Menachos 103

Today's daf is Menachos daf kuf gimmel and we will begin from the Mishnah on daf kuf bet. If somebody makes a neder that he's going to bring a korban mincha, but rather than simply saying "Hare alai mincha", he specified in the bituy of his neder what type of mincha he's going to bring. He said "Hare alai minchas machavas" and he fulfilled his neder. He brought a mincha, but rather than bringing a minchas machavas, he brought a minchas maraches, which is not the same type of mincha. If maraches if he said "Hare alai minchas maraches" and he brought instead of minchas machavas, the halacha is "Masha hevi hevi". The mincha that he brought is a kosher mincha, meaning the Kohanim can do the avodah with this korban mincha, but at the same time he didn't fulfill his neder because at the end of the day his neder was "Hare alai machavas" or "Hare alai maraches" and even though he brought a kosher mincha, but being that he stipulated that he was going to bring a specific type of mincha, the only way he can fulfill his neder is if he brings that specific type of mincha. This Mishnah is another example of where we bring a korban despite the fact that the purpose of the korban is not being accomplished. Exhibit A for that is the first Mishnah in Seder Kodashim. If somebody brings a korban the Kohanim did the avodah shelo lishma with the exception of a few different types of korbanos, the halacha is kosher, but so essentially that's what the Mishnah is saying. The korban itself is kosher, masha hevi hevi, but it's lay olu l'vailim l'shem chova, meaning "V'decha vaser lo yotza". So what would have been machavas? What would be if somebody went to his pantry? He has flour in his pantry and he says "This right here, I'm going to bring this as a a korban mincha and specifically a minchas machavas v'hevi b'maraches" and then instead of putting it in the keli that's mekadesh the machavas, he put it into the keli that's mekadesh the maraches. If maraches v'hevi b'machavas, it is there it's going to be pasul. The difference is that over here he specified the ingredients of the mincha and said "Zu, I want this to bring for the machavas, this to bring for the maraches". Here the halacha is not masha hevi hevi and only "V'decha vaser lo yotza". Over here the entire mincha is going to be pasul. Another example of this halacha. So what would be So we know that the minimum shiur shailos you have to have in a korban mincha is an issaron. So what would be if somebody takes upon himself to bring two issaronos? Now a mincha with two issaronos can mean one or two things. It could either be two minchos, each mincha consisting of an issaron, or it could be a larger mincha because although the minimum shiur of a mincha is an issaron, but you can be mosef on the shiur as well up to 60 issaronos as we'll see in the latter part of the daf. So in this case the person said "Hare alai shnei issaronos" and he said that he wants it to be b'chli echad. In other words, it should be one large mincha made up of two issaronos. And he brought two issaronos like he said, but instead of it being b'chli echad, he brought it b'shnei cheilim. So it wasn't one big mincha that he brought, he rather brought two smaller minchos. B'shnei cheilim or the reverse. He said that he's going to bring two issaronos in two cheilim v'hevi b'chli echad instead he brought it in one keli. "Masha hevi hevi v'decha vaser lo yotza". If he went to the issaronos and said "Eilu" like in the first case of the Mishnah, he said "Zu". Over here he said "Eilu". It's lashon rabim because it's two things, it's two issaronos. And he said with regards to the "Eilu" that he's going to bring them b'chli echad instead he brought b'shnei cheilim. B'shnei cheilim v'hevi b'chli echad, the halacha is going to be that it is pasul. So again, the distinction between speaking more generally "Hare alai" versus "Hare zu" or "Hare eil eil". "Hare alai shnei issaronos If a person said he's going to bring two issaronos v'hevi b'shnei cheilim and he brought it b'shnei cheilim. So he's doing it the wrong way. On the way they told him "B'chli echad no darta". So what would be if they were onlookers and these people said, you know, you realize you said that you're going to bring it b'chli echad, you're bringing it b'shnei cheilim, it's wrong. So is it kosher or pasul? Depends on his reaction. If he continues to do it b'shnei cheilim, so the halacha is pasul. The reason it's pasul is because he said "Hare alai shnei issaronos l'hevi b'chli echad". We're assuming he said "Eilu" and now he's bringing it b'shnei cheilim, the halacha is it's going to be pasul. B'chli echad, if he returns it to chli echad, there the halacha is going to be that it's kosher. And there's a little bit of a chiddush over here because even though he was already hevi b'shnei cheilim, which means he put it into two klisharos and we know the halacha is that klisharos is mekadesh and even when it can't be mekadesh l'korban, it could usually be mekadesh l'pasul. So say that once you put it into the shnei cheilim, it's not possible to take it out of the shnei cheilim and put it into the keli echad, which is what the person said he was going to do. Over here it's okay. The reason is because we assume that he made a mistake. Being that he responded to what the person or what the people told him by undoing what he did, it would seem to suggest that when he put the mincha into the klisharos, he did it in error, he made a mistake and even though klisharos is mekadesh, but it's only mekadesh midas, it's not mekadesh shelo midas, it's not mekadesh if it was done with a to'us and it's for that reason you can undo what you did, it's going to be kosher. A similar case if somebody took upon himself to bring two issaronos and he said "Eilu" and he said it should be b'shnei cheilim and he brought it b'chli echad. On the way they told him "B'shnei cheilim no darta". They said "You realize you're making a mistake". So if he goes now and he's makriv it b'shnei cheilim, she'eiram, it's going to be kosher. And again, even though he already brought it in a chli echad, he could take it out of the chli echad, put it into the shnei cheilim. "I didn't already get kedushas part of this chli echad, it was