Menachos 11

Today's daf is menachos daf yud alef and we are on the last line of daf yud amud bet. So, the Gemara is concluding its discussion of the Mishnah on daf vov amud alef. The first part of the Mishnah discussed the psulim, the ones that are possible to do kemitzah. The Gemara discussed it in great detail. We had five dafin of Gemara going through the halachois of who's pasul and in general kemitzah psulah. The last line of the Mishnah was kamatz v'ol al yadainu tzeror, oy garger melach, oy koret shel lavonah psulah. So, the Mishnah discusses a kohen who's doing the kemitzah. And as we'll see, the Gemara is going to discuss now the exact description of how kemitzah was done. But for this halachah, when the kohen did the kemitzah, he didn't take a full kemitzah of soiless belulah bashamen, but rather he picked up with it either a tzeror, that's a rock, garger melach, a grain of salt, oy koret shel lavonah, a little bit of lavonah. The Mishnah said pasul. And the Mishnah gave a reason for it. The Mishnah omru hakomitz hayes pasul. Because the halachah is that a komitz that has either too much or too little is pasul. In this case, the komitz is chaser. Because being that kemitzah isn't just a process, it's also a shiur, so the amount of soiless belulah bashamen that the kohen has to take when he does the avodas kemitzah is a full komitz. And the komitz has to be dafka of soiless and shamen. To the extent there's either a rock, a garger of melach, or a koret shel lavonah, it means that he's missing in the full shiur komitz of soiless. As a result, it's a komitz chaser. The halachah is it's going to be pasul. Says the Gemara, kol hani d'ali. Why does the Mishnah have to mention three examples of kemitzah chaserah where he did kemitzah and it was ol al yadainu either a rock, or a grain of salt, or a koret shel lavonah? Says the Gemara, tzeror d'itan itzra. If had the Mishnah only said tzeror, I would have thought the Mishnah was talking about a bas akravi. A tzeror is not a basa krovi. You can't put a rock on the mizbeach. It has no shiyachus to a krova. As a result, you would think that if you the kohen did kemitzah and there's a rock inside, that would render the kemitzah chaserah. Cuz what's there in lieu of the kemitz? A rock. A rock is so removed from a krova, it could establish the kemitz into a kemitz chaserah. I will now have the basa krovi. But salt, although you're not supposed to have salt in the kemitzah, but at the same time salt went on the mizbeach al kol korbancha takriv melach. So being that salt is a basa krovo, em a dishasha, maybe it doesn't have the ability to establish the kemitz as a kemitz pasul. We don't know what the kohen had in mind. The mishna said "Tzror melach." I would have thought even melach like ikfa d'hadi mincha mikara. A min- melach, although it's supposed to go on the mizbeach and it's supposed to be on top of the mincha, but it wasn't supposed to be in the klishores together with the mincha at the time he did the kemitz. Avlo v'ein d'ikfa d'hadi mincha. But if the kohen did a kemitz and he took a little bit of lavona, being that the lavona is supposed to be inside the klishores when he does the kemitzah, when the kohen did the kemitzah, so you had the tzror, blue bashamayim, and the lavona. Now, he wasn't supposed to take from the lavona. That's this mishna. If he took even a little bit, even a koiretz lavona, it would make the kemitzah a kemitz pasul. But the lavona at the very least belongs with the mincha, not only on the mizbeach, but even in the original klishores. So I would have thought em a dishasha, maybe if you took a little bit of lavona, it's not a kemitz pasul, it's not a kemitz chaserah, it's okay. Kamash mola. Then the mishna said "B'meisha amru hakomitz hachaser v'hayeser pasul." If the kemitz is either chaser or it's yeser, the halacha is it's going to be pasul. Says the gemara, now this is the reason why if the kohen did kemitz and he took either tzror, gargur melach, or koiretz lavona, it's pasul is because it's chaser. If they think it's my opinion the mishna chaser yeser, they believe the mishna chatzitzah. So the mishna says an interesting question. Why do we have to say that the reason in the aforementioned cases the kemitz is pasul is because it's a kemitz chaserah? Why don't we say that the reason it's pasul is because there's a chatzitzah? And Rashi explains this in two ways. He says, number one, if the troyer or the gargameloch or the koretz al levainah is touching the kohen's hand, that means it's being choitzitz between the yads of the kohen, the kaf of the kohen, as we saw in yesterday's daf, and this and the mincha. So, it's a hatzitzah between the hand of the kohen and the mincha. And if it's somewhere in between, then it should be choitzitz between the parts of the mincha that it's separating. And it's if it's a create two half of koimetzes of mincha. The bottom line is, says the Gemara, why do you have to come on to the reason of kemitzah chaserah? Take the claim of shmuel hatzitzah. So, Reb Shmuel Dovid Halevi Dovid Soloveitchik in the shiur of his father, he says, what like and why would hatzitzah be a better psol than chaserah? They're both psol. You can argue that it's a kemitzah chaserah, you can argue that there's an issue of hatzitzah. But Reb Shmuel Dovid added a punchline to the question. He says that we had shitas ben besaira in the Mishnah. Ben Besaira said that if you do a kemitzah psulah, yachser, you can take the koimetz, put it back, and do a kemitzah all over again. Toisfos says in daf yud that the only time you can take the koimetz, put it back, al libi ben besaira, is if the kemitzah itself, the cheftza of the koimetz, is not psol. Meaning, kemitzah the smile, that was ben besaira's case, if you remember Rava in the Gemara added komatzar, where there was a soran in the way the kemitzah was done. There's an issue mitzad the ovey, the one that's doing the avodah, that's when ben besaira's tool that you can take the koimetz, you can put it back, and then do it all over again, and then repeat the steps. But if the koimetz itself is psol, it's a kemitzah psulah, there's something wrong with the cheftza of the koimetz, tell me, I don't know. There's something wrong with the koimetz itself, there you don't have the option of taking it, putting it back up, and doing it all over again. So, says Reb Shmuel Dovid, maybe that's the teretz to the Gemara's kasha. The Gemara wants to know, why are we looking at the koimetz as a kemitzah chaserah? Why does that have to be the reason it's psol? Take the claim of shmuel hatzitzah. Very simple. If the issue was hatzitzah, today the would be doing and avoid with the is like comments this well. The way the other is done was problematic according to you'd be