Menachos 94

Today's daf is and we got four lines from the bottom of giml. So the topic of the last two daffin was the mitzvah of every time a person brought a carbon the bala carbon had an obligation to do the Mishna spoke a little bit about what was number one it was done on the head of the animal number two it was done the third and that's what we're up to is done in the same place that was done the take of And was done immediately prior to when was on says the little confusing that line. So the says the is not really saying two things. It's saying one thing had to be done in the same place that the was done and the reason is because had to be done immediately after the was done and as a result if it has to be done take then inevitably it was going to have to be done at the same time. As a matter of fact says that there was one that wasn't done and that is the when he brought his carbon so he had to do the because he was tummy wasn't allowed to enter the he had to stand at shiknar being that he had to stand in shiknar the of the mits which is the carbon that the one was kadash and it had to be bit softened no less not only in the aar so inevitably it wasn't going to be tak because the was being done outside the byar and the was going to be done in but that was the exception to the rule. The rule is take and as a result we'll speak out some raid on this in a few minutes was one of the mitzvah that many carbon had was another one of the mitzvah that some carbon had says the mishna there's a that has overf and there's a that has over what's the has overf If together are bringing a carbon and not all the have to do but one of the to do on behalf of his partners but when it comes to we saw the lim earlier this morning there's a we learned from that every single partner in this carbon had to do his own so that's a that's in that all the have to contribute to the but not all the have to to contribute has doesn't have this while the animal's alive. But there's also after the animal was already that's over because was only done while the animal was still alive. You never find after you find as well not only by animals but Rashi says also have as opposed to you're never going to find you're also never going to find by the first thing the mission said that you do have that was the previous mission The said that there were two carbon that had a mitzvah of either way. It says the word three times regarding the and one of the carbon teach me that if many partners together bring a carbon all the partners have to do their own. You can't say that let one do this and he'll be might the other one says the in theory you could have argued that has that you find even after the animal already had still the is that you don't need all the partners to do where You find that you don't do after the animals already certainly should have this that one person should be able to do for all the partners for that reason we need a to teach me that even though in you could have argued that one person should be able to do everybody else just like one person might see everybody else teaches me not that way have to do says Why don't we flip it and why don't we say that if many partners are bringing a all of them should have to do and you shouldn't allow one to be the others how would I know that which you don't have the still is that all the partners have to do their own that you find a reo we were there's a mitzvah Shouldn't there certainly be that more you see there's more so maybe there should be more that all the partners should have to do their own but the says that although it's true I hear and we don't have any to teach us to the contrary but at the end of the day it can't be that way because really it's not possible you want that if many partners five people together they chipped in they're bringing a carbon so there's a concept of of carbon carbon is not a carbon It's a carbon. There just happened to be many partners that together own this carbon says the even though it's you could say that maybe all of them should do the but practically speaking from a technical standpoint it's not going to work out. at at the same time. You're going to end up with should one person do put it down. The next partner does puts it down. The third partner does puts it down. The Tyra says one, not many. And as a result, it's not something that's going to be possible. Incidentally, you see from this that there's an issue. You're not let have a when you do. So, if you remember Alf Rashi and Tus argue exactly how tuna went down because we know that tuna was done by the bin and by the k and the bin had to do together. So Rashi learned that the way it happened was the bum would put his hands on the carbon and the coin would have put his hands underneath the hand of the bum as it's because the hand of the bum is being between the hand of the co and the hand of the carbon and says don't tell me there's no problem when it comes to because it's a It's really we just learned where the says that there is a problem of that's for that reason you can't have many partners all doing because to do it one after another is not an option can only have one but they can't all do the tufa together but the bottom line is said you see katis is a problem so kis is a problem has every tufa makes sense look where every tufa does a problem so said that maybe like rashi maybe the way the tufa was done between the k and the bum wasn't that the k put his hand underneath the bum sand, but rather the bum would hold it on the sides and the ko would hold it on the bottom or vice versa. They weren't all holding it in the same exact place. But then famously says and it's not that way because discusses by the ordinarily a woman didn't do but there was one exception to