muz and on the mashk and then they sat at night by and they ate from the b of the carbon and they were commanded chapter and verse in very great detail exactly how you should go about it if you go through the parishes by who tells to go be to go ahead and bring the carbon. He tells them clearly you should go ahead and eat it in matzah and you should eat it together with that means the mitzvah of matzah the night before they LEFT WITH NO TIME to allow the dough to rise. I hear, but I still have a kasha. What about the matzas that the yidden ate the night before? The matzahas that the yidden ate the night before that matzah could not have been because it didn't happen yet, right? There's no here that happened on your dal and this happened on tzv or that was tzv at night and this is tzv IN THE MORNING. SO IF that's the case this can't explain why the ate matas the night before. Now I don't know if you would ask me I would think the reason we eat with the with the is because that's the way the init and when the MIT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH the fact that it was said this is the reason we eat matzah again it's a nuanced question is because of the way the yidden left ones of I hear but then why did the yidden matzah the night before. And doesn't it make more sense that whatever reason the yidden ate matzah the night before is the reason that we're eating matzah today? I think this is something that requires a little bit of beer. Here's another kasha. This kasha is even kasha. And that is that told that you're going to have to eat matzah. And he told me you can't eat. As a matter of fact, he told him, as a matter of fact, he told him there's a lot of if you look at the you have the entire parish of Pes, right? It's divided into a few groups. If you remember, we know, but the initial of it is all mentioned before leave. They were told not just to eat a carbon pes they were told TO P IF THEY were told to p AND THEY WERE TOLD you have to eat mat and eat and they were told that THERE'S EVEN AN ISAL YOU can't have any in your so if THAT'S THE CASE WHAT'S GOING ON OVER HERE IT SOUNDS like the had an opportunity to go ahead and to bake baguettes and make lafas they would have but the problem is what how in the world IS THAT POSSIBLE? THEY WERE TOLD CLEARLY GO THROUGH the there's they were told that there's what in the world is going on over here. How was there ever a ham in the world that the were going to go ahead and they were going to make they were bound by the lava bal what's going on over here again when you go and you know we went through these parachies together you can't even read the again if you don't know the you don't know the say you know I can't help you but if you know the it jumps off the page this is not this is what it is it's that obvious both kashas are that obvious the reason we imat is because the next Did they eat mat? They were eating matzah READY THE NIGHT BEFORE. SO WHY DID THEY EAT MATZAH THEN? I'D LIKE TO KNOW. AND I'M ASSUMING that's probably the reason we eat matzah today. It sounds reasonable, right? Okay, you'll tell me THAT. BUT STILL, WHY DID THEY EAT MATZAH the night before? Number two, what was the habit? They were going to bake. They couldn't bake. They could have made because they were bound by the lav of which was true in just like it was going to be true. Both of these kashas are bumbus. So I think we have to go through both of them and we're going to do a second kasha first. So again what was the that they were going to bake weren't they bound by the you know asked this asked this now doesn't ask you have to read the butan was very bothered with this in it's a short paragraph we'll read the whole paragraph the reason that they baked mat Because they were commanded to make. They were told to you want to know why they did it because they were told is so the reason they made matzah is for the same reason we're going to eat matzah in a couple of weeks is because the said they had to eat matzah. So what does it mean? You know what that's coming to say? It's coming to explain why is it that they baked it on the road. Meaning they should have made the matzas in a matzah factory. They should have made the matas like everybody makes a matzah. So why did they do it mish carrying it on their shoulders? The answer is because they were driven out of Egypt. And they couldn't wait any longer. The question is why why did they do it in that way? They should have done it in a more proper way. The answer is they didn't have a opportunity to do it in a proper way and that's why they sort of had to bake it to go. But you want to know why they made that's because of the beginning of the par cuz they were bound BY THE JUST LIKE WE'RE BOUND BY the second part that's explaining why it was done in this haphazard way. But there was never a that were going to go ahead and make cuz they were bound by an ist. In other words, according to the when we say it's but it's a little bit of a misnomer here. You have to say it's not so much that the were going to make but they didn't have an opportunity. They ended up with matzah. That's why you were going to eat matzah regardless. They were going to eat matzah regardless. What happened? They couldn't even make the matzah properly and as a result they had to like take it to go and they had to make it in this haphazard way and it sounds like matzah is a for that but again just to be 100% clear according to the raan the reason we eat matzah is not because there wasn't an opportunity to go ahead and to make the reason we eat matzah according to the raan is because of the azor the azor of matzah predated the fact and That p of kash is only an explanation for why it happened why it happened the way it happened. The problem is this reminds specifically if you take a look at Rashi Rashi says right they were thrown out before it had an opportunity to become this is actually a but says Rashi on those words the did not allow they didn't have an opportunity to make it into Rashi seems to be learning which seems to be the which is what we say it sounds like from they would have made it into. And if that's the case, how could they have made it into this is the second we mentioned earlier. How could they have made it into how could they have made it into there was no option to to make it into they were already bound by the which is already and has a hope but doesn't go with shots. If that's the case, how were they able to do this? So if you