able to take the put it back and do it all over again. But if what we have here is a the could be at the if you remember and now you have a and now the is possible. Now you won't have the option to put it back back either way and I saw regardless that's the question. What do you have to come on to a case where you did and it was all the time and it was all the time and it was all the time and it was all the time where it was situated in a way where it wasn't a all my exactly how did go down. So told okay I can't see and see the way people do nobody really does today but once upon a time was something that people did. As much as it was an in the but it was actually a usual and customary thing for someone to do so told you want to know how was done in the was done in the way people do today. Rashi adds a little bit of beer and mash in other words you take all five fingers so seemed to be telling that the would take all five fingers put it into a take with him the and put that on the but the point is was done in your way with all five fingers I'll ask you a question from a in the staff Zuzeras Zukmitzas Zuamo Zuetzpa Zugoida tomorrow with there is discussing the five fingers and gives the five fingers names. So the tomorrow is going from the Zeras which is the pinky working its way towards the thumb. The pinky is referred to as the Zeras Rashi says it has implications for halacha, because when the Torah describes the mida of the choshen, the measurement of the choshen, and uses the word zeres. You want to know what zeres is? It's the pinky of the average person. Zu kamitza, the finger next to the koime, the next to the pinky, is referred to as the kamitza. And the reason is, says Rashi, mi mena maskil hakomitz, because it was from that finger that avodas hakomitz began. Zu ama, the middle finger is referred to as the ama. That's negaya measuring the ama, as in the ama that has six tefachim or five tefachim. You'd measure from the elbow all the way to the tip of the middle finger. Zu etzba, that's the etzba that's mentioned in the context of the chotzeh tzitzis, where the zrika wasn't really a zrika, it was more of a hazza, and it wasn't done with the klusharis, but rather it was done with the etzba. The etzba means the finger closest to the thumb. And zu goidel, that's negaya yesterday's daf, boyin yoday hayomanis, that's the thumb. Regardless, what do you see from here? It's a mefurasha braisa that it's the finger next, it's not all five fingers that were used for the kamitza, but rather it's the finger next to the pinky. Zu kamitza, Rabba said k'dem kantzei inshi, which would seem to suggest the way people used to do kamitza was with all five fingers. He said the base hamikdash wasn't done with all five fingers, it was only done with beginning from the fourth finger. The Gemara says ela l'hashvois, you're right. When we say that all five fingers were used, we don't mean that the kohen would take his five fingers, stick them into the klusharis, and fill it up. Really, he was only going to fill up, as we're seeing in a soon, three fingers. But at the very least, it's the finger next to the zeres, that's called the kamitza. So, what did he mean k'dem kantzei inshi, all five fingers? Because the the pinky and the thumb were going to play a role, and their job was to smoothen out the sides, to make sure that you're not going to have too much, because as we'll learn, this is this halacha that a kamitza chaser and a kamitza yaser is pasul. Kamitza chaser, we have an example of that, that's the first part of the daf. What's a kamitza yaser? Where there's a little bit too much. So, you couldn't have anything oozing out of the sides of the three fingers. How did you make sure you didn't have that? So, you used your your two fingers to smoothen out the area. So, when Rashi said you're using all five fingers, he doesn't mean that the sheer is a full fistful. What he meant to say was that all five fingers play a role and that exactly how exactly was it done? I'm going to have to take three fingers. Again, it's not the thumb, not the pinky, it's the three middle fingers. That's the way you do it. One place describes as my kumzi. My sounds like it's a full fist. I would thought it to be oozing to be coming out from in between your fingers. Right? It would be flying all over the place. No. It says at the same time it comes is a little bit more subtle. A little more eagle. No, it shouldn't be kumzi. You would think maybe just take the tips of your fingers and scoop it that way. Okay, it's which suggests more or is it which suggests less? You take three fingers. They made and you do the kumzi. So, it's in the sense that it's a full kumzi, but it's in the sense that it can't be overflowing. It's only done with three fingers and as we'll see in a second the other two fingers make sure that it's not overflowing. The which were unique in that the kumzi was done after they were already baked. So, it's a little bit trickier to do the kumzi. Like would have to do some acrobatics. It wasn't so simple. He would have to take his fingers and he would have to make sure that here he's doing kumzi on hard pieces of bread. So, it's not so simple to make sure that it's perfect. Again, if it's it's possible. If it's if it's protruding out even a little bit, it's possible. So, ordinarily you're dealing with flour and just based on the texture of what you're dealing with, it shouldn't be so tricky to do this. But, when you're dealing with the a little bit harder. So, there it's and the price of famously says the kosher I thought when we learned so they made a big deal about and it said was so wait exactly you're going to learn about the the way used to bring the special in the there too the makes the same comment that this was a it says you're right it was one of the big three the three conscious one of them was the other one was the other one was the one that we're learning now is why was it so difficult particularly with the and the which were already baked they're dealing with pieces of bread and you have to do a it can't be less has to be a full cuz if you have a grain of salt I mean think about that you have a grain of salt it it renders the at the same time it can't be it can't be sticking out at all so that has to be perfect to do that in one scoop literally using your fingers so it wasn't so simple said when we say that it means it had to be a complete cuz it means what does that mean says over here it doesn't mean the the five fingers but rather what is suggesting over here is that the way the would take his hand the position of his hand as he put it into the to do the was he hold his hand with the sides of his fingers facing down that's how he would hold it so he's taking it vertically it's not the palm facing