mekadesh so to speak as a larger mincha, how could you now go back and break it into two minchos?" Because it's clear that he made a mistake from his reaction. So even though he put it into a klisharos, there was an element of to'us, an element of shelo midas and the klisharos is not mekadesh in that case. If however, he kept it in the chli echad, the halacha is "Masha hevi hevi". It's going to be pasul. We look at it as two independent minchos because he said "Hare alai shnei issaronos l'hevi b'shnei cheilim". So even though it's in chli echad now, right now it looks like one larger mincha, but being that his neder was two smaller minchos, we look at it as if you have two minchos in one keli that were nisraf and you have to refer to the halachos in Shulchan Aruch earlier in the mesechta that discuss exactly how you treat that. Either way, so the Mishnah had discussed two halachos. One halacha is where someone took upon himself to bring a minchas machavas and he brought a maraches, maraches he brought a machavas. In the other case somebody took upon himself to bring a larger mincha consisting of two issaronos and instead he brought two smaller minchos consisting of one issaron respectively or in the vice versa. In both cases from a big picture perspective, he fulfilled his neder, but in terms of the specifications, he didn't fulfill his neder. He said "Hare alai mincha", he brought a mincha. Promise he said machavas, he brought a maraches. He said maraches, he brought a machavas. In the second case he said he was going to bring a mincha consisting of two issaronos. He brought a mincha consisting of two issaronos. The question is is it one mincha of two issaronos or is it two minchos of two issaronos? So what was the halacha? If he just said "Hare alai", then the halacha is "Masha hevi hevi v'decha vaser lo yotza". If he said "Hare zu" or "Hare eil eil", then the halacha is going to be pasul. So referring to the reisha of both cases where he just said "Hare alai", the halacha is in either case machavas maraches, two cheilim one keli, masha hevi hevi. The Mishnah had to tell me this halacha. The reisha in both of its tziyurim. If we only had the first case, I would think If we only had the first case, I would think If we only had the first case, I would think In the case of machavas and In the case of the komaitz of machavas and maraches, I would have thought it's only there that he didn't fulfill his neder because he didn't bring the right type of mincha. But in the second case where he brought the right type of mincha, he just made a mistake in terms of one keli two cheilim, in terms of the shiur of the mincha, but he brought the right type of mincha. Maybe there he even yotzei a neder. The case of the one keli versus the two cheilim, I would think because the shiur is off. Where the shiur is fine, it's just a question did you prepare it in the machavas way? Did you prepare it in the maraches way? Therefore the Mishnah just to make it very very clear said that in both cases the halacha is "Masha hevi hevi". V'decha vaser lo yotza. "Masha hevi hevi v'decha nizra lo yotza". Shimon says "Af yedai nizra nami yotza". No, you can fulfill even your neder. And if this shitas Rab Shimon sounds familiar, it's because we had it at the very beginning of the mesechta. The Seder Kodashim says So when the Gemara was discussing Rab Shimon's shita regarding the mincha shelo lishma, that's the first sugia in mesechtas Menachos. So toich d'varav of that sugia, the Gemara would there mention this shitas Rab Shimon. Either way, the Mishnah continued and said "Zu l'hevi b'machavas". That if he said "Zu", then already the halacha is that "Hare zu pasul", it's going to be pasul. So if someone said "Hare zu", he wants these ingredients to be a minchas machavas, he put it into a keli of maraches, so now it's not masha hevi hevi anymore. Over here the halacha is "Hare zu pasul". Like kitchen klisharos, pasul suggests that there's nothing you could do with these ingredients. There's nothing you could do with this mincha. There's a braisa that says that if you say "Hare zu b'machavas" and then you put it into a keli of maraches, the maraches is not even mekadesh it. Not mekadesh it means it's not pasul, you can undo it. Pasul suggests nothing you could do. It's treated now as kosher pasul. What do you do with kosher pasul? It goes to beis hasreifa. Nikmas b'laila, nimlak b'laila, nishchat b'laila. Right? That's what you do with kosher pasul. Why is it pasul? If the klisharos wasn't mekadesh it ship we put it into the wrong type of Kaylee then it should be kosher. I'm not buying it. Like kitchen meat curry but will kitchen meat pasta when the price says like kitchen clean sword is it just means with regards to you being able to be macro fit how but not solo in the sense that you can't undo it either way by Ella the shots neither this is true meaning where if somebody says I really like a real life or a real life That's only true if he stipulated the word one Kaylee or two Kaylee at the time that he made the nether or would be if a person said a real life min now he's coming to be my first min a week later and now at the time of that fresh he says I want it to be a master I want it to be a master then this whole the mission doesn't apply and the reason is for like a fresh dough obligation to fulfill exactly what you said is the possible in the Torah that says you have to fulfill your nether and the lotion is for the kitchen and the daughter and we learn from there that anything you said at the time that you made your nether is kitchen and the daughter today you have to fulfill but this wasn't kitchen and the daughter this was kitchen and the fresh dough kitchen and the daughter like a fresh it will never be nether kitchen and the daughter like a fresh dough kitchen and the daughter if somebody says I want to bring a carbon min car he says I want the min car to be min a so the law is you have a min he has to bring a carbon min car but the min car has to be min so we know that most min were brought min not min there were two exceptions to the rule one was the min which was a carbon fiber that was brought min the other one was the min car which was the min car that the suffix used to bring