the rule the is the woman who's the she had a mitzvah to do and says how do you do? Isn't it a the gonna be holding the hand of the woman as they do? Aren't you running into an issue? And says roots and we spoke about this but says if they're not holding hands if there's it's not being done in this way then what's the issue it's very much like I from the you see there is a problem. So Ty says maybe it's not a problem because maybe the was supposed to be done with the bum even though the Tyra learns teaches us it's learned from that the had to be involved in the as well. It could be the was with the B. So it doesn't bother me. But here when they're all if there's going to be from one to the other over here will be initial. I'll just tell you that I saw says he says what would be if the bum himself is a let's say the bum is a says it's to him that the bin would be able to do the and wear both hats. He would be the bim and the kay. You wouldn't need two people doing the tufa. So ordinarily when the bum is you need a you need a to contribute to the but if the bum himself is the mitzvah argues it's to him that you wouldn't need both of them to do either way. So the Mishna had said that has a over because you have there is an idea sometimes that there was a mitzvah even after the animal was already as opposed to you never find is that true wanted to be now we know that was and he was he had veto power. So any day the kodal decided I want to do this avoid he had a right to do the avoid. So it says the in the event that the chose to do the avoid. This is aishna. So he would walk up the ramp and was to his right. When he got to the midway point of the ramp wouldn't just stand to his right but he would actually hold him the and he would walk him up. This is co for the and the won the whose job it was to be involved with the first kay would come and he would hand the right and the head and the foot of the animal this is the punch line the kod would do on these body parts of the animal and then he would throw it was none right the heckish of just like the dan required the required as well. So he would take the and the ragle with the he would do and then he would throw it onto them as the next would come and he would pass the two hands of the animal would give it to the go he would do on it the second would go away. So there were many that were involved and the way it worked was one k would pass it over to the next who would give it over to the but it was all the same process with all the would constantly do before the manu right and if you wanted he didn't even have to do the it was too heavy I he didn't want to do it so he can be somebody else do but the bottom line is it's you see that the used to do on the body parts of the animal before He did the you see clearly that the even said it wasn't a real mitzvah. The we're talking about is the says over and over and over again. So these are real mitzvah and we are comparing and contrasting which also that the is referring to wasn't a mitzvah. It was just something that was done. What's so the last says the he just wanted to differentiate between the did versus the ordinary did but it wasn't a real mitzvah. The Mishna is still correct when the Mishna says that there was that had over that was exhale. So before we go Ver and we begin the next paric which is a completely new topic two as it relates to the mitzvah of the first is a second one is a lighter. So one of the that we saw was a Everyone has an obligation to do something. You bring a car and you have a gate exceptions to the rule. One of the bal mentioned in the Mishna that is exempt from the mitzvah of is an isha. There's a very important and between the whether a woman who's excluded from the mitzvah of does that mean she doesn't have a to do but if she wants to do she can do or does it mean even more than that that a woman cannot do the price says as follows if it's also this is something that's mentioned many places inud says That means if a woman wants to do she cannot do no it's not true that it's only that a woman doesn't have to do that we learn from but if a woman wants to do it's something that she has a right to do now at first glance this on the one side on the other side is a very specific a very local regarding the There is that women are exempt from understood it means they're not allowed to do understood it just means they're not obligated to do but in terms of it having ramifications in other areas in you would say stating that says unbelievable we know that women are potter from mitzvah what happens if a woman wants to be she wants to blow on rash she wants to on she wants to be in one of the mitz is it okay or is it not okay now of course it's okay not just that we like do that a woman even makes a if she does a mitzvah but we're discussing this on the level not on the level on the level is it okay for a woman to be it's totally according to that holds that a woman is not allowed to do that she's exempt from. It's user for her to do. It would be for a woman to be a mitzvah. According to that hold that a woman is just exempt from but if she wants to do she can [snorts] says the if a woman would want to blow if she'd want to be it would be okay. In other words, this on the one hand and on the other hand is not a local regional this is a global this is a that's literally according to that if a woman is parted from a mitzvah she's not allowed to do the mitzvah according to a woman is part from a mitzvah just means that she's exempt from doing the mitzvah but certainly if she wants to she can even make a mitzvah she according to regardless a very very important Sh. But what's hold it? Just because a woman is from she can't do just because a woman is from blowing doesn't mean