Menachos 58

Today's daf is minchos, daf nun ches, and we are about 15 lines from the bottom of daf nun zayin omid beis. Tonu rabbanan, minayin l'maylo mibasar chatos? How do you know if somebody would take the basar of a chatos, meaning the flesh of a carbon chatos that wasn't supposed to be burnt on the mizbei'ach, but rather was supposed to be eaten by the kohanim? Umi basar olah shalom, or the meat of a carbon olah shalom that wasn't supposed to go on the mizbei'ach, but rather was supposed to be eaten by the kohanim? Umi basar kodesh kodashim, or the basar of some other kodesh kodashim? Says Rashi, what other kodesh kodashim could there be? We mentioned chatos, we mentioned olah shalom and oilos kulah kallah, so what other basar could we be discussing? Says Rashi, it's a trivial question, there's one other type of kodesh kodashim, and that is the zivchei shlamei tzibbur. The kipsei atzaros, even though it was a carbon shalom shalom had a din of kodesh kodashim, as a result if somebody would take the basar of the kipsei atzaros that was supposed to be eaten by the kohanim and put it on the mizbei'ach. Kodashim kalim, or somebody would take the basar kodashim kalim. Umi mosar omer, the leftovers of the carbon omer. Again, not the koimes that went on the mizbei'ach, but the part that was supposed to be eaten by the kohanim. Umi mosar shtei halechem, or the shtei halechem. Umi lechem hapanim, the lechem hapanim had bizichei l'vonah that went on the mizbei'ach, but the lechem hapanim itself was eaten by the kohanim. Umi shiyurei minchos, or if somebody would take from the shiyurei minchos. Bottom line, if somebody would take a chelek of a carbon that's not supposed to go on the mizbei'ach, rather has a din that it's supposed to be eaten, and put it on the mizbei'ach, how do you know sh'uvo l'yisaaseh? Tamud lomar the pasuk says ki chol se'or v'chol d'vash lo yisakiru mimenu ishah l'Hashem. And we learn from there kosher mimenu l'ishim, harei hu b'val yisakiru. Any chelek of a carbon where part of it has a din to go on the mizbei'ach, if somebody would put the other part, not the part that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach, but the other part on the mizbei'ach, he'd be over this lo saaseh. So even though pasuk the lo saaseh is discussing se'or and d'vash, ki chol se'or v'chol d'vash lo yisakiru mimenu ishah l'Hashem, stating that we learn from here another halachah, that kosher mimenu l'ishim, any carbon where part of the carbon has a din l'ishim to go on the mizbei'ach, if you would put the other part on the mizbei'ach, the halachah would be you'd be over this lo saaseh. Freight the Gemara of shtei halechem lechem hapanim, yesh mamlei ishim, that's all good for almost everything mentioned in this braisa, but the shtei halechem didn't go on the mizbei'ach at all. The lechem hapanim didn't go on the mizbei'ach at all, so how could you consider it kosher mimenu l'ishim? And in fact, the Gemara supports its kasha with a braisa. V'ha tanina b'braisa, yochid shtei halechem lechem hapanim she'einem l'ishim. And the context is really Gemara in daf in a few dafim from now, where the Gemara discusses the mitzvah of hagashah, but the bottom line in the context of that sugya, the braisa clearly says that the lechem hapanim and the shtei halechem are viewed as a carbon that has no chelek l'ishim. So how could you learn from there that if somebody would put the shtei halechem the lechem hapanim on the mizbei'ach, he'd be over this lo saaseh of kosher mimenu l'ishim? Om Rashi says, ein migufah l'ishim, that it's true there's no part of the guf of the shtei halechem or the guf of the lechem hapanim that had a din to go on the mizbei'ach, but at the same time, the shtei halechem was part of a bigger carbon which did have a chelek that went on the mizbei'ach. The shtei halechem was part of the kipsei atzaros, it was part of the se'or l'chatos, it was part of the 10 animals that made up the carbon olah, there was a whole group of animals that were brought as korbanos that came together with the shtei halechem. So the shtei halechem is viewed as kosher mimenu l'ishim posh pshat in the Gemara, because it's part of a larger carbon that had a chelek that went on the mizbei'ach. Specifically the kipsei atzaros, based on some of the more difficult sugyos that we had in the end of perek kallah kallah, where the Gemara talked about the special relationship between the kipsei atzaros and the shtei halechem. There was a t'nufah, the Gemara used the loshon of zikah, the same shprach that you find when you learn maseches Yevamos, there's a zikah between the yavam and the yevamah, there's a zikah between the kipsei atzaros and the shtei halechem. Thus, even though the shtei halechem itself never went on the mizbei'ach, but it's part of a carbon where a chelek of it did go on the mizbei'ach. Thus, you could say kosher mimenu l'ishim. The same is true for the lechem hapanim, because the lechem hapanim came together with the bizichei l'vonah. The bizichei l'vonah did go on the mizbei'ach. Thus, says the Gemara, it's true the sugya later refers to the shtei halechem and the lechem hapanim as kol she'ein mimenu l'ishim, that's because ein migufah l'ishim. From the guf of the shtei halechem, the guf of the lechem hapanim, there was no chelek that went on the mizbei'ach. But at the same time, if you're willing to see the bigger picture, the lechem hapanim are part of a carbon, a chelek of which is the bizichei l'vonah that did go on the mizbei'ach. The shtei halechem is part of a carbon, a chelek of which is the kipsei atzaros, etc. A chelek of that which went on the mizbei'ach as well. Om Rav Itzchak, maili mikulan al gav yakov? What if somebody would take all the aforementioned? So he would take the basar of a carbon chatos, the basar of a carbon olah shalom, the basar of the shlamei tzibbur, of the kodashim kalim, the mosar omer, the mosar of the shtei halechem lechem hapanim, the shiyurei minchos, and he would put it not on the marochos, he would put it actually burn it in the fire of the marochos, but he would merely put it on the kevesh. Would be over the lo saaseh So the Torah says ki chol se'or v'chol d'vash lo yisakiru mimenu ishah l'Hashem. And that pasuk is really the theme of the entire daf. The very next pasuk, right after the Torah says you're not allowed to be makriv se'or and d'vash on the mizbei'ach, the Torah continues with a pasuk that's a little sossom. Korban reishis takrivu oisam l'Hashem, v'el hamizbei'ach lo yaalu l'rei'ach nicho'ach. The Torah refers to the se'or and the d'vash seemingly as a carbon. Not only a carbon, a korban reishis, we'll see more about that in a moment. And the Torah says that although takrivu oisam l'Hashem, but v'el hamizbei'ach lo yaalu l'rei'ach nicho'ach. Either way, Rav Yochanan darshans the word hamizbei'ach. Hamizbei'ach is the rabbos, that not only are you not allowed to take the se'or and the d'vash and put it on the marochos on the mizbei'ach, but you're not even allowed to put it on the kevesh. Rav Lozer amar paser, mai ta'ama d'makra? Because the pasuk says se'or ud'vash korban reishis takrivu oisam. It's true the Torah says ki chol se'or v'chol d'vash lo yisakiru mimenu ishah l'Hashem. And then the very next pasuk, it's a little tricky. The Torah says korban reishis takrivu oisam l'Hashem, v'el hamizbei'ach lo yaalu. And hamizbei'ach is marbeh d'kevesh, but says Rav Lozer, hamizbei'ach that's marbeh d'kevesh is only going back on what's meforesh in the previous pasuk, and that's se'or and d'vash. So it's true, if somebody would take se'or and d'vash and he would put it on the kevesh of the mizbei'ach, for that he'd be over the lo saaseh. But you want to be marbeh everything mentioned in the braisa. You want to be marbeh basar chatos, basar olah shalom, basar shlamei tzibbur, etc. For that you don't have a right to do. I, those things were also included in the previous pasuk, because although they're not mentioned meforesh in the pasuk, but we just said that if somebody's ma'il with those things on the mizbei'ach, he gets malkos and it's learned from that pasuk, because it says ki chol se'or v'chol