that was a min it was also brought min but with the exception of the min all other min were brought min were brought min car certainly if somebody takes upon himself a min he says I really like min car has to be brought min so this person that said I really like min min is he's in a terrible he's making a terrible terrible mistake there's no such thing as bringing a min min so the question is if he said I really like min how do you look at this do you say what he said is just a ridiculous statement there's no such thing as bringing a min min car and as a result he's not going to be obligated to do anything what do you say no he clearly wants to bring a carbon min so even though he said I really like min bring a min car bring it the way it's supposed to be brought says the mission the law is you have a min he brings a carbon min car because he said I really like min the the fact that he said min is neither here nor there he's obligated to bring a min obviously the is going to explain why this is the law can what if he says I want to bring a carbon min to be meaning ordinary flower you'll be silent no it has to be fine flower somebody says I want to bring a carbon min but it should be no no no >> [snorts] >> being that a min min has no no no no no so he can't bring the min without it so what does he do you'll be he brings a proper min a min has to have a minimum of a you'll be he brings the proper shape he's a master no such thing so you can bring two like we saw in the previous mission but one and a half doesn't exist you'll be you're going to bring two fighter says you're putting on all these cases should be there today I'm going to and the is going to explain exactly what she does but either way the theme of the mission is that if somebody is makes a nether to bring a carbon min and he gets specific as far as how exactly he wants to bring the carbon min so in the previous mission he was specific but what he said was okay he said I want to bring a min min okay min is there's four types of min one of them is he said I want to bring a min which should be made up of okay very nice even though he doesn't have to bring it with two the it's a beautiful thing so the stipulation that he made despite the fact that it was not necessary but at the same time it's it's okay it's in our mission he stipulated a specific type of min but he made a terrible mistake he said I want the min to be min when it has to be it should be as opposed to no the law in all the cases of the mission is that you're obligated to bring a kosher min nether we had this recently the out of this is really a why don't we say that when the person said I really like min and then the words min is his way of being twice today from the of a real life min meaning he said a real life min and then he said something silly he said min so the argues wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that this person said I really like min and then he realized oops I really don't want to bring a carbon min how do I get out of it so this you could be twice from twice today so his way of being >> [snorts] >> twice today was by saying oh min oh now it doesn't mean anything so he's obligated to bring a carbon min the only way he's obligated to bring a carbon min we assume his is to be a carbon min why don't we say the words min are his ways of showing that even though he had intended for a moment to bring a carbon min but within the statute of limitations that he has to be it's a very short period of time so within that period of time he quickly said min so maybe he shouldn't be at all the is going to give two fruits into this show and respectively the time of the mission is huge the time of the mission is in a mission to make a stand mission but says that's the only way I understand this mission the mission is going according to the time of the who says that whenever you have this type of situation the way we look at it at the second thing he said is not a of the first he said but rather we just look at the first thing he said and that's what make dictates the law who's this I really somebody says I want to be another but then he says min min I'm going to eat figs I'm not going to eat dates and others are ready eat grapes and the is not allowed to eat grapes not allowed to drink wine the says another says that even though if you look at the statement that he made in its entirety it's a silly statement I really min min at the same time the way we assess it is it's if he said I really min the first thing that he said min min min min why is any other because although he said I really min when he said min min that's min we look at it as in being twice from his I really min twice today which is something that he's allowed to do and it's for that reason he's not another so our mission which is a perfect parallel to this mission this mission is this mission is going according to the time of the mission says I really min min min we don't look at min min min min as twice of I really min but rather we say min we focus on I really min and we disregard what he said afterwards when he said min min same will be true in our mission I really like min we focus on I really like min min min and we don't say that when he said min it's twice today but according to who holds that I really min min min min because we're not min we have to look at everything he said and we say that min min is his way of being twice today from I really min so to in our mission when he said min we assume it's this person's way of being twice from what he meant when he said I really like min that's says no to say that the mission is going according to is a very big but after going according to but you have to add some language to the mission the mission is talking about what a person said after he said I really like min min min he said the reason he said I really like min because he actually thought you could bring a carbon min he was a in a in because he really didn't know the he thought you could bring min now the reality is he can't bring min but he clearly said that had I known meaning he's saying that I had to bring the carbon min not only min I didn't mean to be I wanted to bring a min I said min not because that's my email that's my way of getting