she can't blow in says an unbelievable holds that a woman who's potter from blowing is so if she blows she's going to be so says Rash you want another beer. We know you're not let add a fifth par. You can't add another to the you can't be in a mitzvah. A woman who's going to do a mitzvah that she's part from says it again twice is that who holds that women who are from cannot do the mitz. It's based on the is about the inim asks the obvious question says what does that do about always means you're being in the mitzvah so you have a mitzvah to pronounce the mitzvah is four par you added a fifth par you have a mitzvah to take you added a fifth I have a to do a mitzvah and I was in the mitzvah that I'm to do that's the classic but who ever heard of av where I don't have an obligation to do this mitzvah. I did I'm not being mitzvah. This mitzvah exists. This mitzvah is it just so happens I personally am exempt from doing this mitzvah. So because I did a mitzvah that I'm part from that's means when I'm creating a mitzvah. I'm being in a mitzvah. But to do something that I'm from certainly in the world of lundus just based on the simple understanding of how works would seem to be a big kadesh. Either way that is stating that argues brings rashi says he doesn't think that's but rather said something else and a very big and that is that when said that women who are from cannot do didn't mean all he was referring specifically to a mitzvah that involves a little bit of an iss We are stating that despite the fact that there's a mitzvah to do the mitzvah a woman who's she can't do it. So for example says I'll find you four places in chass where you find talked about this concept of a woman whose potter it should be according to you find it by that's are exempt from hold a woman can't do says that makes sense because if you can't do then you're not allowed to lean on an animal that's you're not do it's you're not from you're getting involved in real so says over there who said being that there's a is if you don't have the mitzvah A woman who doesn't have a mitzvah cannot do it. Another place you find is by this that we just learned and gimlifer involves a you're not let to play an instrument on the involves that's the why that you should never be allowed to blow on you should never blow because that's the that we never make that's but the point is it's when it comes to so if you have a mitzvah you have a mitzvah but a woman who doesn't have the mitzvah she can't blowifer another place says where you find this is by the Gmorra talks about that was so you find a discussion in the Gar whether a woman is allowed to put on fillin or not here too because I mean that women back in the day were considered to not have etc. So as a result [clears throat] a woman if she doesn't have the mitzvah filling wouldn't be allowed to put and finally t says the fourth place he finds is by algel the discusses over there in says a woman to be she's from being a woman is from being it could be there's a but regardless argues with nothing inherently wrong with doing a mitzvah that you from doing this has nothing to do with presumably for the reason because bisv is when you're a mitzvah or you're being in a mitzvah over here I'm just doing something that he's to do that I'm personally not to do that's not why then would there be a problem what is the beer and she does because only relates to cases where there's a where there's if you're obligated to do it so you do it at the expense of the iser but when you're punted from doing it I have no right to do it because it comes with an invoice that I have no way of paying I'm not allowed to go ahead and be a mitzvah that I'm not obligated to be mim if it means being if it means bringing if it means wearing fillin without a go or if it means blowing playing with an instrument on which is something that ordinarily you'd not be allowed to do bottom line a very important according to rashi it relates to all mitzvah according to it only relates to specific mitzvah stating that there's a very important ran in the beginning of the peric the context over there is a well-known the says somebody sleeps under but he sleeps underneath a bed in the I'm skipping there was a story with who was the he was sleeping underneath the bed told You see a big and alli that over there discusses that the reason TV had to sleep underneath the bed was being wasani and is hookish in terms of what mitzvah he is and isn't obligated in that means was as well he wasn't allowed to sleep in the reason he was pushy he learned he was making room but says a different shot says it was for him to sleep in the and the reason it was because there was a mitzvah and he had no right to do a mitzvah she's going who holds that I'm not allowed to do a woman's not allowed to blow cuz she's it's she can't do it get even make of it like rau says no no no it's to do it's a going I'm afraid to What's the answer? Why should it be abrupt and says don't tell me because understood the way that the only time there's ever a problem for a woman to do a message is if there's a buter it's a clier but what's the if you're sleeping on a what are you doing you're doing something wrong say you be mitz be whatever but but what's the why should it be a problem we understand it's but the didn't understand like so if you understood so asks the obvious question says two the first says that maybe the issue over there wasn't the actual sleeping it was more the thought that was going to make a it was a issue okay says that it's true the real reason that a woman can't do a mro is because of But being that some mitzvah essay involve an issue unequivocal. They said a woman cannot be mitzvah. In other words, it's true the reason why a woman shouldn't be