d'vash lo yisakiru mimenu. And we darshan from there kosher mimenu l'ishim, harei hu b'val yisakiru. But at the same time, in the second pasuk it says the word oisam, korban reishis takrivu oisam. Oisam is a mi'ut to tell me that this halachah of hamizbei'ach that's marbeh d'kevesh with the issur achilah is not referring to everything that we just mentioned. It's only referring to some of what we mentioned. So we mentioned explicitly ki chol se'or v'chol d'vash lo yisakiru. We mentioned implicitly via a drashah kosher mimenu l'ishim. Oisam tells me that the ribui of kevesh is only going on se'or and d'vash. The ribui of kevesh is not going on kosher mimenu l'ishim. Either way, says the Gemara, Rav Yochanan, high oisam ayavalei? What does Rav Yochanan do with the word oisam? I would think that if a yochid wants to go and he wants to be minadeiv shtei halechem as a carbon, maybe it should be okay. The korban nedavah mitzvas tze'el tishmah v'asisa. And the parshah of mitzvas tze'el tishmah which is the parshah of nedarim and nedavos would maybe apply to such a carbon. Tamud lomar korban reishis takrivu, tzibbur amarti l'cha v'lo yochid, that a tzibbur has an ability to be makriv se'or v'shtei halechem, but a yochid doesn't have ability to do that. Yochid lo yehe yochid maybe I would think that maybe only a yochid can. Aval yehe tzibbur maybe v'asisa, but maybe the tzibbur has a right. B'toras nedavah to be makriv a carbon that would be comparable to the shtei halechem. Tamud lomar oisam. No, oisam only that, that's the only shtei halechem, that's the only such carbon that you're going to have. But if you wanted to recreate something similar to the shtei halechem b'toras nedavah, invoking the parshah of mitzvas tze'el tishmah v'asisa kasheh nedavah, that's something that you would not have a right to do. So that's what Rav Yochanan uses from the word oisam. So Rav Yochanan darshans the word oisam not to be ma'it all the other things such as the basar chatos and the basar olah shalom, the basar zivchei shlamei tzibbur, and all those things, to tell me that they're not included in the issur to be ma'il not only into the marochos but on the kevesh. He uses oisam for something else, to tell me that you can't have a shtei halechem that's going to be b'toras nedavah. Umai yeish l'cha l'havei shtei halechem min asarim b'churim u'd'vash? The shtei halechem and the bikkurim and the d'vash, those are things that you're allowed to because that's what the Torah says you're allowed to do. But oisam is ma'it that if you wanted to again bring a nedavah that's similar to se'or, similar to the shtei halechem, or bring a nedavah that's similar to the d'vash, those are two things you would not be allowed to do. Freight the Gemara, is that true? Ushtei halechem yochid nedavah tanina b'braisa, im nemar kol se'or, lo nemar kol d'vash, lo nemar kol d'vash, lo nemar kol se'or. So this is a braisa that really picks up in middle of a shmuoz, the a shmuoz that the Gemara is going to discuss on the bottom of the amud. The context over there is it says in the Torah not just se'or and d'vash lo yisakiru mimenu ishah l'Hashem, it says ki chol se'or the whole the wash. It's a lot of actual words here. Key, call, call seems very normal. And the more it says that call so are and call the wash is marbo that not only you have if you mark there an entire sheer of so and the wash but you have even if you mark there a half a sheer. Now what is the sheer? I like it's about the rubber. That's again we'll see that on the bottom of the almond. But for now all we need to know is that call so are is marbo a half a sheer of so are and call the wash is marbo a half a sheer of the wash. So this bright so picks up in the middle of that halacha. So we said call so are the rubber is a half a sheer of so are. Call the wash the rubber is a half a sheer of the wash. And the bright so asks that why do I need a reboy for half a sheer of so are and half a sheer of the wash? Let it say a half a sheer of so are and I'll learn the wash from so are. Or let it say half a sheer of the wash and I'll know half a sheer of so are from the wash. And then mark call so are going to never call the wash. And never call the wash going to never call so are. I mean why can't I learn one from the other? Why do I need a reboy of half a sheer by each one independently? So the bright so I'm going to say each beside my share in the wash and each beside my share in the wash my share in the so are because each one has a unique characteristic that doesn't allow me to learn one from the other. So what's unique about so are? Who do we call him in the kitchen? Even though the Torah says key call so are we suck here with men who eat shallow sham but you find that so are is who do we call him in the kitchen? There is a time you could be marked there so are. The wash we would have to call him in the kitchen. You don't find anywhere that you could ever be marked the wash. Thus so are has a a cooler that wash doesn't have. The wash also has a cooler. What's unique about wash? Who do we call him in the kitchen? You are allowed to put the wash into the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. So are however we would have to call him in the kitchen. You are not allowed to put so are in the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. So it's true the Torah says key call so are we call the wash we suck here but that's all talking about the part of the carbon that one of them was back. What about the part of the carbon that was eaten by the Kohanim? The sheer of men who eat shallow sham. So the Kohanim was allowed to put the wash into the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. He wasn't allowed to put so are into the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. line is so are has a cooler and the wash has a cooler. So are is cooler is who do we call him in the kitchen? There is a time you are allowed to put so are even on one of them is back. The wash has a cooler that the wash you are allowed to put into the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. It's for that reason home of men who eat shallow sham my share in the wash the age of the wash my share in the so are who do we call him in the kitchen? We would have to call him in the kitchen. I can't do they have bright so says the more I so do we have to call him in the kitchen my new the bright so said that so so are is who do we call him in the kitchen? Where do you find it? Says the wash they have a kitchen. The carbon of the double isn't it referring to presumably a sheer of men who eat shallow sham where somebody decided maybe the table maybe the young kid that we're going to bring a sheer of men who eat shallow sham. And it's mash mode that you could bring a sheer of men who eat shallow sham Torah is in the double because otherwise where else do you find so are being brought as a carbon? The more assumes that it must be in the double or a made up carbon. So you see you can make up a carbon. It can mirror the sheer of men who eat shallow sham which was a real carbon and you could be marked with it. And that's where it's who do we call him in the kitchen that even though the Torah says key call so are we suck here with men who eat shallow sham but here's your example where you are taking so are and you're putting it on the back. So how could we have a kitchen say that the word is coming to tell me that only only the sheer of men who eat shallow itself you are allowed to put on the back but [snorts] or you could bring as a carbon but no other sheer of men who eat shallow sham not the rest of the kitchen and the rest of the table. The how else do you understand this bright so when the bright so says that so are is who do we call him in the kitchen doesn't it mean what we are saying you cannot do? If that's the case it's a kitchen the carbon him up. What it means is the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. When we say that so are is who do we call him in the kitchen it means the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. Even though ordinarily a so are can't be a carbon in the sheer of men who eat shallow