down it's not the back of his hand facing down but it's the bottom of his fingers say that's how it would go in and that's how he would take the that's says that's the ideal perfect way to do it come what if you didn't do it that way what if you did it with his palm facing down and he scooped it up that way and then had where actually explains what Stodemite, he has two shotos. Number one shot is, what if you took the back of your hand, you put it in, you let it sink to the bottom, and then scooped it, you brought your palm up from the bottom, and that's how you took the Kometz. Or me mato le mailo mai, or what if you did it me mato le mailo? That's similar to the last way, but over here what you did was, you put your hand into the Kli Shareis where the Mincha is, with the back of your palm facing down, and then you took the tip of your fingers and you scooped it up in the reverse order. Says the Gemara, take it. Amara Papa, pshitaly me le chofnav. The special Ktores that the Kohen Gadol used to bring on Yom Kippur. So every day there was Ktores that was brought in the Beis Hamikdash, but there was a special Ktores that was brought one day a year on Yom Kippur. It was brought in the Kodesh Hakodashim. When the Kohen Gadol would enter the Kodesh Hakodashim, he would enter with a Kaf and a Machta. He had coals in the Machta. He had Ktores in the Kaf. He would bring a very special Ktores. The Gemara says it was mechaper on the chet of Lashon Hara. But either way, it's a very, very big deal. And the the objective was that the smoke of the Ktores should fill up the Kodesh Hakodashim. It should cover the Aron and the Kruvim. And this was this this beautiful magical event that took place in the Beis Hamikdash one day a year. When the Torah describes the sheer of Ktores, it says Mele Chofnayim. So two scoopfuls of Ktores, that's what the Kohen Gadol was supposed to have. So Rava Papa, who just finished describing and pondering the Kmitza, now went me inyan le inyan, by the inyan to discuss the Mele Chofnav of Ktores that the Kohen Gadol used to bring on Yom Kippur. He said, "Pshito Mele Chofnav, kedei chofnei enshi. You're supposed to do it the way people do it." Apparently, the way people do it is you again hold your hands to the side, the way Rava Papa explained Kometz, with the bottom of your fingers facing down, and the Kohen would scoop up the Ktores, bringing his his two hands together. That's the ideal way to do it. Chofen be Rosh Rosh Yatzvi mai. But what happened if he didn't do it that way? What if he did a brush yet's voice of see he grabbed it by taking the tips of his fingers, palm facing down and he grabbed the Malay half an of that way. Or men at start the mouth. So here too Rashi has two different shot. The one shot Rashi says is he allowed the carrots to go. He was holding his hand sideways, but it went in through like holes in his fingers. Or half an bit corbanates of mouth. What if he took one hand full and another hand full and then he brought them together. So he didn't take them together as a Malay half an of, but he took two hand fulls individually and then brought it together. Says the Gomorrah take by Rava Papa two additional shylers in the context of exactly how comets was done. What would be if the cohen after he did the comets, say now he has to put it to a second clay shards. So partially you just drop it into the clay shards. What if he didn't drop it into the clay shards, but rather he took the comets and he cashed it to the walls of the clay shards. Is that considered putting it into the clay shards? Did he do the avoided the right way? Or maybe he messed up. So he clearly been on the way he got at the end of the day he got it into the interior of the clay that's fine. Or do my hand knock over the clay like he's supposed to put it literally in the clay the way you would usually put something in the clay and not attach it to the wall which is punk inside the clay. Take by what would be if the cohen did the comets he has to put it into a clay shards. He takes the clay shards, he flips it backwards and he puts it into the receptacle that's on the bottom. So sometimes the bottom of a clay like if you have a cup for example, so the bottom of this cup doesn't have a hollow receptacle. Actually it does a very very minimal hollow receptacle. But sometimes you can have a real receptacle on the bottom of a clay. So the question is if the cohen would take the comets, put it into a clay shards, take the clay shards into a receptacle, but he did it trick today. He did it upside down. He did it backwards. Is that okay? Is that not okay? What's the shaila? No You have to get it inside a kayli. So technically you could check off all the boxes. He's supposed to do it in the in the ordinary way, in the way it was meant to be done. Again, says the Gemara, take more on the same note. Says the Gemara, how exactly was it done? Place it that way. I'll pass you the way he would spread out his fingers and he would take the coins with it. Again, how did he hold this hands? Ideally, the way Rashi explains it, the sides of his fingers was supposed to be facing down. So it's not palm down, it's not the back of his hand facing down. He holds them vertically with his thumb facing up, with his pinky facing down. That's the way he goes in, takes his three fingers and he makes sure with his thumb and his pinky that everything is perfect. It's a little complicated with the and the but that's the bottom line. That's the bottom line. It says it in one line. If he took too much oil, too little oil, too little oil, or there's not enough oil, very straightforward. What's an example of too much oil? The sheer of oil he was supposed to have with every was a like. And if he went ahead and he initially separated two for his oil, there's not one like, there's two like. Two like would render it too much oil. Too much oil is a too much oil. Says the Gemara, it's that the fact that there would be a little bit of too much oil wouldn't be a problem. The issue is too much oil. That was the way explained that if there's an extra oil, that's the problem. Says the Gemara, why do you have to say that? Why don't we say the order of the the order of the the order of the The Gemara is explaining, this is the of the Gemara's question, that the reason you would an extra oil is because it explained in the mission that we're talking about where you didn't just have extra oil. You were actually mafresh oil like a when this person was mafresh the ingredients of the mincha, say it was mafresh the necessary amount of soil is and now he was mafresh the necessary amount of then he added more salmon. Being that the more salmon was something that this coin was mafresh from the beginning from the get-go it's for that reason