able to mitzvah is like says in that only relates to specific mitzvah essay. But once the said that a woman can't do certain essay, they made uh universal tak and is and said a woman can never be ma it doesn't matter if there is or if there's not and being that at the end of the day it's mitz says I have no choice but to be mik that that's in that sh in the beginning of the second par but I'm going to tell you a beautiful that I saw spoke this out when we learned but that was a very long time ago in the and that is a very big in ask he says that we know if a person sitting in a starts raining so what's so says if you remain in the so some people leave the used to say I'd rather be a and still sit in the but is just is that if you're sitting in a while it's raining you're not you're supposed to leave you'rehead says that we compare the to and just like the was a carbon it was it's so too is what do you mean it's also You let us in. You haven't got from the term. Of course, you'll be from it. But is and and he really blash and he says, "I want to say a tremendous that if somebody's sitting in a starts raining, not only are you if you stay in the suk, you have to run for your life. You have to get out because if you're going to stay in the suk, it's going to come out. You're being from the and being that it's because you're not being you're a so you're being from the sov says he asks from this not like because he says that the reason slept underneath the bed was because he understood he was anani he's like an isha he's parted from which means it's frank the only time a woman is not let he said what's the I don't know what the is and from this that even though the reason the underlying for is because of but at the end of the day related it to all mitzvah even when there's no Why is he is from that he's not allowed to sit in a because by him sitting in a he's being from says you see from here not like that it's just a beautiful either way that's the first the second is so the said that there's an of so the had to be done one right after the other. That's this of the says as follows. There are three things that have to be done. take there's a to be of and immediately after a person washes and it's talking about you're supposed to bench I have another one to add take says if somebody has in his house immediately after he has this in his comes and told that I got because of you is based on moved into so came to the base. So you see from these two that brings so said I want to add to Rav's list. Rav said I have a fourth take in says take that when a person washes immediately supposed to be immediately afterwards you're supposed to eat the great places we just mentioned says Now it's true one of them involves aud but it's which means right after you're supposed to bench there's a fourth one says true it is a fourth one at the same time didn't mention it because didn't want to mention something that's so he was mentioning three that are not explicit anywhere inn but there's really a fourth as it relates to That fourth one as it relates as it relates to that fourth one. The brings the somehold that you don't have to be careful about being between washing your hands and saying that you do have to be careful. And the right thing to do is to be says says you want to know what the she is. So you want to be you want to make sure that it's going to be take like in the of course based on this. So what's the what does it mean? You wash your hands and that second you should make the no it's the amount of time that it would take to walk 22 that's about which is approximately 44 ft that's what this year is that would be the amount of time that you're supposed to weigh in what's the to it so says it's a and it's actually very interesting over there says that the says we mentioned the gar earlier that even though the says the but at the same time there was one exception to the rule the when he brought his carbon ash and he had to do on the mitz they couldn't do it right away why because he had to be standing in and the had to be in kach kadashim is is they had to be in sen because it's kach kadashim so it took time until it wasn't says how much distance was there between niknar and sen tis does the math it comes out it was 22 22 if it's 22 says I'm not sure what this year take of is but I know what it isn't meaning if you walk 22 that's already not it's based on that regarding that said you want to know how long you can between and it's now didn't really have a that any distance within 22 am is taken all the Ram knows is that more than 22 says not take but okay there's a a to we have a number the number is and that's the source that's the to this but I just think you see one beautiful thing from this over here so adds to the list that after a person has in his house again it comes out immediately is going to be but now that we said that we know what the is the is that means this says that if a person has in his house he's that it's not 30 days credit this is not 30 60 90 but this There's there's an immediate that the person is to it's an immediate it's immediate just one is emphasis on now what's the two number one number two is based on is love and talking that when came to love he got The second was referring to now was was also they can ask him about why didn't you learn what you were you better looking right that's you had nobody of but you see from right but the bottom line is and the Gar is learning from there that you see from their take of but it's interesting that the Gar thought that the punchline of why Jacob brought to base is because he was the punchline of why brought to the base mit was because he was incidentally I saw he brings that the says It was it was as soon as the base brought into