sham the so are is a carbon. It doesn't mean only new sheer of men who eat shallow sham that's in the double that mirrors the sheer of men who eat shallow sham that the shoes. The sheer of men who eat shallow sham itself is who do we call him in the kitchen. That is in and of itself a very big kitchen. Either way says the more but if that's the case the cooler if the sheer of men who eat shallow sham is considered who do we call him in the kitchen then the cooler should the wash should also be who do we call him in the kitchen. And the reason is again what did the bright so say? That so are has a cooler that wash doesn't have. The wash has a cooler that so are doesn't have. So are has a cooler it's who do we call him in the kitchen. The wash you don't find anywhere who do we call him in the kitchen. As if to say the wash is never part of a carbon. Great the more is that true? Is the wash never a part of a carbon? We know that the wash is one of the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. So that the wash was brought as the cooler. You had to take the wash tomorrow and bring it as as the cooler. And now we know into the mission of how we always have a kitchen of men who eat shallow sham that sounds very normal. When a person would bring the cooler unbeknownst to many and this is a mission of the cooler of the kitchen. You bring carbons together with it. They would carbons that were brought. Actually says they also carbons that were brought. But there were carbons with it. If that's the case then kind of the more just like the sheer of men who eat shallow sham you tell him it's who do we call him in the kitchen even though the sheer of men who eat shallow sham never touched the back but it was part of a carbon and the carbon itself was put on the back. Thus it's who do we call him in the kitchen the way so I say of key call so are we suck here with men who eat shallow sham. If that's the case the wash has the same thing cuz the wash was the cooler the cooler were brought together with these sheer of men who eat shallow sham which the mission says were always. So the the cooler is also part of a carbon that one of them is back. So what do you tell me that so are has a cooler that the cooler does that wash doesn't have? So are is who do we call him in the kitchen the cooler not. If the who do we call him in the kitchen the fact that it's part of the kitchen then we would have to call him in the kitchen the wash has the same thing. It's part of the always that were brought together with the cooler. I don't probably mean something else. What it probably means is when I talk about the sheer of men who eat shallow sham that so are is who do we call him in the kitchen cuz you're right that the cooler would also have. What it means is you could put a sheer of men who eat shallow sham on the back itself. You could bring in a double between a sheer of men who eat shallow sham and that's in and of itself. You that you don't have anywhere by the wash. If that's the case it's again a kitchen of the more says that really when you say who do we call him in the kitchen what we're referring to is the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. you have the same thing by the cooler? You don't have the cooler who also. There's a very big difference between the relationship between the kitchen and the sheer of men who eat shallow sham and those always that were brought together with the cooler. The kitchen and the sheer of men who eat shallow sham they're physically attached to each other. There's an energy that binds them as opposed to the cooler always brought after the cooler to beautify the cooler but there's no real kitchen on any [snorts] level between those carbons and the cooler. The sheer of men who eat shallow sham became who do we call him in the kitchen the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. There's no matter the relationship. There's no longer relationship at all between these carbons and the cooler. Thus the sheer of men who eat shallow sham is considered who do we call him in the kitchen because it's part of a carbon that went on the back as opposed to the cooler the wash is not part of any carbon that went on the back. Therefore shot in the bright so is the sheer of men who eat shallow sham you have no kitchen on boy you run me by the boss of the kitchen. If somebody would take from the boss of the kitchen he would put it on the back. What would be the halacha? So the bright so that we began today's talk with gave a whole list of things that were not allowed to be put on the back that we learn that from the boss of the kitchen. The whole the wash we suck here with men who eat shallow sham. That call so are we eat shallow sham the halacha is you're not allowed to put that in and of itself on the back. So the halacha is what would be the halacha of the kitchen? The mission mentions boss of the kitchen boss of the kitchen. It mentioned the kitchen. It mentioned the the sheer of men who eat shallow sham the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. It didn't mention kitchen. Would kitchen be different? Now first glance you say of course kitchen is different cuz what's the drasha? Call so are we eat shallow sham. If you have a carbon part of the carbon goes on the back you can't take the other part and put it on the back as well. The kitchen did not have any kitchen on the back. The kitchen was the diametric opposite of the other side. The other side went completely on the back. The kitchen was completely eaten by the Kohanim. That's the definition that we always speak out. That's why the carbon when the only brought the kitchen had to bring an oil with it. Why do you have to bring an oil? If somebody could afford to bring a regular kitchen the kids brought us to eat it he didn't have to bring a carbon oil. But if you're an only and you can't afford to bring the so now you have to to an other side together with your kitchen. The kitchen just bring your kitchen. So the drasha the kitchen is is because the kitchen had no kitchen on the back. And every carbon has that kitchen that goes on the back. So together with the kitchen you had the other side. But the kitchen itself did not have any kitchen that went on the back. So the halacha who always asks asks the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. If somebody would take from the boss of the kitchen and he would put it on the back would he be over this or not? Why not? Cuz call so are we eat shallow sham the halacha is in the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. This doesn't have any kitchen that's I do more call so are my carbon. The halacha is my carbon. Being that it's a part of carbon maybe that's enough. Why should the fact that it's called a carbon be enough? It's based on the next boss of the kitchen cuz right after the Torah says key call so are we call the wash we suck here with men who eat shallow sham the next words carbon reaches that my sham. So maybe the kitchen is as long as it's a carbon that somehow is included. The kitchen at the end of the day is going to be considered a carbon and the Torah told me by the more surprisingly call so are my carbon. The halacha is my carbon. The second side which sounds like the kitchen the end of the day the Torah immediately segues and uses the word carbon that would be enough. But the more says kitchen is really the pleasure of says call so are we eat shallow sham. The call so are my carbon. My I'm this is the same boss of the kitchen. Now boss of the kitchen on the one hand it doesn't have the sheer of men who eat shallow sham but on the other hand it's my carbon. Different like I tell you the sheer of men who eat shallow sham show me the the sheer of men who eat shallow sham which was a critical part of the Torah of the sheer of men who eat shallow sham. It also was considered a carbon. It comes up in even in the so what would be if somebody would take the sheer of men who eat shallow sham and he would put it on the back? On the one hand there's no kitchen there's no part of the sheer of men who eat shallow sham that goes on the back. The sheer of men who eat shallow