out of this email because that's what I thought you could do oh you can't do that but my was never to be my was to say I really like min in that case is going to be made when they says I really min min in a that's because he said that he meant to be so says you don't say I really we assume that he was that's what he said we believe him we take him for his word and and that's what the law is but here he clearly said not that way he said you see not your and therefore the law even according to you'll be min min said that the is going to say that at first glance there would seem to be a an obvious min between base and in the mission and in the mission what would be if the person said I really like min min min I want to bring a carbon min but I want it to be from lentils so in that case where he said min min according to that's the mission of a real life min a real life min the reason he has to bring a carbon min is because you have the same what's the difference if he said min min and we disregard it or if he said min min we disregard it but according to that the reason we or according to who explained the mission according to and the reason I really like min you'll be min is because we believe the person when he said that he made a mistake oh I thought I could bring a carbon mincha asiren. Okay, it's reasonable to say that the person made a mistake and he thought you could bring a mincha min asiren. Chitin asiren, there are even minchas that are min asiren. Min asiren, min asiren min adashin. Everybody knows you can't bring a mincha min adashin. So the chura it doesn't seem so believable when the person says "Ilu amisi dayas I noider in kach is in noider kach al kach." So the chura we shouldn't believe the person. And being that Beis Hillel doesn't hold of Tosefos Rishonim, the halacha is he shouldn't be obligated to bring a carbon mincha. So the chura anafka mina between Chizkiyahu's pshat in the Mishnah and Rebbi Yochanan's pshat in the Mishnah is when the Mishnah says "Hareini mincha min asiren." Is min asiren dafka? What would be if it was min adashin? You would think that according to Chizkiyahu's pshat the halacha of the Mishnah would still be true. According to Rebbi Yochanan's pshat the halacha of the Mishnah would not be true. Stating that, the Gemara is going to bring that Chizkiyahu and Rebbi Yochanan both commented on what the halacha would be if he said "Hareini mincha min adashin." And they both said "Hepek." What you would think they would have said. Something about "Amar Chizkiyahu lo shanu ela mincha min asiren." The halacha of the Mishnah is only true if he said "Mincha min asiren." "Aval mincha min adashin lo." But if he said "Min adashin" "Feig Gemara meich." Chizkiyahu "Amar Rebbi Shimon ben Chizkiyahu." explained the Mishnah who holds Tosefos Rishonim. Rebbi Shimon "Mishum Tosefos Rishonim." "Min asiren aval min adashin lo." It's just the opposite from the first svara that we just spoke at. According to Rebbi Shimon it would make no difference if he said min asiren or min adashin. So the Gemara says "Hadar bei." You have to say Chizkiyahu was choizer. Wow, so after this whole shita of Chizkiyahu who explained the Mishnah "Toichech vei." According to Rebbi Shimon you have to say he was choizer. Because if he maintained his position that the Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon Tosefos Rishonim, there would be no difference between asiren and adashin. Says the Gemara "Mai taama hadar bei? Why was Chizkiyahu choizer?" Amar Rabba "Mishum she say." Because the Mishnah bothered him. This deed "Mai you the taani mincha min asiren." Why did the Mishnah say "Hareini mincha min asiren." "Lisi min adashin." The Mishnah should have said a bigger chiddush. If the Mishnah is going according to Rebbi Shimon Tosefos Rishonim, that say even if the person said "Hareini mincha min adashin." which is something that really makes no sense, still that halacha is going to be true. "Ela mishma lo Chizkiyahu thought "I'll speak pshat in the Mishnah not Rebbi Shimon. Pshat is not Tosefos Rishonim." "Ela rather pshat in the Mishnah is mishum detayu." It's because he's making a mistake. "Basiren toye badashin lo toye." Pshat must be like Rebbi Yochanan explains. It's going according to Beis Hillel where the person said "Ilu amisi dayas." Meaning I only made a mistake. And then the Mishnah gave a case where it's believable to assume that the person made a mistake. Rebbi Yochanan says "Afilu min adashin." Could be the Mishnah is going even min adashin. Meaning even though the Mishnah said "Hareini mincha min asiren." "Asiren is not dafka." It would be true even adashin. Feig Gemara the the opposite question. Meich Rebbi Yochanan "Amar Rebbi Shimon ben Chizkiyahu." Rebbi Yochanan "Shimon pshat in the Mishnah like Beis Hillel." And the reason that halacha is that he's chayev to bring a mincha min achitin because we assume that he made a mistake. Made a mistake by adashin? Like Bishlam basiren. "Mishum detayu." "Basiren toye badashin lo toye." What kind of mistake? How could the person have thought you could bring a carbon mincha min adashin? So the Gemara says you're right. Really Rebbi Yochanan who explained the Mishnah according to Beis Hillel, he holds that asiren is dafka. So what then did Rebbi Yochanan mean when Rebbi Yochanan said "Afilu min adashin."