his house immediately. But how did the Gar know that it was the it was the it was the maybe it was the it was the the is maybe it was how do we know that it was the it was the that was the but I'll tell you one beautiful on that listen to This is unbelievable. The Torah equated to the fame. So the [laughter] was in the house of three months gave birth to children. They had unbelievable. Why? Cuz he had the in his house. says, "You want to know why when came to the house of he brought just like you find in that had because he had the iron in HIS HE HAD THE BRIS WITH the he had the iron in his house. What did the iron bring? It brought in the same exact vein brought as well. What was the of the it was the it was the it was the it was the that the that the had in it. So if that's the wasn't just it was it was the someone who learns that's the was what carried in it. It was the embodiment of the is but either way of just like the brought to the bias of it was in the same exact vein that they brought regardless. That's this said, I'm going to add another either way. On that note, [snorts] if we have time, maybe we'll speak out some more rich. So we return to the sugis of that were brought together with the and the of the so which were two breads were kneaded one at a time. They had to be baked one at a time. They were kneaded one at a time but they were baked two at a time and there was a like a form that the dough was put into so that the would get the special form that it was supposed to have. A lot more about that in the gar when the would remove the breads from the oven where baking he would put it into another another formul so it shouldn't go badly. How do you know that the wereas whereas were referring to the we learn from here so teaches me that the was done one at a time was the same way includes meaning the talking about includes even were baked two at a time would have thought were also baked two at a time only then only the were two at a time were one at a time how could you use to teach me two things you're telling me teaches me that the were two and it also teaches that one says the very simple because if all the wanted to tell me was that the were baked two at a time it wouldn't have said rather it would have said we learn from there number one that the were two at a time number one two that were one at a time so the were put in this that was in the oven says the Gar were three of these forms. When it was in the form of dough, it was put in there was another that was inside the oven. When the would he would remove it from the oven, he would put it into a third so that it shouldn't go bad. So there were three independent kin that the were in to give the mold, right? to give the the form that it was supposed to have. Thank you. Says the why couldn't the first mold and the third mold be the same mold, right? Why did you need two separate ones? Why couldn't when you're taking it meaning what was in the oven? Okay, so that one remained in the oven, but it was going to be in the form that was outside as the oven twice. Once in the form of dough, once after it was already. So why couldn't it be the same? What? Because once you bake it, it it expands in size. It's going to be too big. [laughter] It's going to be too big to be able to put it back into the original form. So one was a little bit smaller. It was the same shape, but one was a little bit smaller than the other one. What was the shape of the So if you're picturing that's that's the wrong picture. If you're picturing loaves of bread, that's also the wrong picture. What was it? It's says so Rashi gives us pictures if you have an art scroll or so. So there's an updated picture is a box that is doesn't have a cover and it's missing two of its walls. So it's pur but basically it's this dilapidated box. So essentially what you're left with is a flat body and two walls. Two walls as opposed to four walls. Additionally, you don't have the topan and's picture is a little bit trickier. It was literally it was like a speedboat. That's what it means. So number one, it wasn't flat on the bottom, but rather the bottom was pointy. Now it had to have a little bit of a base on the bottom. Rashi says the base was kineta. How big is an? Additionally, the two sides, the two ends, it wasn't flat, but like a a boat that comes to a point at the end. So, it's like a little pinch. If you have the picture on the two sides, the bread itself was rounded. So, again, a few differences. Number one, it wasn't flat on the bottom. It didn't have a flat bottom. The the flat part of it was a all it was was an X spot. Number two, it was round as opposed to square. So, the two sides, the width was going to be semicircles on each side. And the two edges on the length were were pitched. They came to a little bit of a point. And the Gar is going to ask back and forth now on the two respective. Was the like or was the like I understand where they put the there were two scoops of that were on the now. scoops were actually on the breads. So if you picture the ta which is incidentally the so the is that the was shaped like a ta the picture you usually have is on the top of the two the two upper breads each had one of the respectively that's what it looked like right so according to the that holds that it was flat it was a flat bread so I understand where you're able to put the table that's where it was round right it sloped down there was no flat area inside the bread to be able to put the so the Gar says you have to say that they would make a little place tucked away into one of the walls of the bread. It was like a little shelf so to speak and that's what they would put the meaning the the bread itself didn't have the receptacle that was wide enough to be able to