sham that the back. But at the same time it is a carbon. The call carbon of the kitchen. Again that would be another if you need kitchen the sheer of men who eat shallow sham would not be included in this issue. If it's enough my carbon then the like salmon would be included in this issue. So two hours going backwards. First of all we just mentioned that >> [snorts] >> he wanted to know if somebody would be my love the on the would it be included in this issue of why not because what's the issue the issue is me and there's no then when this is I'll pee this Evan that we just spoke out that says that the always came together. In fact the was viewed as the of the we always speak out with the dream but brings a to tell me that the by and the is that he so I need a to tell me that by will be the able to bring the by can't be by the but all of them are only by why would I think the should be different that he thought I'll pee this Evan with Evan says that the very often role was to make up for the it was the that the was missing the was so we can't bring a carbon and only give it to the you have to give something to the so what did you do you brought an the was the so the sometimes played the role of the what the were in an ordinary carbon after we know was by so that you could bring the by because the whole the of the is what the is to so to answer the question again the question the who needs a to tell me that the of the is possible by why is it different than any other so I'll tell you why because the is the the of a carbon and the of a carbon avoid that is by so I would have thought maybe the should be by as well the what that he had a dream afterwards after he thought of this he fell asleep he had a dream and in the dream there was a big in and they were being to they are why there's no one in this that's to or I don't know exactly how the story goes but as this is going on the walks into to the and he says it's not he said because I asked the question that I and there's a he just said that that's what I said that's what I said that's what I said that's what I said that's what I said mean that you know how to burn it on the fire of the and the but it means you know how to even put it on to the that we learn from the word that even the is going to be included so when the says or the we say what it means is he can't even take and put it on to the ramp of the which which at first glance is because the says can't burn it how is putting the or the or the and the etc etc on the at the end of the day the says so the the is the but the is almost a contradiction to the real to what the says the says don't burn it and now you're being not only is it to burn it but it's even just to put it on the I think it's a little bit so but the is really very very just one and that is throughout culture we've seen many times the talks about the of the so when you think of the of what comes to mind the third of the of the that was the of the of the of the carbon and one of the was you have to take the from the and the walk into the if it's if you're taking the the equivalent there of the you're walking from the which was in the you're taking it out into the to bring it in on the the is to take the or the equivalent there of walk it to the where you're going to do the the where you're going to do this that's the of the but there was another right there was the of the the that had a is an a even though it's not an that's not a carbon but it's also not allowed to do it isn't an a and taking the and walking them to the to the to do the was in it of itself and the refers to it as a the and the from he brings that the the why is it that whenever the talks about this the the is the the is bringing it to the no the is bringing it to the walking it up the taking it to the burning it that is the so why is it always the a classic from the the it's not just the you have to take it all the way to the so that his father said that the says that there was a little bit of between the ramp and the itself it's not from a it says the says that when the just like was there there was a with the as well now the couldn't stand on the bottom and throw it up so he he'd walk it up to the top of the and then he would throw it across this into the that's the way was done if that's the case it comes out that really the ended at the top of the ramp so maybe when the says it doesn't mean walk it to the beginning of the ramp maybe it means walk it to the top of the ramp the is the the so the means the beginning of the ramp but he said maybe it means walk it up the ramp and that's really where the what do you mean don't I walk it from the top of the ramp to the fire no that's the but at that at that point you go from to it's a different so to speak the bottom line is that's what said but the wasn't happy with that and the said was very bothered why is it even though I'm at the the didn't stop the is the beginning of the ramp so I still have to walk it up the ramp isn't that part of the said the of based on that we've learned together here in the a from that is that is we know this in the where the I so one of the more prominent that a carbon can get is so what does mean it means that has a to be on the after the day that the carbon was brought if you leave it overnight or already at that point the is going to be it's going to be have a that that day and night that the carbon was brought you have to put on the if you leave the until the next day it becomes it also becomes the name of the so there's something called which means that if you leave it past the time that it was supposed to be you were supposed to do the and I didn't do the it comes out now that it was if the let's say have a carbon which would become possible once the sun rises the morning after this carbon was brought if the would would it become possible or not possible one says yeah one another one says one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that one we that the fact that it was I hear but at the end of the day they were just supposed to be you were supposed to burn them so the fact that I didn't burn them means that by definition they were no and the and the that is related to the of and just like you find is a that if you put it on the it gives it a new of the the so so you have the same exact concept in the preemptive state that if I take something and I put it on the just like the could be something that has to to tell me that even though it has I I could still be matter it because the it works preemptively that if it's on them as back, it's in the mukam of kedusha in the back. The kodesh says that it's not even held of solina. Ain lina mayales braysha misbech as if koton in perek am is back the kodesh. It works with misbech mikadesh as if pasula. Half of a fellow. Oh yeshloim I say Reb Chaim maybe that's not the shiyur. Maybe the shiyur is that if they murmur on the misbech it's not considered that they were lone. Because the definition of lina is said Reb Chaim that you didn't even start the aktora. Once you put the murmur on the misbech said Reb Chaim maybe that's a really considered priyas aktora. And as long as I started the aktora it's not what's lone. Lone means I wasn't after it. I wasn't I didn't finish the aktora. It's not in the maroch but once it goes on the misbech that's enough said Reb Chaim maybe to say that it shouldn't be held of solina. Either way Reb Chaim brought rayas that the ikar is like the second side. That the way ain lina mayales braysha misbech it works is not me didn't misbech mikadesh. That really it's lone but the misbech is mikadesh that even though it was lone it shouldn't become pasul. Rather the way ain lina mayales braysha misbech works is that if it was beraysha misbech then the halacha is that it's not even held of solina at all. We once brought a raya from the Targum Unkulus. This the lo saseh of chelev chagiya is mentioned twice in the Torah. One of the places is in parshas mishpatim. Says the Torah in chelev chagiya so the Targum Unkulus vlo yevis bar min madbecha tarbe nichsas pischia tsafra lone min bisra detechlum barabsha. Keywords vlo yevis bar vlo yevis bar min