a little bit is not a problem. It's only because it's so much more. You doubled the sheer. Instead of one log you have two log in that's why it's an issue. But let's say the extra salmon would be salmon that you didn't you weren't mafresh with the killer. It was salmon or somebody else's salmon of hechtish. Here the understands it's possible that even a little bit too much would be a problem because that's already foreign salmon and foreign salmon would make it a even if you didn't double the sheer. So the the why did have to say log in thus we're talking about a much bigger sheer presumably because we're discussing that the extra salmon was something that you were mafresh. Look and it would be more possible and then you wouldn't have to say that it was two log in because even a little bit would be enough for it to be and if you're going to tell me that if you're and in fact it doesn't make it possible. Maybe the only time maybe the only time extra salmon makes the mincha possible is if you were actually mafresh the extra salmon with the there's a sheer salmon and you were you were this and you were maybe that's the only time it's possible. The says I know that's not true. Why is it possible that's the case the Torah says regarding the was one of the two that didn't have any salmon. The but the bottom line is there was no salmon at all and the Torah says you're not allowed to be and And if you marbe shamen, it's going to be possel. Now, all shamen klappe the minchas koite is foreign shamen. It's like shamen the koite. It's like shamen the koite. Still you see it's possel. So, that's possel that when we say ribbe shamen no, it doesn't mean that there's a din shamen. I grab the one marbe the shamen. No, it means all shamen that doesn't belong there. Doesn't matter if if you were mafresh it mitzila or not, it's always going to be possel. So, again, el emes ateh, if you're going to tell me that shamen the koite doesn't make it possel koite the possel shamen minchas koite. So, eedi da, halacha. It minchas koite doesn't have its own shamen. Eedi koite the koite. I'm going to possel. You tell me that that's not possel. So, the mar says you're right. Rebbi Elazar may be by you kama. You're right. Rebbi Elazar could have explained the mishna that way. When the mishna says ribbe shamen is possel, Rebbi Elazar could have said even a little bit of too much shamen. If it's shamen of kohen or your friend's shamen, it's going to be a problem. Rebbi Elazar thought he was saying a bigger chiddush. Lo yemi by you the kohen and the koite to the possel. That's possel shamen the kohen and shamen the was mafresh neilugen. Hoyo va hay chazilei va hay chazilei, each lug of shamen is technically chazilei for this mincha. So, aim I would have thought why lift so it shouldn't be possel. Kamash boyn, even that's possel. Of course, Rebbi Elazar holds shamen the koite is possel. The raya is the minchas koite. It's possel. Shamen the kohen and shamen the koite is possel. Even if you might marbe you a drop, that would be enough for it to be possel. Rebbi Elazar thought he was saying a bigger chiddush. He was saying that even if lekatcheela, even if lekatcheela you added a lug shamen, even there, you would have thought that being that it's two lugen and each lug is technically ro'i. So, maybe they should both be ro'i. Kamash boyn, it's going to be possel. We know that Rebbi Elazar had it. Rebbi Elazar know that? Maybe he's wrong. How does he know that if you mafresh two lugen lekatcheela, it's considered ribbe be shamen? Maybe being that each lug is ro'i, it's not ribbe be shamen. So, the Gemara says, no. Rebbi Elazar knew that because mas niseka she say. My dear, the Tanna ribbe shamen no, listen to ribbe lo shamen. Ribbe shamen no. That's a nice dik. Ribbe shamen no, it's shamen There was too much of it Shamna. So they said Rebbe Shimon, what Shamna? One emphasis on it Shamna, her Shamna. The forgot the wash name again. Even though they're technically both Shamna, doesn't matter. You can't be mafresh more than one if you mafresh two it's considered Rebbe Shamna, it's going to be possible. Mishna continued. The Mishna said Rebbe Shamna, too much Shamna. Kri Shamna, too little Shamna is possible. Kri Shamna, if there's not enough it's going to be possible as well. So the Mishna says that the Mishna says that if there wasn't enough the Mishna is going to be possible. What's the Mishna? So just like there was a Mishna full of Mishna, the Mishna was a Mishna as well. But either way, the Mishna that expounds on this Mishna of Mishna says the Mishna, if there was the Mishna was Mishna and now all you have is a Mishna. You have literally one Mishna of Mishna. If you have at least two Mishna, kosher in that case it's going to be kosher. So Mishna says what's the Mishna of a Mishna? The Mishna would mean that you literally got it down to one Mishna. But as long as you have two Mishna, that's already going to be enough. Mishna says Mishna. Even if you only have one Mishna, it's going to be kosher. Mishna says Mishna. We're going to see the Mishna is going to suggest that there seems to be three Mishna over here in the Mishna. It's going to be the topic of Mishna. Because the Mishna says Mishna. It sounds like as long as you have less than what you're supposed to have, the prescribed amount of the if you have less than a you're already going to be possible. The Mishna would seem to be inserting two additional the first is the which is that up to one is kosher. Rebbe Shimon says though even one is kosher. It's that up to one is kosher. Rebbe Shimon says though even one is >> One card is kosher. Rub Shimon says though even one card is kosher it's only if it's less than one card. At that point it's going to be possible. But either way says the Gemara, what was Rub Shimon's shita? Al card shira po as mikapsul. Shimon is the third shita even one card is kosher. If it's less than a card it's going to be possible. I think we went to the briso. Claim it's a shita possible. It's mashma that a kemetz al levona is possible. So you see Rub Shimon is in parentheses over here. If you look at the top Rashi Rashi says kemeduma de Rub Shimon. I think that the time of that briso is Rub Shimon which we have in one of the griso in our Gemara. And kapara Rub Shimon and the Gemara is kashas Rub Shimon on Rub Shimon. So Rub Shimon is featured very prominently in the beginning of mesaches menachos. But regardless another shita of Rub Shimon. That Rub Shimon says that as long as you have one card it's kosher. Here Rub Shimon says kemetz al levona she chaser kol shoo possible. So the Gemara says teni card levona not kemetz al levona. Rather card levona she chaser kol shoo possible. If you have one card and it's chaser kol shoo then it's possible cuz