? He wasn't saying what he himself holds pshat in the Mishnah is. He was going with divrei of Chizkiyahu. Chizkiyahu had originally explained the Mishnah according to Rebbi Shimon because of Tosefos Rishonim. And then Chizkiyahu was choizer. Because Chizkiyahu was bothered with a kasha. If pshat in the Mishnah is Tosefos Rishonim, then why did the Mishnah say asiren? The Mishnah should have said adashin. He said "Must be pshat is like Beis Hillel." So it's that chazara of Chizkiyahu that Rebbi Yochanan is addressing. He told him "At mai taama hadar bei? Why were you choizer mishum detayu min adashin? Because you were bothered why the Mishnah say asiren. The Mishnah should have said adashin." Says the Gemara "Dima leimei bei achama. Lo mebei min adashin." Could be the reason the Mishnah mentioned asiren because asiren is actually a bigger chiddush. "Not only adashin dikleimeimei min achadar hadar bei." By adashin it's pretty obvious that the person means to be choizer. Why else is he saying what he's saying? "Feitosefos Rishonim ela afilu min asiren nami." Even min asiren dikleimeimei mitu dekataye. Wait, very likely to assume the person made a mistake. "Afilu hachi even then Tosefos Rishonim." So you know in an also a svara to say in other words Rebbi Yochanan was arguing that there's a bigger chiddush of Tosefos Rishonim where it's not mashma that the person is being choizer. Meaning maybe Rebbi Shimon's svara of Tosefos Rishonim is only true when we assume he's for sure contradicting himself. So then first he said "I want to bring a mincha." Then he's saying "I don't want to bring a mincha." because he said min adashin. So there Rebbi Shimon was Tosefos Rishonim. But where it's not so mashma that the two statements are contradicting each other, maybe he's merely making a mistake. Maybe then fake it. Maybe then you don't say Tosefos Rishonim. Rebbi Yochanan said "If you were okay Chizkiyahu explaining the Mishnah according to Rebbi Shimon, I don't see why you should have walked away from your pshat because of the fact that the Mishnah said min asiren. Because you're assuming that min adashin would be the bigger chiddush. I could argue min asiren is the bigger chiddush. On the one hand adashin is the is the bigger chiddush granted because it only makes sense according to Rebbi Shimon not according to Beis Hillel. So from that standpoint the Mishnah, if the Mishnah means Rebbi Shimon, it should have said min adashin to make clear that what's going on is Tosefos Rishonim. But I could argue in the reverse said Rebbi Yochanan that maybe min asiren being that there's a svara to say that the two statements weren't contradicting each other. It's just that the person was making a mistake. Maybe you don't have the halacha of Tosefos Rishonim there. Maybe Tosefos Rishonim is only when you make two contradictory statements. But when the statements are not contradicting maybe you don't say Tosefos Rishonim. So maybe it doesn't even pass Rebbi Shimon by Beis Hillel. So the Mishnah is really Rebbi Shimon. The Mishnah could have said adashin. The Mishnah chose to say asiren because the Mishnah actually thought that was the bigger chiddush. Either way, Amar Zeira another halacha regarding our Mishnah. "Lo shanu." And the way Rashi seems to explain the Zeiri is that the Zeiri held like Chizkiyahu, Chizkiyahu's original pshat, that the Mishnah is going according to Rebbi Shimon. And the Zeiri said as follows "Lo shanu ela mincha min asiren." The only time it's true "Hareini mincha min asiren." "Yavi mincha chittin." Is if the person said mincha. Now the truth is if you look at Rashi, the top Rashi, Rashi has two pshatim. One will be Tosefos Achronim. So we'll go with Rashi's second pshat. That the only time the halacha of the Mishnah is true is if he said "Hareini mincha." But let's say he would say "Hareini mincha min asiren." He would never utter the word mincha, then the halacha of the Mishnah would not be true. "Hareini mincha min asiren." "Yavi mincha chittin." But "Hareini min asiren." without saying the word mincha, then the halacha is not true. Yosef Nachmani "Amar Rebbi Shimon ben Nachmani." So Rebbi Shimon "What did you hear from the Zeiri?" He said "Rebbi Rebbi Nachmani." So Rebbi asked him "Kasha to Rebbi Nachmani." "How could the Zeiri have said that? Haven't read the Mishnah." The Mishnah has another case. "Kemach yavi se'orim." The "Lo amar lo amar mincha." Doesn't sound like he just said "Hareini kemach." Where is the word mincha? Where it says "No, lo amar mincha." It's talking about where he said "Hareini mincha with kemach." Who said he didn't say the word mincha? The next case. Rebbi asked him "He said "Beloy shemen veloy vino." "Yavi shemen uvino." "Mai lo amar lo amar mincha." The Gemara says "Lo amar mincha." Maybe he did say mincha. "Chatzi isaron yavi isaron shalem." The Mishnah says if he said "I want the mincha to be chatzi isaron." Doesn't it sound like he just said "Hareini chatzi isaron." without saying the word "Hareini mincha chatzi isaron."? No, like Zeiri. Zeiri said the halacha of the Mishnah is only true when he said the word mincha. So the Gemara says "Mai lo amar lo amar mincha." "Lo amar mincha." "He hachi." But the Gemara says and this is really what Rabba was getting to. "Eima seifa." "Isaron umachtza yavi shnayim." If he said "Hareini isaron umachtza." you bring two. "Kivan amar mincha." Zeiri Rebbi asked the gantz kasha. Once he says the word mincha, "Hareini mincha isaron umachtza." Once he says the word mincha, "Kivan amar chatzi isaron chayev lebei isaron." "Kivan amar chatzi isaron lo klum." Why don't we say that when he said chatzi isaron afterwards it's already nothing? Because "Hareini mincha isaron." That's already a whole obligation. So maybe let's look at the second chatzi as if it's nothing. So the Gemara says "Lo tzircha lo amar "Hareini mincha chatzi isaron vei isaron." He didn't say "Hareini mincha isaron." and then add the chatzi isaron. First he mentioned the chatzi isaron and then he mentioned the isaron. "Kivan amar mincha chayev lebei isaron." "Ki amar chatzi isaron veloy klum." "Kamar." Says the Gemara "Ki amar amar isaron mai chatzi isaron acharei?" So when he says isaron afterwards now he has to bring already a second isaron. "He hachi." If that's the case, Rebbi Shimon "Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah says you're patur." Right? So the last line of the Mishnah was "Rebbi Shimon patur shelo hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin." Feig Gemara "Mai?" Why according to Rebbi Shimon are you patur? What's the "Shelo hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin."? The Gemara's assumption was that if he never said the word mincha then he wasn't hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin. All he said was "Hareini min asiren." "Hareini beloy shemen veloy vino." "Hareini chatzi isaron." He wasn't hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin. But if he said "Hareini mincha." why is he "Lo hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin."? The Tosefos Rishonim is kederech hamisnadvin. "Hareini mincha." He could have stopped right there. So he said "Hareini mincha min asiren." "Hareini mincha beloy shemen veloy vino." "Hareini mincha kemach." "Hareini mincha chatzi isaron." The first part of what he said is kederech hamisnadvin. So what's from Rebbi Shimon? So the Gemara thinks again that the "Lo hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin." is because there is no you can't isolate any part of what he said and say "Oh, he said the right words." But if he said the word mincha, you can. You could be Tosefos Rishonim. So the Gemara says it's true you could be Tosefos Rishonim. Amar Rabba "Rebbi Shimon says "Lo hisnadiv ela af bigmar divar adam matfis." You can't be Tosefos Rishonim halacha. Meaning Rebbi Shimon's "Lo hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin." does not mean that there's no three words in his statement that you could isolate that's a real kabala of mincha. That's kederech hamisnadvin. There is. The problem is he didn't just say three words. You can't just cut and paste what he said. You have to look at everything he said. Which is shitas Rebbi Yochanan in Shas of af bigmar divar adam matfis. And if you're going to take the statement in its entirety, he was "Lo hisnadiv kederech hamisnadvin." because he said "Hareini mincha min asiren." "Hareini mincha beloy shemen veloy vino." etc. etc. Either way, this concludes the first part of the daf, or the second part of the daf, which really appears many places in Shas, and that's this shaila of where somebody makes contradictory statements. Are you toughest lashon rishon? Are you toughest lashon acharon? Rebbe Yossi says af bigmar d'varov Odom matzliach. I mean, we had two applications of it. One, the sugios in Menachos, that's why we're learning it right now, where somebody said I really like Mincha, but Mincha Siyurin, or I really like Mincha but I shall never allow it. The toughest lashon rishon is uh I really like Mincha. Once you get involved in the lashon acharon, then you have not clear what the person was thinking, or what the person was saying. Another example that the Mishna gave, or that the Gemara gave, was a Mishna in Maseches Nazir. Hareini nazir, but then he said Min I Gregory from another village. This comes up in other areas as well. Al ad in choshen mishpat, where people write shtaros, and there's theories between the first part of the shtar and the second part of the shtar. Either way, fight this up to Mishna. Misnadeiv odom Mincha shel shishin isarin. A person can bring a neder or a nedava carbon Mincha up to 60 isarin, who may be k'li achas. And he can make it one large Mincha. So, the minimum share of a Mincha is one isaron. What's the maximum share? That's this Mishna. Zogt der Mishna, up to 60 isarin. Mamma really like same achas. What if he says 61? Uh maybe shishin b'k'li achas, so 60 in one k'li, v'echod b'k'li achas. And then one in the other k'li can't be one Mincha. Each Mincha has a maximum share of 60 isarin. What's the reason for it? So, the Mishna gives two reasons. Number one, she cannot tzibur may be beyond the reason of the chag b'Shabbos shishin [snorts] v'echod. Because the most isarin of a Mincha that the tzibur will ever bring is 61 isarin. So, if you plot out the whole year, every possibility of of Yom Tov falling out on Shabbos, on Erev Shabbos, on a Tuesday, you work it all out. The most isarin of zayis that the tzibur is ever going to bring is 61 isarin, and that was brought on the first day Sukkos when it fell out on Shabbos. But being that the maximum is 61, day of the yochid should be less than the yochid should be less than the tzibur. How much less? One less is enough. So, if the maximum of the tzibur is 61, then the maximum of the yochid is going to be 60. Now, how do you get 61 with the tzibur? Why on the first day Sukkos? Because we know at Sukkos, the carbon mussaf was made up of many, many, many korbanos. So, every single day, there were parim that were brought, there were kvasim that were brought, there were elim that were brought. How many parim? So, throughout Yom Tov, 70. The shivin parim connected to the shivin umos. Shmini Atzeres, that's the suda ketana with us and Hakadosh Baruchu. But the first 70 days, all the parim that were brought were brought connected to umos. And the way they were brought were poiches v'holech. The first day Sukkos was 13, second day was 12, third day was 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. B'Shamai holds that on Chanukah, when you light the menorah, you're not moisef v'holech like Beis Hillel. You're poiches v'holech. You light eight the first day, seven the second day, six the eighth day. Why? So, the Gemara says in perek lamed, it's connected to parah achas. The parah achas were poiches v'holech. So, it was 13, 12, 11, 10. Now, if you count 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, you're going to get 70. That's the 70 parim that were brought. Additionally, there were 14 kvasim that were brought every day on Sukkos, and there were two elim that were brought every day Sukkos. Now, the parim were brought with three isarin. We had this in the Mishna earlier. Three isarin of zayis. So, on the first day Sukkos, there were 13 parim that were brought. Each par was brought with three isarin. 13 * 3 is 39. There were 14 kvasim that were brought every single day Sukkos. Each keves had one isaron. That's another 14. That's 53. You had two elim. Each ayil, the Mishna said, was brought with two isarin. That's another four. That's 57. Every day, they brought the carbon tamid. Each keves of the carbon tamid by boiker and by bein arbaim was brought with, again, one isaron. That's 59. And if you first day of Sukkos falls out on Shabbos, so now they brought the carbon mussaf, which also was two kvasim. Each keves had an isaron. You have 61 isarin. So, the maximum, basically, the maximum amount of isarin were 61. Thus, it makes sense day of the yochid to be less than the tzibur. That's why it's going to be one less. Omer Rebbe Shimon. So, we have another Mishna with Rebbe Shimon. Following elim and parim, following kvasim, how can you compare? Here we're talking about bringing one Mincha. Those were a whole bunch of different Minchos. These were for parim, these were for kvasim. They didn't mix