madbecha. Bar min madbecha. Again the Targum is is it taiching the words. vlo yolin chelev chagiya boiker. What does vlo yolin mean? It means vlo yevis bar min madbecha tarbe. It means don't leave it not on the misbech. Bechiara bar min What does bar min madbecha have to do with anything? Bar min madbecha is like a gishmak sugya. Bar min mad means not on the misbech. So when you learn the sugya lina mayales braysha misbech ain lina mayales braysha misbech. So Targum Unkulus obviously is paskening like the man number that holds ain lina mayales braysha misbech. And Targum Unkulus the Gemara says Reb Chaim brought a raya me pi Rebbi Eliezer Rebbi Yishmael. So you know Rebbi Eliezer Rebbi Yishmael's shita now is is ain lina mayales braysha misbech. But what what does it mean parshas shiyur? Targum Unkulus is not saying purple. Targum Unkulus is taiching the words. That means the Targum is taiching the words vlo yolin means that they weren't on the misbech. So bishlav like Reb Chaim's second side. That the yesoid of ain lina mayales braysha misbech means because lina means you didn't do the aktora. And when you put it on the misbech it's considered a chilas aktora. So that's the taich. You want to know what vlo yolin means says the Targum it to be very curious when you're doing shitaim mikvecha Targum. What does vlo yolin mean? I'll tell you what it means. It means you didn't start the aktora. You didn't put it on the misbech. But if the taich of lina means not that it wasn't on the misbech. The taich of lina means you didn't burn it on the maroch. Now what is the halacha that if it's on the misbech misbech is mikadesh. It's just like misbech you mean mikadesh after the fact that even though it has solina in vlo lo yardo misbech mikadesh before the fact and tell me that even though it was lone but still it's not going to be held of solina. Why is the Targum getting involved with bar min madbecha? So the whole Targum Unkulus is a raya in a flaw to Reb Chaim's yesoid. But the bottom line is that was Reb Chaim's yesoid. Reb Chaim said that the yesoid of ain lina mayales braysha misbech is is that aktora doesn't begin when the emurim touch the fire. When it's mashlo ben ha'or. The aktora actually begins when it touches the misbech. Now the kevesh is part of the misbech. Many sugyas in Zevachim we've seen that the kevesh is considered part of the misbech. For example misbech mikadesh the kevesh is also mikadesh. It's a mishna in perek am is back mikadesh. So the kevesh is considered part of the misbech. If that's the case said the Brisker Rov that's why you always find the mussaf of say varim mikavesh. Because the emes is once you bring it to the kevesh it touches the kevesh aktora started already. The avoida say varim ends when the aktora starts. When does the aktora start? So if you ask the man on the street he's going to say what do you mean when you put it into the fire? It's wrong. The aktora starts before you put it in the fire. The moment it touches the kevesh that's when it's already ain lina mayales braysha misbech because that's when it already started aktora. I mean like that's when it already started aktora. That means that's when the halacha is finished. Because the halacha finishes that's the the the punchline. The halacha finishes when the aktora starts. And just like being that aktora starts when it touches the misbech and the kevesh was in this rabbit route sugyas of shas to be part of the misbech it's that's why for that reason you always find halacha the kevesh not halacha bottom line is as relates to our sugya ki chol sor u'chol devash lo yaktiru mimenu isha lashem. And we're being marbe even the kevesh. Bechiara the Torah says aktora. How are you being marbe with the kevesh? The oimek in the beer of the Gemara is that really putting it on the kevesh is also a chelek of aktora. Now so what I mean without a reboy. You actually have to put it in the fire. Maybe you need the hashlamo of the aktora in order to be over in order to violate this lo saseh in the Torah. Kamashmalon hamisbech u'rabis es hakevesh that it's enough that you put it on the kevesh meaning the chilas aktora would be enough to be over this issur of ki chol sor u'chol devash lo yaktiru mimenu isha lashem. I think that's parshas shiyur in the Gemara. Either way zog the Gemara weiter tanu rabbanan the next Gemara is a super duper long dishug Gemara. Either way tanu rabbanan arba yaktiru. And it's ain yello kulai. Miktzas minain. How do you know that if somebody burns only miktzas of this sor meaning not the entire shiyur but only a part of the shiyur of sor. How do you know that you're over the lo saseh of ki chol sor u'chol devash? Says the Gemara tam u'lameh kol. It says kol sor. Could have just said sor. It says kol sor that's the rabis even chatis shiyur. Eruvin minain. How do you know if the sor would be in a taruvis? It would be mixed together with something else. So it's not ba'en. So this is a real taruvis sugya. It really is. It's a taruvis sugya. And what would be if you have the sor mixed in a taruvis with something else? Would you still be over the issur of ki chol sor lo yaktiru mimenu isha lashem? The answer is yeah. Kam u'lameh ki chol. Kol teaches me even a chatzi shiyur. Ki chol teaches me a filu a ruva. Says the Gemara ma kamar. Abaya holds kamar. Abaya is going to explain the braysa to you a little bit. Sor u'val yaktiru. If it had only said sor u'val yaktiru in the yello kisaiz I would have thought that it has to be a shiyur. And what's the shiyur sor? What would you have thought that shiyur is a kizaiz? Chatzi zaiz minain. How do you know that you're chayiv even for a chatzi zaiz? Tam u'lameh kol. So kol is marbe that even a chatzi zaiz of sor if you burn that on the misbech you're going to be chayiv. Eruvin minain. How do you know if it's in a taruvis? Tam u'lameh ki chol. Rova explained the braysa a little differently. Hachi kamar. Sor u'val yaktiru in the yello koimes. The shiyur of sor without a reboy I would have thought is a koimes. So somebody would be maktir a koimes you'd be chayiv. Chatzi koimes minain. How do you know chatzi koimes? Tam u'lameh kol. So the kol that's marbe chatzi shiyur. What's the chatzi shiyur? It's not a chatzi zaiz like Abaya said. It's a chatzi koimes says Rova. Eruvin minain. Tam u'lameh ki chol. Bottom line is a machlokes Abaya u'Rova. You know what's a big sugya? It's a machlokes Abaya u'Rova. How to understand the first part of the braysa. When we say kol sor and kol devash that's being marbe now a chatzi shiyur. What's the chatzi shiyur of sor? According to Abaya the chatzi shiyur is a chatzi zaiz. The shiyur is a zaiz thus the chatzi shiyur is a chatzi zaiz. According to Rova the shiyur is a koimes thus the chatzi shiyur is a chatzi koimes. So according to Abaya it's chatzi zaiz. According to Rova it's chatzi koimes. Okay we still need some help there. Says the Gemara but ma kamifligi Abaya u'Rova yesh koimes pokhes mishnaizaisim. Abaya holds that a koimes could be less than shnaizaisim. Viyeish aktora prusa min kizaiz. Additionally he holds this aktora prusa min kizaiz. So what? So what? This being that there's a koimes that's pokhes mishnaizaisim. So if the standard koimes is pokhes mishnaizaisim says Rashi it's mashma that when the Torah says that you shouldn't be maktir sor it means a shiyur koimes. Meaning there's a chelek that you could be maktir there's a chelek that you can't be maktir. The chelek that you're maktir of the mincha is always what? It's always the koimes. The kosher aktora is always a koimes. So it's mashma then that the issur ki chol sor that's mentioned in the parshas mincha is also a koimes. Abaya held that a koimes could be pokhes mishnaizaisim. So if we're going to be marbe from the word kol sor we're being marbe half of that. Half of less than shnaizaisim is going to be a chatzi zaiz meaning less than a kizaiz. Thus Abaya was marbe chatzi zaiz. Rova held ain koimes pokhes mishnaizaisim. No such thing as a koimes that's pokhes mishnaizaisim. And being that there's no such thing as a koimes that's pokhes mishnaizaisim so the starting point the shiyur koimes is always going to be two