hold the in it. What they would do is they would put it inside one of the interior walls of the breads. That's where they would put it. says that it was the tables. There were poles as we're going to see that separated the breads. So there were and they were piled up on top of the but they didn't put bread on top of bread on top of bread. There were three golden rods that separated each layer of breads. So the says according to says that it was a t of it makes sense how they were able to put the three rods right if you look at that picture right there. So you have the three rods, one on each end, one in the middle. You put the next bread on top of that. But being that it's a nice square wide bread, it could support the con. It could support the rods. Where did they put the rods? The one in the middle, you're able to put. But the two on the side, it comes to a little point that dance. You going to put it on the point? It's not It's not big enough to be able to support it. So the garra says they would add a little bit of dough that was thick enough and strong enough to be able to hold the pole. So you're right, the natural state of the bread based on's picture didn't have the ability to support the two that are at the two ends. But if they added a little piece, now you're able to do it. The was a table. And again, the is going to go into very great technical detail. We're going to see everything as it relates to the shulhan. But if you picture the shulhan, so you have a table that's the actual shulan. The breads are piled on top and then there were four beams that stood on the two sides that supported the breads. So the gar says according to says was of I understand how the beams on the sides those four long tall beams supported the breads because what they did was is they would tuck the breads firmly snugly in between the boards like this. It held it together. But according to Mand says it was a sphere. It wasn't square, they were rounded. So if they were rounded, how exactly are these square boards going to support these rounded? So the says you have no choice but to say they would round the boards also. That's how it was able to work. Now we flip it. that says that it was shaped like this ship that travels really fast. That's why you needed the in the first place. What do you need it for? If it's a nice square, just pile one. You can't pile six breads on top of each other. What's the big deal? If it was in in a shape that's it's hard to support. I understand it. But if it's strong, what's the big deal? So the says they were afraid that the breads were heavy and we're afraid that the breads are going to break and you're getting involved in real difficulties in much better to avoid that says it was a I understand where they put the if you hold it was a it was a that means on the bottom on the bottom the width was merely an expa so the bottom breads the ones that are literally on the how much of the did they actually take up just took up two spas six on one side, six on the other side, but it's right the piles and on the bottom one it's only an spa. So there's room on the actual underneath with a bread slope to be able to put these. So these beans were physically on top of the there's room for it. But says it was a because again as we'll see on the length and the width of the breads mirrored literally to the to the what the length and the width of the was. So there was no room to put the sniff on the so where did they put the sniff? So the gar says they put it on the ground. It was on the ground. It didn't have to be physically on the It was on the side of the but it wasn't physically on the So I mean asks it as a says yep if you was it was so you were able to put the on the actual you have no choice but to say that it wasabi one said that the way the worked together with the breads was that the bread supported the sniffen and the sniffen supported the breads says it's going to hold because being that it was rounded so it wasn't just that the sniffen were holding the breads the breads were holding the sniff as well but if you hold it was a tauto so the sniffen weren't really being supported the It was just a regular board. You put it on the side of the So we needed the boards to support the breads, but you didn't need the breads to support the boards. So whether or said depending on what it was technically it would play itself out who was supporting who and and in terms of uh in terms of whether the boards were rounded and whether the boards were on the sh or they were on the side of the but either way the gar says I'll ask you there was something shaped like a like uh basket that was inside the tanner theas and it was like a tablet that was squared and that's where they put the sounds like it was squared sounds like it was a not aes maybe what it means is the top part meaning everybody agrees the top part was squared the question is what the bottom looked like was the bottom like the bottom of a Or was the bottom sloped like the bottom of a ship that says it was like there were these four and they had these little things that were pointing out that looked like branches. The purpose of those things, again, more about this on the side of the glove, but the reason these things were protruding was cuz the con, these three poles that separated each layer of breads had to fit into the kan somehow. So either way, it was based on that that you needed these things inside the what was the purpose of it? They supported the breads. And here's the punch line. the bread which were so but stating that if you take a look in par and the ra when he talks about the mikdash they both like the we're going to stop here a lot more about this on and maybe we'll get back tomorrow to some more raid regarding