then you have less than a card. But as long as you have one card that's going to be enough. E by same levona bon mincha kemetz levona haboin atzmo. When did Rub Shimon say as long as you have one card it's going to be kosher? That's a card levona that comes together with the mincha. So there the levona is the tuffle so to speak. It comes along for the ride. So it's integral but it's still it's a little bit more passive in its role. Over here as long as you have a card that's going to be enough. However a levona bon atzmo which Rashi says is in Gemara later at the very end of the mesaches we come on daf kuf vov amud beis where the Gemara is where somebody says hareini olay sorech. If somebody says I want to bring a korban nedava. What's my nedava? Frankincense. Levona. It's a good It's a good korban. You could bring it. So the levona that's bon bifnei atzmo it's not a tuffle to a mincha. There the halacha is that if it's chaser even a shoo it's going to be possible regardless. So we said we have three sheets over here regarding his commission says his the steam of slush admission would seem to suggest even if it's missing a tiny bit. One carrot a kosher, it's already going to be possible. In the price we had Rabbi Yehuda says as long as you have have one carrot left, it could be kosher kosher. If you have one carrot, it's still going to be and it's going to be possible. But up to one carrot, it's still going to be kosher. Rabbi Shimon says even further, he's even more of a that there. Even if all you have is one carrot, it's still going to be kosher. You could do one carrot is possible. Shimon says even one carrot if you have less than a carrot, that's going to be why Rabbi Meir stop listening to Rabbi Meir. So the stop listening to between the beside. The sheer of the comment and it has to be a comment beside. Rabbi Yehuda holds comment between the snake carrot beside. You have to start with a comment at the end. You have to have two carrot. If you have only one carrot, then it's going to be possible. Two carrot is the sheer you have to have a Rabbi Shimon comment between the carrot beside. As long as you have one carrot in the end, it's going to be okay. The slush of the both coming from one possible. So what's the possible? I'm reading from the side. The hair of the become the soil of the soil. So we describing the way of the hair of the soil of the soil. The ace color of the a share of the the hair of the hair of the So you doing the the hair of the become the soil of the soil of the soil. And the meat has only soil and soil. In addition to that, meaning in addition to taking the comment and being marked on the the comment is also going to take the a share of the and it's going to be marked that as well. So at the time that the comment is doing the comment of the adds language regarding the face color of the a share of the that's what that kind of saw as the mouth they have to understanding what the sheer Levona has to be. Says the Gamorah, "Rebbe Yishmael holds that at the issue of Levona the body of the that we're discussing this Torah the and the Levona has a Torah described the Levona this color Levona it has to be the same Levona that you had when you were there at the Mincha. What was the sheer then? A climate. So you still have to have a climate. If it's at some point before that Torah it's going to be possible. Rebbe Yehuda says that the Torah says that call Levona that that feel climate as the Rebbe call Levona would suggest even a little bit. So usually call would mean all of it. So it's a little counter intuitive but over here call means even something and then it says as that we're being as in chapter Torah and the S is mar but a second cut. That's why you have two cuts of Rebbe Shimon. As Rebbe Shimon has the call Levona which would suggest that at the time of that Torah all you need is a little bit one cut. He doesn't have an S. He ends up with one like it's Levona but my Mincha like we said earlier the whole like it's with the Levona that came together with the Mincha but Levona Levona that came by itself if somebody made brought in a Dava in the carbon is it of itself Levona? Do we have call climates but three of the climates beside everybody agrees that if it's even a little bit it's going to be possible. What's the right? The actual Mincha the body Mincha because we just said what's the to this cooler that maybe you don't need all the Levona at the time of that Torah. It says the S call Levona the S call these are words that are suggesting that you don't need all of it but it says it in the context of the S call Levona as sure as I mean so when it's coming together with the Mincha that's when you have this cooler but if it's not if it's Levona then you're going to have to have everything. Remember, the it's of how much you have to have at the time of the is only true regarding the volume that came together with But what about the volume that came with the volume? Also known as the volume in them. So before the ate the volume in them, there was a The volume was done with volume. There was these two volumes set on the volume in them and then during the changing of the guard, you would remove the loaves, remove the volume in them. The volume in them. That That was the equivalent there of the volume in them. Take the volume in them and then put it on the volume in them. And And then the volume in them eat the volume in them. So that volume in them that comes the volume in them meaning together with the volume in them, the volume in them everybody agrees volume in them the volume in them. The sheer volume in them each volume in them had to have in it volume in them. And it had to be a volume in them volume in them. There's no volume in them over here. And if it's volume in them down to two volume in them or one volume in them, then maybe it's going to be volume in them. That's what the volume in them says. Well, who is the volume in them? Why is it volume in them? Because we just said that the whole volume in them that maybe you shouldn't need all the volume in them at the time of the volume in them from a volume in them. A volume in them in the context of a volume in them. There is all the volume in them volume in them. So volume in them volume in them. Is that a volume in them? What's the volume in them saying? It's maybe volume in them. The time I would have thought keep it volume in them volume in them because there's a a volume in them volume in them relationship between the volume in them volume in them volume in them as we seen so many times. So as a result, you would have thought volume in them volume in them volume in them volume in them that maybe it's considered volume in them volume in them. And just like volume in them and volume in them that you don't