zaizim. So if you're going to go ahead now and you're going to be marbe chatzi it's chatzi of shnaizaisim so maybe it's only a kizaiz. So that's why Rova said I don't have a to be marbe from the word kol less than a kizaiz. Abaya said it's much that the reboy is going to be less than a zaiz because the shiyur shalim is less than two zaizim. If we're marbe chatzi of the shiyur shalim it's less than a kizaiz. Thus the shiyur is going to be chatzi zaiz. But Rova said that the shiyur shalim is at the very least two zaizim. So if you're going to be marbe chatzi of the shiyur shalim I only have a right to be marbe a chatzi zaiz. Even though Reb Chaim brought a raya the bottom line is that's why according to Abaya marbe chatzi zaiz. According to Rova it's only a chatzi koimes. But at the end of the day it still has to be a kizaiz. And that's how we'll speak a more great about this in tomorrow's daf. But just one interesting thing and that is it comes out according to Rova the standard koimes the standard koimes was at the very least two zaizim. And that's very troubling because if you went home and you tried doing a komitza in your kitchen it'd be very hard to get two zaizim. Especially two Chazon Ish zaizim man. You know based on the way they do it you know about R' Moshe Feinstein and then came R' Moshe Feinstein but he wanted to start talking about kizaizim. But try to get two kizaizim in your komitz. It's three fingers. It's a very big problem. And in fact some of the gedolim like Reb Chaim like the gedolim that dealt with shiyurim felt that this was a very very troubling Gemara. And it's a little bit mashma from this Gemara that the kizaiz is not as big as some people want to think it is. So there are a lot of people that have very big kizaizim. The truth is if the kizaiz is so big how did the coin get two coins into his coin purse? I mean, I buy arguing with him. They are arguing a little bit with him. But at the end of the day, rubber said ain't coin purse of the nation. So someone would say that maybe people got smaller. Maybe once upon a time people were much bigger. But we know that's not so simple at all. Maybe they would have to look for big coins. We'll be matched that way. I mean, if ain't coin purse of the nation is like a lot of missing that you had to have a big coin purse. Do you need a a big Yeah, you need a coin purse that had very big hands. >> [laughter] >> Mr. Or Mr. On this note, if somebody would be my and the I got to be honest with you. But he made a between he took the he mixed them together with and now he was in this on the How many are you going to get? I'm a rubber four. Like the like a lot of rubber bands. It says key rubber bands like rubber bands rubber bands key a rubber band a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. It's a lot of rubber bands. If you were to say all that has rubber bands and if you were to say all that has rubber bands. Thus, if you do the back of the envelope arithmetic, you're going to end up with four rubber bands. I buy rubber bands ain't like a lot of rubber bands. No way. Now, what does that mean? There's a little bit of rubber There's a lot of rubber bands. There's a lot of rubber bands. There's a lot of rubber bands. There's so much of an in this that we have no choice but to go back. But it is what it is. You can't You just can't do this justice. So I buy rubber bands ain't like a lot of rubber bands. Meaning, what's the in the of course you're going to get rubber bands. So there's rubber bands for being rubber bands. There's rubber There's There's going to be rubber bands for being rubber bands. But the word key is impossible That's one word that was a rubber band rubber band and a rubber band. It's a lot of rubber bands cuz it's one word that's rubber band in it more than one is there. A rubber band rubber band and a rubber band. You know what happens when you have a lot of rubber bands? You don't get rubber bands. What does that mean you don't get rubber bands? You can have some say a lot of rubber bands. Means you don't get two rubber bands but one rubber band you can get. So you get rubber bands for rubber bands rubber bands for the and one rubber band to buy you can end up with three rubber bands. You don't even get one rubber band. Cuz at the end of the day, the only time you get rubber bands is if the rubber band that you were similar What's the paradigm of all rubber bands? rubber bands The puts the puts the purse of rubber bands next to the rubber bands and that becomes the exhibit A of what the perfect rubber band looks like rubber bands. But the perfect rubber band is rubber bands. So you have to be similar to rubber bands in order to get rubber bands. So rubber bands for example is a lot of rubber bands. Thus, according to most rubber bands ain't like a lot of rubber bands. It's not a lot of rubber bands. Thus, a lot of rubber bands ain't like a lot of rubber bands. It's also not a lot of rubber bands. It It means what it means. It doesn't mean many things. Thus, if you have a rubber band such as key rubber bands rubber bands The word key which includes in it a rubber band and a rubber band. You're not going to According to some of you held you'd get three rubber bands. According to others, I buy you held you'd get two rubber bands. And there's many other in the of them of in terms of how to understand this Maybe we'll get to it a little bit in tomorrow's but for now I just want to go back to the beginning of the and speak out one of the that even Grossman showed me on this. And that is as follows. We in his moments Simon Kimmel. It's just a lot of rubber bands. It brings us follows. He says many years ago he saw in the a who says as follows. I quote. The carbon that was brought in the base of on a lot of was made up of a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands craving a lot of rubber bands. And the a lot of rubber bands together were brought in the So again, this is the a lot of rubber bands. Say that on something very special happened in the base of There was a carbon that was brought. The carbon that was brought was made up of a lot of rubber bands. And the a lot of rubber bands were craving a lot of rubber bands. I got to be honest with you. Says what's a lot of rubber bands? That's follows. A lot of rubber bands carbon The was a lot of rubber bands. We just want the a lot of rubber bands during the last couple of a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands. So the a lot of rubber bands additionally a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. The carbon came together with a lot of rubber bands. The was a lot of rubber bands. A lot of rubber bands. A lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. So comes a lot of rubber bands. You have a lot of rubber bands and a lot of rubber bands. You have a lot of rubber bands. You have a lot of rubber bands. A lot of rubber bands. Thus, the a lot of rubber bands carbon a lot of rubber bands and a lot of rubber bands. I was a I was a lot of rubber bands. What I never understood was the a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands. Cuz the a lot of rubber bands comes out that a lot of rubber bands craving a lot of rubber bands. That's not true. The a lot of rubber bands went on the a lot of a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands by the So what does it mean a lot of rubber bands? The a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. And then it was a lot of rubber bands. That was the a lot of rubber bands But you don't have a lot of rubber bands craving a lot of rubber bands. You have a lot of rubber bands Where do you have that there was a lot of rubber bands? Says a lot of rubber bands that this a lot of rubber bands has a lot of rubber bands already in the a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands is talking about the idea of a lot of rubber bands. And the explains because the a lot of rubber bands represents the a lot of rubber bands last week from That's the idea of a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands and specifically the the a lot of rubber bands that was the a lot of rubber bands. I