Menachos 46

Today's stuff is Manachos stuff, Menachos and we are at the last line of Menachos the two dots. Today's stuff has been learned as a school for a boy who eats Ben Shiframil. So, the topic of today's stuff is continuation of the latter part of yesterday's stuff and that is the carbonara that were brought on Shavuos. So, we had a interruption of the regular coaching the here in Manachos. Yesterday, we already returned to our regular program. Today's stuff is [snorts] very much a continuation of that regular program and that is real coaching the I think as an introduction to today's stuff, it's good to go through a few in the Torah. Specifically, the way that the Torah presents the of Shavuos and the carbonara that was supposed to be brought on Shavuos in Parshas Emor. So, this is Gimmel Parshas the Parshas says "You should count from the day after Shavuos." The Yidden should count from the day after Shavuos which says means the day after the first day of Pesach. From the day that carbonara was brought Shavuos two months later. Seven weeks. So, from the day that carbonara was brought two months later, the Yidden were told to count seven weeks. Okay, Shavuos this >> [snorts] >> you should count 50 days. And on that to do? You're supposed to bring a carbonara. What kind of carbonara? A carbonara carbonara. The Parshas says from your midst meaning from the land from Israel, you should bring you should bring bread. How many breads? Two. How many breads? Two. Each one is going to be made up of two breads. So, together it's going to be two breads. So, they should come from Shavuos. They should be baked as Shavuos. They should be brought as Shavuos. They should be brought as Shavuos. They should be brought as Shavuos. They should be brought as Shavuos. They should be brought as Shavuos. They should be brought as Shavuos. They should be brought one pair and the two you are going to be carbonara you should bring carbonara carbonara you should bring those as well. Additionally, you should bring a series of one goat that's going to be a carbonara which means carbonara and then finally, you should also bring two sheep within the first year of their lives >> [snorts] >> and they're going to be brought as a carbonara. The carbonara is then supposed to take them. Now, what's them? We just mentioned an 10 animals as an carbonara one animal as a carbonara and then the two that were brought as carbonara. It's referring to the these two that were brought as carbonara you should do now the carbonara with them carbonara together with the carbonara right on the two carbonara first in the Parshas. On this day meaning on this 50th day, the day that the carbonara is being brought, so you should declare this day as a holy day. You can't do any carbonara. You can't do any carbonara. You can't do any carbonara. You can't do any carbonara. And then mysteriously, the Parshas just throws in one idea related to the idea of madness but either way, the majority of these that we just read deal with the carbonara that were brought on the of Shavuos. And what were the carbonara? So, if you do a two breads, what's known as the carbonara. Additionally, there was an carbonara and carbonara. The carbonara was made up of 10 animals carbonara carbonara carbonara carbonara carbonara carbonara >> [snorts] >> carbonara carbonara carbonara carbonara The carbonara was one animal series of carbonara and the carbonara were two animals carbonara. The Parshas also mentions that there was carbonara that was done together with the and the carbonara. Now, this carbonara that's mentioned is generally known as the carbonara. But really, you see there was much more than the carbonara. There was the carbonara carbonara carbonara carbonara carbonara and then there were the two that were brought as carbonara. The carbonara on >> [snorts] >> discussed what animal is the and what is not the carbonara. The Parshas the carbonara carbonara carbonara that [snorts] the carbonara and the carbonara that make up the carbonara when that carbonara carbonara and the wasn't the carbonara carbonara carbonara. So, the and the were not the and the was not the and the meaning in the event that you brought the or the and not the or vice versa, it's fine. Meaning the that was brought was a good and the that was brought was a good and and the that was brought was a good so as much as they were all part and parcel of this one larger this one umbrella carbonara but in terms of one being the other, the carbonara were not the and the wasn't What about the that already the said was a The said the carbonara and the carbonara The said that the carbonara was the but the was not the The is not the meaning in the event that the was not brought, then you couldn't bring the but the is not the you don't have to bring the in order to bring the and The said just the opposite. He said the carbonara the carbonara the carbonara the however was not the The mentioned two different reasons as to why would be the way it is but the bottom line is what emerges is that there's a connection between the and the whereas you don't have that same connection between the the as in the keep say the and the stating that stating that there's a between the and in terms of practically speaking how this connection between the and the play themselves out. According to the it's the that's the so there's no if there's no but you can have even if there's no According to the it's just the opposite. It's the that the You can't have if there's no However, the is not the You don't need in order for there to be The said that what's the is between the The said it's how to learn the Parshas that says So, one of the that we just read the carbonara carbonara and the word we understand means we The question is is going on the is going on the Again, this Parshas is talking about the and the the as in the keep say as in the right the that's the carbonara referring to the keep say The question however is when the Parshas concludes and says the and means is the saying that the is the which is or is the saying that the is the which is the One other point that's worth mentioning before we start the and that is that even though there's a between the and the whether the is the and the is the but one thing is for sure and that is the was the So, the is that most that was you weren't allowed to eat unless something was first right it's considered and it needs something to be in [snorts] order for it to be So, for example in a the is the as it relates to the it needed the to be the So, in terms of matter for sure the is what's the but we're discussing over here is something else and that is one that's the other meaning I can't have the without the or vice versa. According to the it's the that's the and according to the it's the opposite it's the that's the On that note, we have another that continues on this and so the said that once the and the became one, they have this energy that binds them. At that point, they're going to be but that's only says the Rabbi but that's only says the Rabbi. says Rabbi Yochanan until there's a Zika that's a them that binds them. Once however there's a Zika that binds them at that point for sure the is going to be the and the is going to be the is a Zika What exactly is the Zika? So Yochanan said So once the was done with the the with the etc with these two at that point the two are bound by and if something would happen to the everybody would agree that would be and if something would happen