need the entire volume in them because we learn from volume in them volume in them or volume in them volume in them volume in them that it's enough if you have one volume in them or two volume in them. So maybe over here the volume in them will be the same thing. Volume in them that's why the volume in them volume in them said in the name of the great it's not that way. That it's by the with his that if you're missing some of the at the time of the it's going to be okay. But and even the that came together with over here if it's going to be even a it's not going to be okay. I mean how do one said this whole kind of how much you have to have at the time is only regarding the that came together with the it came by itself. The other one said this that we've been taking for granted for this that the whole is with regards to but it's very you need the entire now everybody agrees with that. So the said that if it was too much too not enough too not enough so the is going to be so we had a whole discussion over here of not enough what exactly that means three sheets in the and does it apply only to what about what about the came with together with the and that's the last that discusses this topic before we get into tomorrow's which is piggle but either way the so it sounds like from the that too much is going to be right it's back of the envelope arithmetic. Too little oil possible too much oil possible too little possible what does it sound like? By oil we mentioned by we only mentioned so it sounds pretty clear very obvious thing, that if there be too much lavaina, it would be possible. It depends how much too much is. If you have two kamatzin, then it's going to be possible. Because that's not just ribo, it's yoiser midai ribo. It's way too much. So, a little bit much is okay. But an extra full kamatzin, that's going to be possible. What happens if somebody, a kohen, was mafresh two kamatzin two kamatzin of lavaina, but all of that came in him, and one of them got lost? What's the question? The question is, do you say, "Okay, now we're okay." Meaning, you were mafresh two, that would have been a problem. Because two kamatzin is the sheer of ribo lavaina, which is possible. But, being that one of them ended up getting lost, so maybe that's fine. So, we got saved, and now it's okay. So, do you say, "No, you were mafresh two." Or you say, "No, I say now we only have one." So, what does it depend on? It depends on when exactly it got lost. If the all of that came in him was clay them kamitza, if it got lost before the kamitza, lay hookfu, then it's okay. It never became possible. Achak kamitza, if it happened after kamitza, hookfu, over there it's going to be possible. What's the lomdis? This is very similar to a halacha that we learned together on Sunday morning. Machlokes with Reish Lakish and Rabi Yochanan regarding a mincha chazera, whether the mincha chazera becomes a mincha chazera at the time that you put it into the klisharis, or becomes a mincha chazera dafka after the kamitza. We saw there's a machlokes when the shame mincha is completed. When is it nishlam? Is the kamitza koveya the shame mincha, or is it putting into the klisharis that's koveya the shame mincha? Essentially, this halacha that Rabi Bar Chama said seems to be presupposing that it's the mincha that's the kovea the shemen chof. So if you go and you start setting up shop, all right, you have I have the soil is checked, I have the shemen checked, I have the levana, I measure it, I have the right shira, I even have the klee shoresh. At what point do we say that I'm not just preparing for the mincha, I actually have the mincha, so that if something happens to it, it could become a mincha pesula and you'd have to dispose the whole thing and start from the beginning. At what point does that happen? Is it when I put it the mincha in the klee shoresh or is it when I do the kmitza? Machlokes R' Yochanan and Reish Lakish. That's exactly what the Gemara is saying. What the Gemara is saying is is that it's the kmitza that's kovea. So if I prepared too much levana, who cares? As long as I didn't start the process, as long as it wasn't nishlam the shemen chof, it's not a problem because there was never a mincha with too much levana. I had the ingredients that I prepared for the mincha and I prepared it with too much, but I got saved because it got lost before I did the kmitza. So putting it in the klee shoresh would be the kovea, then you'd say as soon as I put the soil and the shemen and the levana in the klee shoresh, that but we're saying with Dr. Bachman, it's the kmitza that's kovea. As a result, if it was of koidem kmitza kmitza, that's when it took for what if somebody was mafresh four kamatzin for the two bezichei levana that were used for the lechem uponim of shnei mehan and two of them got lost. So the same thing. There was too much levana. How much is too much? An extra kametz. So you're preparing four bezichei levana for the lechem uponim as opposed to two bezichei levana. If they got lost before the siluk bezichen, which is the equivalent thereof, and these yesodos we have to internalize. We have to just get, you know, get familiar with them so we can go through these Gemaras at the pace that we have to go through them. Simply to, you know, finish the daf and do what we do. So if you could, the siluk kabazichen is the equivalent of the kmitza. So just like the kmitza is what's kovea by a mincha, it's the siluk bezichen that's kovea when it comes to the uponim. So if it was lost, the extra of before the then it's going to be kosher then it's going to be then it's going to be okay. But if it was hopeful then the which is the what's that there's too much too much that's already a problem. What do I need this case? Isn't it the same case? Very nice. the same twice. He said it in the context of a ordinary then he said it in the context of the which is also a form of a So I'll tell you why. The time I would have thought given she is very nice. The words is that you would have thought that maybe the only time is the that is Koveah the that's by regular because until you do the you don't know what the is. So it's the that's Koveah the of this that's going to go until it's which part of the is going to go the is not complete. So it's the that's the Thus, if it was if it was a before the it was before the was complete and as a result it's not going to be possible. But by the despite the fact that the are the equivalent thereof of the but it's fundamentally different in that you know what is going on the It was already It was there's no real There's something that mirrors that parallels but it's not a in the sense that there's suspense over here. We don't know what part of this is going to go on the You know exactly what's