together. Elo, the reason must be something completely different. Ad shishin yochlin l'vola. Up to 60, it's possible to mix. But more than that, omer Rebbe Shimon, shishin l'vola and shishin v'echod ain l'vola. Does that make sense? Omer Rebbe Shimon, yeah, it's a share. K'mo mi d'sachamim kein. Bar bom zayis hu toivel. If a person goes into a mikvah that has a bar bom zayis, it's a good mikvah. U'bar bom zayis k'chasar korta, but if it's missing even a korta, ain yochlin l'toivel. So, it's just like by a mikvah, there's a share. Yeah, and if you miss the share even by a kortiv, you're out. So, too over here, 60 isarin, you could be toivel. More than 60 isarin, you can't be toivel. Zogt der Gemara, a more elaborate version of this discussion. Shloshim v'arbaim Rebbe Yehuda Rebbe Eloi. The shaila was asked by Rebbe Yehuda Rebbe Eloi. I mean, I really like Mincha shishin v'echod. Maybe shishin b'k'li achas, v'echod b'k'li achas. How do you know that if somebody takes upon himself to bring a carbon Mincha made up of 61 isarin? So, you can't bring one Mincha of 61 isarin. Rather, you divide it into two. There is a Mincha of 60 and there's a Mincha of one. So, pasach Rebbe Yehuda Rebbe Eloi. Reisha m'daber m'chol makom. From Yehuda Rebbe Eloi, we know was the reisha m'daber m'chol makom. So, he was the first one to speak. Omer Rebbe Yehuda, "Chakamim tzin'u. Tzibur mevi on Yom Tov Erev Shabbos b'Shabbos shishin v'echod." He said what our Mishna said. The maximum that a tzibur is ever going to bring on the first day Sukkos when it falls out on Shabbos is 61 isarin. Day of the yochid should be less than the tzibur. So, the maximum for the yochid should be one less. Omer Rebbe Shimon. Following elim and parim, following following kvasim, elim b'li lashon aver, elim b'li lashon acher. The texture of the blila is not the same. Elim b'li lashon shachar, some were brought in the morning, elim b'li lashon bein arbaim, others were brought in the afternoon. They didn't mix together. Omer Rebbe Shimon, they don't okay. So, emor Rebbe Shimon, he's a good kashya. So, Rebbe Shimon, what do you think the pshat is? How do you know that the maximum of one Mincha is 60? Omer Rebbe Shimon, the way I learned the pasuk says v'chol Mincha b'lula b'shemen K'var omer Torah, the Torah says avon Mincha she yochlin l'vola. Bring a carbon Mincha that could be mixed. Omer Rebbe Shimon, they told him the shishin l'vola and shishin v'echod ain l'vola. You mean to say that being that it has to be b'lula, you could only mix up to 60? Does that make sense? 60 you can mix, 61 you can't mix. Omer Rebbe Shimon, he said yeah, k'mo mi d'sachamim kein. Bar bom zayis hu toivel. Bar bom zayis k'chasar korta, ain yochlin l'toivel. K'beya. If you have ayil the size of a beya m'tamei tumas ochlin. K'beya chasar shum shomer, if it's missing a shum shomer, ain m'tamei tumas ochlin. Shlosh al shlosha m'tamei madras. If you have a beged that's shlosh al shlosha, it could be m'tamei tumas madras. Shlosh al shlosha chasar achas, ain m'tamei madras. But freaks the Gemara, and this next Gemara is a classic, and it's one of the most often quoted Gemaras in Shas. I will speak on Rebbe Shimon tomorrow. But v'hi ain l'vola, mai havi? Who cares that you can't mix 61? That's a reason for it to be a problem? V'lo tnan, didn't the Mishna say im lo b'lula kasha? B'shlama, if the blila is m'akev, so I understand. You can only be toivel up to 60. So, being that you can't be toivel more than 60 isarin, so it's for that reason you can't have a Mincha of 61. But but im lo b'lula is kasha. Blila is anyways not m'akev. So, if it's not m'akev, how could that be the reason that the Mincha can't have more than 60? Omer Rebbe Shimon, Rebbe Shimon said, "Kol ro'i l'blila, ain blila m'akev es boi. V'chol she'ain ro'i l'blila, blila m'akev es boi." It's true, blila is not m'akev. But what is m'akev? That the Mincha should be ro'i l'blila. So, kol ro'i l'blila, ain blila m'akev es boi. And that's why the Mishna says im lo b'lula kasha. But if you're going to have a Mincha that's not even ro'i l'blila, over there the halacha is blila m'akev es boi. So, this is an often quoted ma'amar Chazal. Kol ro'i l'blila, ain blila m'akev es boi. V'chol she'ain ro'i l'blila, blila boi. What's the context? Now, you know the rest of the story. The context is that there's a maximum share of how many isarin of zayis a Mincha can have. The share is 60. 61 is pasul. Zogt Rebbe Shimon, why? Because 61 you can't be toivel. Does that make sense? K'mo mi d'sachamim kein. But the reason it's pasul is because you can't do the blila. Freaks the Gemara, who cares you can't do the blila? The Mishna says im lo b'lula kasha. Zogt der Gemara, it's true, you don't have to physically do the blila. But it has to be ro'i l'blila. Kol ro'i l'blila, that's the Mishna im lo b'lula kasha, ain blila m'akev es boi. But v'chol she'ain ro'i l'blila, like in our Mishna where you have 61 isarin, there [snorts] the halacha is blila m'akev es boi. Excel. So, I just thought to go back one last time to what we spoke about at the beginning of the week, and that is the machlokes Rebbe Shmuel and Rebbe Shimon by Rebbe >> [laughter] >> Eloi as it relates to vi'asafta d'gonacha layom asheifi atora mipicha v'gisa bayom uv'laila. Rebbe Shmuel in Brachos lamed amud beis says chanik b'hemnik d'arba charedes. Rebbe Shimon by Rebbe Eloi says af sh'odom chared b'shaas krisha v'zera b'shaas r'iya, v'koitz b'shaas ktzira, Torah matzliah. Mathei hayo v'elo kam d'mancha d'shlosh mitzvos hamakom, kam d'mancha ain oisin mitzvos hamakom. How it seems with the Gemara in Menachos, daf tzadik ches amud beis, but there's a machlokes from the Chasam Sofer that I didn't feel we could leave on the table. Now, this Chasam Sofer is in Kedushas Chasam Sofer al Hashas. It's tucked away. It's in Maseches Sukkah. It's in perek lulav v'arava. And the context over there is an esrog hakushi. The Mishna says an esrog hakushi is kosher. An esrog that doimeh l'kushi is pasul. So, what does an esrog kushi mean? It means just like a kushi is meshuna, this esrog is meshuna as well. So, if the esrog is a esrog kushi, the halacha is it's kosher. If it's only damer kushi, then the halacha is it's possul. So, the Chasam Sofer