say that the were a lot of rubber bands. A lot of rubber bands. A lot of rubber bands. You have to go The bottom line is is that on a lot of rubber bands to get rid of the The a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands. We work our way up with the a lot of rubber bands that we come to and on says the a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. We take the a lot of rubber bands and not only is it okay to have a lot of rubber bands. Not only is it fine to sit down a lot of rubber bands with with and and you can eat all the a lot of rubber bands you want. But in the base of they would take this a lot of rubber bands and they would be on the a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. They would actually put on the a lot of rubber bands. That this that a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. This that I've seen for years that always troubled me with the a lot of rubber bands. a lot of rubber bands could say that a lot of rubber bands craving a lot of rubber bands. It was a lot of a lot of rubber bands that's what happened. We go from a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands and we build up to a lot of rubber bands we take the a lot of rubber bands and a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. But the is where was the a lot of rubber bands on the a lot of rubber bands. It was eaten by the Says a lot of rubber bands that maybe you have to say a very big We learned the The said the says a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. Now we learn from there a lot of rubber bands. If I'm a lot of rubber bands. If I'm part of a carbon and that carbon had a lot of it that went on the a lot of rubber bands. So the is the part that's not supposed to go on the a lot of rubber bands. to put on the a lot of rubber bands. So the a lot of rubber bands a lot of rubber bands. Being that this a lot of rubber bands part of this carbon goes on the a lot of rubber bands. reason you're not allowed to eat the a lot of rubber bands. One of the things included we prices is is the a lot of rubber bands. A little bit of a lot of rubber bands. Where is the a lot of rubber bands? So the even though ain't a lot of rubber bands. But it's still considered a lot of rubber bands. So you learn the way we explained the way we went through the together. And that is is that the a lot of rubber bands is connected with the to the I mean that the a lot of rubber bands part of it went on the a lot of rubber bands. at it as a lot of rubber bands. But says a lot of rubber bands. I think that in the a lot of rubber bands and in this a lot of rubber bands is a much deeper in the that together was that when the a lot of rubber bands were brought on the a lot of rubber bands. It was as if the a lot of rubber bands were being put on the a lot of rubber bands. That the a lot of rubber bands It was as if it was literally as if a lot of rubber bands even though the a lot of rubber bands but the a lot of rubber bands is part and parcel of the a lot of rubber bands. So we look at it literally as if if it's a lot of rubber bands. And a lot of rubber bands is very that way. So he says he thinks a lot of rubber bands that a lot of rubber bands actually being a lot of rubber bands that way. That together of the a lot of rubber bands is not that the a lot of rubber bands is part of a carbon of which a lot of it went That's a lot of rubber bands. It's a little Says a lot of rubber bands but the a lot of rubber bands is a lot of rubber bands. It was as if the a lot of rubber bands went on the So he says you want to know the to this the a lot of rubber bands. The a lot of rubber bands that we started this morning. That from the fact that the a lot of rubber bands is as kosher men and women. That's a riot that the stay of lechem itself had some dinner carbon on the mizbeach. Because if the stay of lechem didn't have a dinner carbon on the mizbeach, that Now, the Torah says this is in goofa the women. Because even though the stay of lechem is somehow being carbon on the mizbeach, but the goofa of the stay of lechem was never being put on the mizbeach. Physically, it's not being put on the mizbeach. But at the end of the day, it's neshcha as if it's kosher men and women. And it's for that reason it's included in the loisa loisa kiyus. That's the makor to the shla. That's the makor to the zohar hakadosh. But he told me another ora that Reb Shmuel Even and that is another objective angle. And this is in the safer Gvurash Mayim. So we've spoken out from the safer Gvurash Mayim so many times. And the safer Gvurash Mayim really begins with a kasha. They ask the kasha that we know that a sofek soita would be brought up to the makam mikdash. She would have to stand lifnei Hashem. She would drink from the mayim hamarim. If she was guilty, it wasn't good. And if she was innocent, then she was zoicha to tremendous brocha. But before she drank from the mayim hamarim, they would bring a carbon, a carbon mincha. It was known as the minchas kanois. And the Torah throughout shas refers to the minchas kanois as a carbon that was mevareh roven. What does that mean? It means the carbon mincha played an integral role in determining whether or not this woman was guilty or innocent. Because the only way the mayim hamarim worked was if the carbon mincha was brought. And not just that it had to be brought properly. So if you had a kosher carbon mincha, then the mayim was biting. But if you didn't have a kosher carbon mincha, the mayim wasn't biting. Right? Yosef Engel asks a kasha according to the man that says that mayim hamarim that the way pigul works is not the kohen has the ability to be mefagel, but it's the baal hakorban that has the ability to be mefagel. Who's the baal hakorban over here? It's the isha. That means she can control the kashrus of this korban. So he says I have a loophole for every single woman that's guilty. She's standing lifnei Hashem. They're about to make her drink. Says the woman, really? I have a way out. What's her way out? She's going to have a machsheves pigul. If she has a machsheves pigul, the mincha's going to be posul. If it's posul, it won't be mevareh roven. So even if she's guilty, the mayim is not going to be biting. Reb Yosef Engel wrote a safer called Gvurash Mayim with 82 turus into this kasha. Turus number 51 is an arichus gedola. But and we can't go through this arichus. Can't go part through part of it. It's so long. And he says so many yesoidus. But I'm going to forward to the part that we need. At this point, Reb Yosef Engel already made two hanachos in turus number nun aleph. The first hanacha he made is is that the only time it's possible to even have this machsheves pigul of minchas kanois is bishas akirah of the kohen. Okay. The second hanacha he makes is the only way she can have a machsheves pigul is if she would have a mind that she herself that she herself is going to be the one that's going to eat the shiyure of the minchas kanois chutz zmaneh. Right? Following? That's the only way it's going to happen. So bottom line is it's bishas akiras hakohanim and she's thinking right now that I might not somebody else is going to eat. I myself am going to eat the shiyure of this mincha chutz zmaneh. And again, the kasha is that's a machsheves pigul. So if you hold by the mefagel isn't a good way to make it that the mayim shouldn't be able to be biting. Says Reb Yosef Engel, half of a fellow. He says that we know the Torah says that a machsheves pigul, you can't be machshev me'achilas adam me'achilas mizbeach. Me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas adam. It's not just the Torah, it's a mishna. It's a mishna in meseches zevachim. And it's a mishna in meseches menachos. The mishna says if somebody for example would have a mind the kohen that he's going to eat the emurim chutz zmaneh. It's not a machsheves pigul because he's being machshev me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas adam. You're thinking that you're going to eat the chelev that goes on the mizbeach. Or if somebody would have a mind that he's going to eat the take the basar of a chatas that was