take a look at the invit says the quote they were thrown out of they couldn't wait any longer cuz had they been able to wait a little bit longer it would they would have allowed it to become sucked around because was only for a day a night and a day. What does it mean a day? It means and then the night of and then the following day what's the precedent to having a one day and a half type of but then day afterwards at that point they were allowed to do and they were had they had a little bit of more time they would have been their dough with for the next day because even though it's true they were told they're not let but they were never told that there's an therefore they would have prepared at least for but they didn't have any opportunity right the says they had no choice but to go ahead and make it ma regarding that second how were they able to go ahead add and and make it. What was the meaning? They were going to make its weren't they bound by the answer is yes but not for seven days. They were only bound by the iss for that one day and they were also not bound by as a result they were going to go ahead they were going to make the mat and like this they were going to take it to go and they were going to have everything that they needed. So this sorts out the second kasha from the without any already asked the what was the they were going to make weren't they bound by the weren't they bound by the says yes and when the says which just means why they did it in such a fast haphazard way but they were never going to make it was already off the table the ran and it's this way and rashi also held that a they were making and the only reason they didn't is because they were rushed out and they had no opportunity to go ahead and and make the why. Weren't they bound? The answer is they were bound for a day. It was like a pes it was only for one day. And it was also said they were going to bake it but they weren't making right. We always thought they were making. That's not what was going on over here. It was right. It was making dinner for the night. That's what they were making because the next night le and at that point they were going to be allowed to eat and that's what's playing itself out. But now we have to address the first kasha. The first kash is that if the reason we eat matzah is because of what we say in well if that's the case why did you didn't have a mitzvah to eat matzah ready that time was first during the day of truth is if you take a look at the marsh on that the already asks the he asks it he says if the reason you're supposed to the says How come which was before that already had a mitzvah? I think the reason they had a mitzvah was for a whole different reason. It's because the says that told you you should eat the car, right? He told them you should be holding your stick, you should be wearing your shoes, right? Everything should be done. He spoke out from this fora the puzzle was to show the right it was all about the because if you're going to have like this the Yeshua is going to come because you can make all the in the world but if you don't have it's not going to happen. So this was all about the right that was that but the bottom line is as the being that it had to be eaten it's for that reason they were told to eat matzah EAT MATZAH BUT IT HAS nothing to do with the mat because the matzah was NOTES YET IT WAS FIRST the next day why then did they I don't know why they have to HOLD THEIR STICK WHY WERE THEY WEARING THEIR SHOE AND YOU EAT MATZAH you're holding your stick you're holding your shoes No, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NEG included in the midst of is you can't sit there and wait and let the the dough rise forever. So therefore it's part and parcel of has nothing to do with the and the that's related to the matzah that they ate in that was related to the mitzvah it was related to the in of but if you take a look at some of the brings this in his there's a new of it called but if you look at the they all say more they say the reason there was a mitzvah to eat the original carbon pes was ah it didn't happen yet chronologically it's true it didn't happen yet chronologically and knew exactly how it was going to play itself out and that ultimately there was going to be and that was going to be a mitzvah. So the way Pes was going to play itself out for future generations was with a mitzvah. So it's for that reason already gave a mitzvah to go out but at that point it was like it was A MITZVAH BECAUSE THE wasn't even in the bri yet the was something that was first going to be later but I'll put him again from the to the and that is that if the reason we eat matzah is so why the first night the night before how come they had matzah the marshall says it's for a different reason that was related to the there was a lot of that were related to that was one of them and had nothing to do with the reason we eat matzah today and when we eat matzah today it's not a z for that it's a z for the fact that speak the second and the and theel it's that the reason they ate matzah the night before was taka for this reason it's tak for this reason and it was somehow Now mitzvah that was given even though the T at the time had not been given it was because at some point the reason was going to be in this was going to be in this gala. Now when we asked the kasha we asked it like in a nuance way right we said that if the reason we have so why they have a to eat it the night before we just added a they obviously had a to eat the night before. So wouldn't it make more sense that the reason we have to eat matzah is because of whatever the reason is for the night before it's all the same reason because just like the so that was a special for that night that was related to this has nothing to do with but just to end with maybe one in what the Abu Dam and the shabet and the abban are saying right the saying of grace Zacha gave us a mitzvah of matzah which at the time made no sense but it was all because at some point in the future it was somehow going to make sense right if you think about it just from a a philosophical perspective it's a it's a fascinating idea but I think a very very obvious sush to this is the bianium now it's a long which we're not going to go through even if we had time we wouldn't go through because it's beyond the scope of of what we do but just one and that is we say in everyone knows this. This is the next of and then finally these three is the way