going on the The going on the The is like a nice This is a nice But in terms of what's actually going on the it was already while it's sitting on the So you would have thought that being that it's a readiness by her, Kim and Cheggie is mine of the [ __ ] Once this man still the second comes, it's commanded pre Kadima. It's as if it was already removed regarding this Allah coming in the minx already who can ask Allah that even with regards to that, that it's not going to be hooked by itself. So, before we conclude, I just wanted to go back to one hour that we spoke about at the beginning of the week in Sunday morning stuff and and speak of a little bit of rain that really touches on a lot of you say this that we've been going through here in the beginning of the day and that is the minx of Kadima in mix for coffee so we spoke at a a beautiful minx of Kadima that created a big tunnel off line and echo of a human got to send me a beautiful hour yesterday and I want to repeat the hour. That is that the Kadima brought a member from the Kadima in the bottom of that base and that is the bottom of the base. If the carbon was brought in the Kadima, kosher is the carbon to be kosher. The carbon was even though the real place that you're supposed to bring the carbon is a nuzzle and granted the carbon is kosher so the whole market in the nuzzle it doesn't have to be like the bottom of the base and something. It could be anywhere in the nuzzle but it's supposed to be in the nuzzle. Stating that and said the carbon was in the Kadima because when the Kadima describes the Kadima as being the Kadima of carbon the Kadima says do it in the Kadima which is the Kadima. So, it seems to suggest that the Kadima of the Kadima with regards to Kadima carbon is the fact that it's a it's a gateway to the Kadima. So, the gateway to the Kadima is considered a Kadima with regards to Kadima carbon in the Kadima. So, the Kadima said a fast carbon was in the Kadima. Spoke at a from the because he says the way to say his Allah with the other slobbering and talking about the Hegel check. It would seem to suggest that it's not okay for the coin to walk into the Hegel and to do the schita. It's only if he did it in the Hegel. So, is it a schita score? Do you look at it now as if it's a schita maybe or or not? Maybe it is considered a mocking schita. Slobbering and talking about the Hegel check. Just like if he talked in the Torah it's kosher. If you talked in the Hegel it's kosher. But you want to know the if you ask your local rabbi is it okay for me to do schita in the Hegel? Absolutely not says the it sounds like it's only that it's going to be okay. But the question is why? Why is it not okay to do the why can't you walk into the Hegel? So, why shouldn't it be okay for the coin to walk into the Hegel and do the schita in the Hegel? Why did it have to be in the Torah? Says the because we know the Torah says in the Torah that the coin God was allowed to enter the coin God one day a year and that was on Yom Kippur. He went into the coin God four times but it was only on Kippur that he went and only those four times. In fact, the Torah says that if the coin God would enter the coin God on any other day he would be missed a missed a lot the Rambam and the and all the based on the Torah on the board that this Allah of the coin God not only true for the coin God it's true for the Hegel as well. The coin was not allowed to just walk into the Hegel. The coin was not allowed to even the coin God will just walk into the coin God. What's the if you're going in to do a void then it was okay. So, the coin was going to light them in the the coin was going to be the he was going to bring the and the the coin God was going to the Hegel to do his avoid in the coin God. The five that the coin is doing a parallel to the board. or the those are things that are okay. But to go into the or to go into the just in vain superficially frivolously without any reason not doing an avoid is not going to be okay. I'll say that I'll and it's what's known as as a recon. Says the the says throughout the I mean that love a day day. It comes out that if would walk into the base he'd walk into the and do only it would be a CUZ THE ONLY TIME YOU ALLOWED to walk into the IS IF YOU GOING to do an avoid. Otherwise you over the and if you it's not okay to walk into the so says the that's why said because the it's not okay cuz you going to be on the case. The effort says definitely a mocking YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT I DID THE BECAUSE because but at the same time you want to know the of course not. Why not? IT'S A BUT I'LL BASED ON THE FACT THAT so shouldn't get up dog was my that really this is totally an actually rather it's totally in super duper rather we spoke at a few times when we went through the fact and just a over very very quickly and that is the of this stuff on the base. I think this is becoming our favorite but either way the in the stuff stuff on the base that discusses the exchange between Hannah and Eli. So Hannah didn't have any children and it bothered her very very badly and finally she was she had and she had promised that she was going to take her son and she She going to give him to Eli the God of he was going to live in the base of Mikdash and he was going to become literally he was going to become she was going to do everything in her ability to make him one of the greatest people to ever live which of course became the Torah. The Gamorah describes the very first encounter that Shmuel had with Eli. Shmuel comes to the base of Mikdash and he sees there's a tumult. What's the tumult? They're looking for a cohen. Why do you need a cohen? They want to bring a carbon and they need a cohen to do the shchita. So Shmuel was a little boy and Shmuel says you need a cohen to do shchita? Everybody knows shchita is bizarre. Because shchita is allowed by Eli. Eli was like wow they were taken aback. They went to Eli they bring the child before Eli and they tell Eli you know there's a young boy over here that seems to have a mesorah even had a drasha mikubal that shchita is shchita is bizarre. Shmuel said the kid is right. However he was a moreh halacha lifnei raboy. How does Shmuel have a right to be paskening shailos I'm here in the Mikdash. I'm the rabbi. Shmuel is a moreh halacha lifnei raboy. A moreh halacha lifnei raboy is chayav misah. The Gemorah tells how Chana came and she started crying and Shmuel says what are you worried about? I'll Then Eli said I'll replace Shmuel with another child that the next child is going to be even greater. Elah na hazeh hispalalti and of course the rest is history. So the Chasam Sofer in the Teshuvah asks you do an aracha for sure and that is that why was Shmuel a moreh halacha