supposed to be eaten and you're going to be me'achil chutz zmaneh. That's not a machsheves pigul because he's being machshev me'achilas adam me'achilas mizbeach. So you can't be machshev me'achilas adam me'achilas adam. Me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas mizbeach. Says Reb Yosef Engel, there's a chiddush nora that I found in Isaiah. Isaiah in parshas tetzaveh. He brings this Isaiah that the Isaiah says that on shavuos they would me'achil chametz on the mizbeach. On shavuos, they mekarvin chametz. They took the al manbacha. Obviously referring to the stay of lechem. I'm referring to Reb Yosef Engel stay of lechem that were on the mizbeach. The same kasha that he asks in Yosef Ometz. Now in Yosef Ometz, Reb Yosef Engel said a half of a big turus based on the Torah that we learned today in menachos zevachim base. But in Gvurash Mayim, he takes a little bit of a different tact. Says Reb Yosef Engel, you know what I think is is that the Torah says throughout shas that although kohanim got a chelek of a korban, but the Torah's loshon always is kohanim mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. And it permeates many sugiyos in zevachim menachos. That the way the kohanim got it, if you follow the paper trail, is really the mizbeach is zoichein everything. The mizbeach have the yochal hakodesh baruch hu shulchan gavoha tells again, come eat together with me. Kohanim mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. Says Reb Yosef Engel, if that's true, then it comes out that although there was there was a chelek of a korban that was achilas kohanim, but it's not a regular achila. The achilas kohanim for example is not like achilas matzah that every single Jew has below pesach. Below pesach, you have a mitzvah to sit down and eat matzah. This achilas kohanim is very unique. It's kohanim mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. As if to say, and this is a punchline. Again, a little bit of a leap of faith. But this is the punchline. That this really was supposed to be burnt on the mizbeach. It really had a din of akara. It belonged to shulchan gavoha. But the But shulchan gavoha tells the kohanim, come and eat together with me. Eat together with me. Meaning instead of burning it on the mizbeach, you're going to eat it. It comes out then says Reb Yosef Engel that when the kohanim eat, it's totzachas akara though. Because really it's mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. And really this basar was supposed to be burnt on the mizbeach. Now Reb Yosef Engel, the mizbeach is telling the kohanim, you can come eat with me. But the real kiyum that was supposed to happen, klappi shmaya, was this basar was supposed to be burnt. It's just that out of the goodness of the heart of shulchan gavoha, the kohanim are being zoiche in really what they were supposed to get. But what was the real din of this basar? It was supposed to be burnt. It's supposed to be mishulchan gavoha. So even when the kohanim eat it, it's basar totzachas akara. So says Reb Yosef Engel, you want to tell me it's totzachas akara on the same level of a regular akara? Of course not. It's achilas kohanim. But it's similar. It's a quasi akara. Because really it was supposed to be burnt and you can't tell me we're negating what really was supposed to happen. So the oifen of the akara is are you there achilas kohanim? But But really what was supposed to happen bereishis barah Elokim was it was supposed to be burnt on the mizbeach. It's just kohanim mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. So on some level we're going to treat it as a akara. So if somebody would be machshev me'achilas adam me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas adam. Even though the achilas adam is also a little akara. Says Reb Yosef Engel, at the end of the day so it's a little bit of akara. It's not a real akara. Meaning that it's not a real akara. So it's still not going to be a good achila. But at the same time, it is a little bit of akara. A minor kiyum. And this is gishmak. If the isha right now is having a machsheves pigul. Again, it's bishas akiras hakohanim. And she's having a mind that she herself is going to eat the shiyure hamincha chutz zmaneh. Her achila. When she's going to eat it. Let's say she follows through with her promise. And she actually sits down and eats the shiyure hamincha. Her shiyure hamincha is not going to have a din of akara. Because the only way the achila could have a din of akara is if it's mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. But being that she's not mishulchan gavoha k'zacho, her achila is an achila achila is there. That's a shrechtlich achila. It's not a akara. The akara is when you're following the steps. When it's mishulchan gavoha k'zacho, now I get the akara. But hers isn't going to be akara. If it's not going to be akara, it's going to come out you're machshev me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas adam. Because what's the din of the achilas adam? It's supposed to be achilas adam that has a chelek of a tzad akara. Her achila is an achilas adam that doesn't have a tzad akara. So just like you can't be machshev on achilas emurim, she can't be machshev on the achila of the shiyure mincha. Because why can't you be machshev on achilas emurim? Because the emurim has a din where it's supposed to be completely muktar. And you're doing an achilas kohanim that only has a tzad akara. Same is true for her. If she's going to be machshev on the shiyure mincha, the shiyure mincha was supposed to be achilas kohanim which means it's an achila that has a tzad akara. That's mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. But at the same time, her achila itself is not going to be mishulchan gavoha k'zacho. Thus it falls under the purview of me'achilas adam me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas mizbeach me'achilas adam. Just to end on one other note. And maybe this is another pshat in the zohar hakadosh. And that is the mesilas yesharim in sha'ar hakdusha. Says that at the very end of mesilas yesharim, it's the last perek. It's perek chof vov. And mesilas yesharim over there talks about the level of kedusha. Just one excerpt. He says hinei isha meskades b'kedushas boroi. Someone that reaches the level of kedusha, afilu ma'aseh hagashmiyan chozer l'iyusin inyan kedusha mamash. His ma'aseh hagashmiyan, when he eats, when he sleeps, it becomes kedusha. V'siman echad, exhibit A, achilas kodshim. She achas mamitzvas aseh. V'amru chazal, kohanim ochlim uvayim l'iskapen. The Torah achas min hatoyros hakodshim. Says Reb Yosef Engel, let me tell you the difference between someone who almost got up to the last madreiga, but didn't get up to the last madreiga. It's like 180. He says achas ma'aseh hagashmiyan endon l'o achreichan. All the gashmius that he does, he only does outside of hechrech. He has no choice. But really it's not something he wants to do. But someone that reaches to the level of kedusha, I'm skipping achas adovik tam u'mivarech v'nafsho misaleches bein hamuskolos hametiyos b'havas boroi yisborach. Hinei necheshav lo k'ilu hu misalech lifnei Hashem b'aretz hachayim u'deino poel b'inyan zeh. And everything that he does, albeit gashmius, physical, it's considered as if it's ruchnius. Hinei ish kaze hu atzmoi. Here's the punchline. Necheshav k'mishkan. The person becomes a mishkan. K'mikdash. He becomes a mikdash. V'chames mizbeach. He becomes a mizbeach. Uk'ma'amar Zohar, vayamei olam Elokim oveis heinem rekav. So if a person reaches the level of kedusha, the person [clears throat] can become a mizbeach. Kohanim ochlim uvayim l'iskapen. Says the Ramchal, this is exhibited for that. That you see just like the achilas mizbeach was mechaver the achilas adam was mechaver as well. That's maybe pshat in the zohar. The zohar says that on pesach, mekarvin they took chametz and they put it on on the mizbeach. Which mizbeach? Not the mizbeach. They gave it to the Kohanim. And Kohanim in a perfect world is achilas mizbeach. That's the oimek of Kohanim u'va'al ha'skavram because the ish ha'dolek, he himself can become k'mishkan, k'mikdash v'k'mizbeach.