brings as follows, "Shamati me morei v'rebbe Aflah Zatzal. B'hodo'ah pligah Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai v'Rebbi Shmuel. Reish perek Eitzim u'vorchin, u'maskinan Harbei oso k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai v'lo oso b'yado. On my rosh v'al tzad." Listen to what Aflah said. "D'vorim d'flah, d'vorim d'kdusha from Aflah." He [laughter] said, "Harbei oso k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai v'lo oso b'yado." He says, "You know why it was v'lo oso b'yado? Cuz they only went k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, with the kavanah d'minyan. But, they didn't do mamesh what Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai did. D'vav day said Aflah, "Mi she kavanoso l'shem Hashem, habochin machshavosav v'yode'a es tzan'osav, b'vav d'yado b'yado." Hashem will for sure make it work out. "Elohim oso k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, nidmulo." They acted the part a little bit, but v'lo b'etzem tachnisam. "Al kein v'lo oso b'yado." But, they didn't really do what he was supposed to do. So, the Aflah teitched al pi derech drush o chassidus. He said, "An esrog we know is merumaz to the tzaddik. An esrog hakushi, an esrog that's literally meshuna b'ma'aseh, it's Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, the halacha is going to be kosher. But, an esrog that's only damer kushi, it's k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, that esrog is possul. Because if you're going Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, you're doing it 100% with the ganzah ganzkeit, that's good. That's going to work out. But, when it's k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, then it's "Harbei oso k'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai v'lo oso b'yado." Either way, listen to what the Chasam Sofer writes. "Mikan v'eilach." So, the Chasam Sofer quotes his rebbe. And then he says, "Tosefes d'varai." From what I'm going to tell you now, it's not my rebbe, this I'm talking. "Tam midei have po'al k'mo'il." The anivus from the Chasam Sofer. Either way, "Niro says the Chasam Sofer, we know there's machlokes Rebbi Shmuel Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai." So, what's possul according to Rebbi Shmuel? Rebbi Shmuel said, "Hanig b'minhag derech eretz v'osafte diganecha." Again, this is something that if the Chasam Sofer didn't say, nobody else could say. Says the Chasam Sofer, "I believe niro yes I t, Rebbi Shmuel nami lo amar mikrov osafte diganecha el b'Eretz Yisrael." Rebbi Shmuel only said this halacha in Eretz Yisrael. "V'rov Yisrael shruyi, where rov of Klal Yisrael was living in Eretz Yisrael, so the Yidden are living where they belong, which is al admas kodesh in Eretz Yisrael. Over there, avodah b'karka gufa mitzvah." Working "V'osafte diganecha" is a mitzvah. "Yishuv Eretz Yisrael" "U'l'hoitzi peirosav hakdoshah" is a mitzvah. "V'al zeh tzivsa ha Torah v'osafte diganecha." "U'boyaz." Who was the god of Boaz? "Zoyri goyri nasoyri na layla." "Mishum mitzvah." Because it was a mitzvah. "O ki eilu toimar lo aniach t'fillin b'nei sh'ani osek b'Torah." So, says the Chasam Sofer, it's amazing. You want to know why Rebbi Shmuel said, "B'iv osafte diganecha hanig b'minhag derech eretz"? "Because v'osafte diganecha in Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah." So, imagine a person would say, "It says "Lo yamush seifer haTorah hazeh mipicha v'hagisa bo yomam valayla." I'm not going to put on t'fillin." No, you put on t'fillin. You can even put on Rabbeinu Tam's t'fillin. It's not bitul Torah. Why not? Cuz it's a mitzvah. You're being m'kayem a mitzvah. "V'osafte diganecha in in Eretz Yisrael." Says the Chasam Sofer, it's a mitzvah. "O ki eilu toimar lo aniach t'fillin b'nei sh'ani osek b'Torah, hacha nami lo yei'amar lo yei'asef diganim b'nei osek b'Torah. V'efshar afilu sh'ar umniyos she'yeish b'hemlacha umnas ha'olam." Could be other jobs, not just "V'osafte diganecha." As long as the to'eles is yishuv ha'olam, it could be hakol b'chol mitzvah, it's considered a mitzvah. "Avodah b'karka gufa mitzvah." But, when we're in the chutz la'aretz, as they say in our rabbeinu, "V'chol shemarbeh oilam yishuv." And by us being m'yashev the oilam, it's moisef avodas Hashem chorban. It's bad for the avodas Hashem. "Moidi Rebbi Shmuel Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. V'al zeh anu somchin al Rabbeinu Tam." And that's why we rely on Rabbeinu Tam. "B'mishnah d'maseches Kiddushin maniach chani kol umnas ha'olam v'eini m'lamed b'ni ela Torah." Zog the Chasam Sofer, "I know b'chutz la'aretz." Wow, unbelievable. And then he teitches it in esrog hakushi, esrog damer kushi. But, either way, "D'vorim d'flah." Says the heilige Chasam Sofer, "Yeah, there seems to be a stirah in Rebbi Shmuel. On the one hand, there's a Rebbi Shmuel that says "V'osafte diganecha hanig b'minhag derech eretz." And then you have maybe Rebbi Shmuel in Menachos Maseches Tzadik Tesam u'veise, although the Chasam Sofer doesn't quote that. And you have Rabbeinu Tam in the end of Maseches Kiddushin, "Maniach chani kol umnas ha'olam v'eini m'lamed b'ni ela Torah." But, the Chasam Sofer at the end says, "Halon v'halohu." There's two dinim. There's the b'nei Eretz Yisrael and there's b'nei chutz la'aretz. For the b'nei Eretz Yisrael, for that it's "V'osafte diganecha." Why? Cuz "V'osafte diganecha" is a mitzvah. Says the Chasam Sofer, it's a mitzvah like putting on t'fillin. And just like a person can't say, "It says "Lo yamush seifer haTorah hazeh mipicha v'hagisa bo yomam valayla." Lo aniach t'fillin." So too, a person can't say, "Lo asef diganim." Because "V'osafte diganecha" is a mitzvah. Says the Chasam Sofer, not only "V'osafte diganecha," "Tzamt diganecha" is the binyan av. Any work that involves yishuv Eretz Yisrael, that will be considered a mitzvah. But, "B'veinu v'rabbeinu tzadik Chasam Sofer," because we're in chutz la'aretz. So, in chutz la'aretz, you don't have mitzvos yishuv Eretz Yisrael. To the contrary, says the more we're m'yashev the oilam, the more it brings chorban to avodas Hashem. "Al zeh anu somchin." That's what Rabbeinu Tam meant when he said, "Maniach chani kol umnas ha'olam v'eini m'lamed b'ni ela Torah."