lifnei raboy? The Gemorah says in Maseches Eruvin daf sameach gimmel that although it's true a talmid chacham is not allowed to pasken shailah in the presence of his rebbi but lafrush me'isura he's allowed to. Meaning if he sees that his rebbi is doing something wrong he shouldn't say I I don't want to be a moreh halacha lifnei raboy. I'm not going to bring the Shulchan Aruch and show him that what he's doing is wrong. Lafrush me'isura it's something that he's definitely allowed to do. If that's the case says the Chasam Sofer Shmuel's psak was a psak of lafrush me'isura. He says why? Because Eli thought that shchita had to be done with a cohen. If shchita was going to be done with a coin, the coin was going to wear the big day Kohana. One of the big day Kohana was the Avnei. The Avnei we spoke at the Rambam yesterday then the Vilkas Kohanim had shatnes. If that's the case, the Kohanim was going to do it wearing shatnes. But the Emes is shita ksheira b'zar, which means that even if a Kohanim does the shita, he's not allowed to wear the big day Kohana because the Rambam's shita is that the Kohanim wasn't allowed to wear the big day Kohana sh'lo l'shem Avoda. So if he wasn't allowed to wear the big day Kohana sh'lo l'shem Avoda and he was going to wear the big day Kohana because they thought shita the father's a Kohanim. So they were going to be over there with shatnes. So break the Chasam Sofer, Shmuel had to pasken, he had to say what he said. You know why? Because he was being mafresh the Kohanim from being over there with shatnes. This Kohanim was going to do the shita wearing the big day Kohana which was going to be a problem of shatnes. So l'chora is l'frush why was Shmuel amei l'fi Rashi. So when we learned Zacharias we spoke out the Chatzam Sofer from the Chatzam Sofer Parshas Yisro he says a teretz nifla based on the Yesoid from the Rogatchover Gaon. So we spoke a lot of raiyus about this also Rashi perek Avos. We're not going to go through all the raiyus but there's one maro makkin and that is that the Gemara says in Maseches Sota daf yud dalet amud beis. The Gemara goes through the seder of Menachos. So we're learning Maseches Menachos now and it goes through the seder of Menachos. And one of the things that we've seen many many times literally going through the first ten dafin of the Maseches is that the Mincha had to be escadas in a klishoris tzvei demam. Not just once, twice. First the Kohanim would take the entire Mincha, would put it in a klishoris. Then he would do kmitza, take the kmitza and put it into a second klishoris. One of the topics of this morning's stuff. Could you put it backwards? Could you attach it to the kley but that's for sure that the Kohanim would have to take the kmitza and he would have to put it into a He would have to put it into a second klishoris. And the Gemara asks the obvious question, "L'mali? Why do I need two klishoris?" Hakish zeimna. The entire Mincha was escadas in a klishoris. So why do you have to take the kmitza and put Put into a second klishoris? Says the Gemara, "Midei Avraham Avinu, I'll tell you why. Every is the same way. Adam I forgot the condition doesn't Adam of every single carbon get twice. The first time is when the coin takes the master. He takes the when he does the cliche that is the second goes and it's the Adam in the Adam. Then there's another coin that does again with the cliche. So it was also the cliche. So we didn't have the Adam says the Adam. Just like Adam I forgot the condition the second Adam all the therefore here too by the you say twice. It's your doer. The belt asks it's in the instance and the going ask the question as well. What's going on over here? The that you used to go says you don't have to do with the cliche. And the first mission of Adam shows walking. So the question She has been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun it's a little inconsistent. The it should have said the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun or the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun. Why by doesn't it mention it's only the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun. It brings the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun the people been so fun. That really doesn't have to be done with the cliche. You know what the cliche is the cliche is is a carry that was used for was used for but the cliche is it doesn't have to be used. You don't need a cliche for it. Is that right the guy and share they bring it from the cliche of that what's going on over here. The says we didn't have the Adam the condition the twice cuz we were the Adam twice. What was the twice? Condition the second Adam Adam condition the cliche IS IT'S NOT TRUE. I THOUGHT THAT I THOUGHT THE CLICHE IS THE CLICHE. THAT'S WHY IT'S TRUE THAT WHICH MEANS IT DOESN'T need but that's only if if it's going to be and if it's going to be it's going to after if it's going to be he's going to have to use this that IS BEING OF BEFORE IT GOES ON not once but twice you see when does THE CUZ WHEN DOES THE IT IS IT'S FOR THAT REASON it needed if it needed again with the second you see it was twice it's the same thing it's true there is a way to do it where it would not need and in that case it not being twice the is not referring to when does the the referring to when the does the and when the does the he needs cuz then it is so then you're being twice I was saying that's what the is is a beautiful he says that's the that so but that's the why was he was the only one that needs a the was going to wear one of which was the but MS so even if a does it he's wearing the and the is in the last that a that wears the wears it gets because he's been going over he's been going over the so was telling he said no no no you have to understand I understand I'm a rather than a I'm saving I'm sparing the client from the says that's all true if when even when the client does the it's going to be that when the client does the street then isn't if it's just like the said to be the would need a race. Not like so do we need it would be the wouldn't be that according to this you said from the is that washing in the room why is it to the extent that the should be okay and to do the same you know why because so it's going to be That's all true. That's all true if even when a client does the it's but later that when the client does the then it's going to be all from the client does the so it comes out that it's not going to be a it is going to be I can't go into the can never go into the couldn't go past so about we're talking about a client. If a client does the this is wouldn't be a if it wouldn't be a so again it's why is it why is it something that he can't do there's more to talk about maybe we'll save that for tomorrow.