the is supposed to be the mitzvah of to the so we know and there's four different times the says the and we say it's because there's four types of children there's these is talking to the Ben how do we know that says it And we say it in so this is the cha. So the in his piece is it's few pages long. So he's going through why this is the chuva to the Ben Russia and he tries to understand a little bit better what the Russia sh is. Ain again way beyond the scope of what we're doing but the basi comes out and he says that the question of the Russia in his opinion is the Russia came to the seder and he came to the seder when there was a carbon pes and he looked around and he saw the y were bringing the carbon pes he said why bring the carbon pes so his father told him what do you mean thought you know we once slaves in the mitz they worshiped and as a result we were told And he went through the ram and the and he explained to them the whole of how by us going and us bringing a a carbon pes we're distancing ourselves so much so incredibly far from the aar of the Egyptians this Russia this Russia who's not a fool he's a Russia he turned to his father and he says I understand why 3,300 years ago this made sense the Jews they left Mitsra They were steeped in the culture of the Egyptians. They had inside of them. They needed to do something to go ahead and distance themselves and themselves from. He says, "But now we live in a world where what's most people in the world believe in monotheism. They believe in one God." He said, "Today it makes absolutely no sense. IF YOU WANT TO celebrate mitz today, do it in a way that makes sense. Do it in a way that we can relate to. What are you gonna go? You're going to slaughter a lamb and be blood spritzing all over the place. WHY? BECAUSE YOU'RE trying to be it has no it has no that's the show how he fits this into the it's brilliant. He says that what was going on and then heav says there's a big ru in the world right now of maskeim and people they want to go ahead and they want to say that maybe this mitzvah is not so important and that mitzvah is not so important he said it's the gist of the world today there's and that are going and they're suggesting that you know I'm I can understand celebrating the pes but you're doing it in such an archaic way do it in a way where it makes more sense I'm skipping all the way to a punch line to that you should go to him and you should tell him you should tell him he tells him you tell him you don't understand you're a little bit misguided you see you think that the way mitzvah works is that because something happened it's for that reason we were given a certain mitzvah it's actually just the opposite THE TYRA CAME BEFORE the world which means THAT THE MITZVAH PREDATED the events and the happenstances that are the quote unquote tama mitzvah as a matter of fact says the bi you want to know how this really works it's because of the mitzvah that we have the time of the mitzvah the mitzvah is not a of the says the bi is a of the mitzvah you know we tell the Russia says TO you point to the pes you point to the mat you point to the m it's because of this that WE DON'T DO THIS BECAUSE WE LEFT mit it's because of this that we left the mitzvah is not a of the is a of the let me read it inside It's it's mom is just the opposite. The reason we have the mitzvah is not because OF THE TIME. WE HAVE THE mitzvah says that means that brought a carbon. SO YOU TELL ME HE DID it didn't make any sense. He was never a slave in there was no to be slaves in the mitzvah is the mitzvah is the mitzvah. The mitzvah have that are they have there's there's there's layers and layers and layers in terms of why we do mitzvah that we do. There's a tam nigla and the tom nigla is something that's mentioned in the but don't confuse the whole and existence of the mitzvah based on that time. As a matter of fact, it's actually just the opposite. This mitzvah was here. This mitzvah is one of the is the foundation of the whole world BECAUSE it just so happens that and what the did was he matched the tame mitzvah to the actual mitzvah working in the reverse working the other way around this is the chuva that you're supposed to tell the Russ again you tell them you're misguided I understand what you're saying you're not saying so terrible but you're missing the whole point if you belief and if your impression is that the mitzvah is a of so now this to have an intellectual conversation of what you need to do is you need to tell him I said you tell it to him nicely does say hakov but whatever but either way you have to explain to him that the was not the other way around and when you understand that then of course this whole kasha of the bencha doesn't even start This whole kasha that he has is not even a havina because it's the other way around. The tam is not the sa for the mitzvah. The mitzvah in the reverse is the sa for the time. What's the first mitzvah that we do at the le we eat matzah? We sit down and we eat matzah. When ate matzah that first night when they ate it, there was no uh there was no time, right? There was no reason for them to eat matzah. But the time was in the spiral later. It was something that was in the skull afterwards. You know what you see from there? You m SEE THIS THE IS NOT DECEIVER for the mitzvah. The mitzvah is dece FOR THE IT'S BECAUSE THEY were told it was because THEY GOT THAT MITZVAH. THAT'S WHY it was like his if this is the FOR THE MAT IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE WHY YOU'RE EATING MATZAH THE NIGHT BEFORE. But the reason it makes SENSE IS BECAUSE THE TIME IS NOT THE S OF THE MITZVAH. THE MITZVAH IS WHAT BEGETS THE TIME. AND TO BRING OUT THAT POINT ON THIS NIGHT, THE night of Amuno, the night of the night where we have to inculcate and honest is what Yiddish's all about. We have to understand this very basic that the time is not the for the mitzvah. It's the mitzvah that's THE TOWN AND WHAT COULD BRING THIS OUT BETTER THAN THE way and theel said is the why is we eat the matzah on tz even though the time didn't happen until later this is the biggest this is part of the THIS IS IT LOOK WHY READING MATZAH READ THE SAYS WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE the is teaching us this on this on this night I think this is the of what the is This is theel and the shabalet and the and we are going to stop this first or second I don't know how many raid bites this was she over here is hashem mortica