to the everybody would agree that the would be I'm not sure what they had the following I don't know is that something that makes a Zika is that not something that makes a Zika the said that one of the that were done on was the would take the etc and he would do together with the So they wanted to know whether the is a Zika or whether it's not a Zika with Yochanan you could prove it from said that the said is a Zika that the is a Zika is a Zika So you see that is not a Zika How do you know that because the was done before the the was done with the etc while the etc were alive which by definition means it was done before the So the is from the fact that said is a Zika that means whatever comes before the is not a Zika because if what comes even before the is why tell me is a Zika Say better say that even the that came before it is a Zika So says the you could be from who said that is a Zika that is not a Zika but the says not because coming by the way What was saying was the they were trying to understand what meant I mean said is a Zika okay fine but their question was what meant maybe what meant the is a Zika What said that is a Zika and it sounds like is not Did he mean it direct meaning I'm telling you for a fact is a Zika and I'm telling you for a fact is not a Zika or maybe what to say was that is a Zika as relates to I'm not sure being that I'm not sure I can't say it's a Zika I'm not sure I'm not sure about I am sure about and that's why I'm saying is a Zika but just because said is a Zika doesn't mean that is not a Zika maybe it's whether it's a Zika not either way the says for this we're going to have to wait for in order to know the of this So again we have a in the between whether the is the and the is the meaning if something happens to one does that disqualify the other or not said this whole is until the but once there's at that point is a Zika >> [snorts] >> they were whether also holds that is a Zika I said Zika That was good for their Did he say because he held that or did he say because he wasn't sure about So it's either wasn't sure about as a result they too were not sure about whether it's a Zika or not the says it's a I'm going to repeat the Nina the of Yeshua So the says heard this and he told of Yeshua I don't understand the you know why because the you the The [snorts] that and argued about their the whether the the is the or whether the is the was the that says you the The beginning of the says the of the the of the of the and then it says the of the The is clearly talking about after the right the has a and a The is the of the the of the It's talking about and then the concludes the of the Now the of the is in the of the Does the mean the and does the mean the but it [snorts] sounds like this whole is not the So told I don't understand if you're going to tell me that is a Zika so how could it be arguing in what the means when it said it says the That's not the You're telling me everybody holds that is a Zika So the this the of is not has no because we know the and is in the that says the which is clearly after the because we read the The is the of the this is the So you see even if there's a there's still a So told According to you after What you're going to tell me that this is talking only about but but it's not also talking about It's for sure talking about as well How do you know for sure talking about because the end of the says the that the is going to go to the or the etc part of it is going to go to the Now when does the carbon go to the after the after the after the after the You need the to be matter which means that the for sure is talking about after but also after Now for sure said that [snorts] is a Zika How could say is a Zika if the that and are arguing in is and that of is for sure talking about the and is a Zika So what do you have to say What would tell you today if you asked him this How could you tell me is a Zika there's no is is the battleground of this and it's clearly talking about after How do I know that because it says and when does it go to the It only goes to the after the In fact So what he would probably tell you is is he would say that really the of the is talking about the and my of the I said that was just saying it means because eventually it's going to go to the Meaning you the of when we say that is or the is it's talking about before it's already talking about So why are we saying because this ultimately will have a that's going to go to the But we DON'T MEAN THIS SECOND when in real time it's it's something that the allowed to be from because when we're saying you when we're saying that one thing is the other thing is not we're talking about So why is there no So why are we referring to it as because the belongs to the the goes to the Are you telling me you need the when you do the it's going to go to the But [snorts] the the over here is based on the fact that eventually it's going to go to the Either way so too maybe I could tell you that the of is referring to the because once you physically would do the at that point it would be a and when we say that the it means the of again you're going to be the same way it's something that eventually is going to go to the The point that the is just trying to bring out is is that for sure for sure when it says the it doesn't necessarily mean you have to read it as if the is talking about where right now it's right now it's not That's from the fact that and from the fact that were arguing in this whether the is the or the is the of What then does it mean when it says it's something that's eventually going to go to the but once we're already being a little bit as it relates to the component of it so too we could say the same thing with regards to the Again it's a little bit because in the it says first and then it says but at the end of the day there's no that's the way you have to read and it could be that once there's a at that point it would be no between and then the is again what's the the of the morning how come the the of the is whether the also but for sure says the the is going to ask you a a from a Now this is a little bit of a windy and it's actually discussing not the etc and the discussing the Now the the of is similar to the etc It's similar to the etc for two reasons number one the etc were the of was also a they refer to it as Additionally the etc came along with the the also came along with came along with the the 40 So this is talking about the of its and the relationship between the the animal and the of says the the is that's true that the of the of the etc creates a between it and the to the point that if one becomes the other is going to be as well the of and is not withstanding because that's only before the but once there's a for sure there's going to be a Let me ask you a a from a regarding the of Actually if one would be if one of the of the was broke before the of the Now the is that if one of the of the breaks so it's a of Now it happened however before the shchita. So, the braysa says, "No worries. You have achana'ah." F'shoychech, bring another bread, just replace it. Meaning, until you do the shchita, the fact that a bread broke is a problem, but it's easy to correct because all you need to do is just bring a new challah. Mishah shochtin nifsal lachmo, what would be if you did the shchita already and then it was nifsal challos? Now, it's a little trickier. Adam mizoreik, you do the z'rika with the carbon. V'habasar yochal, you can even eat the basar. U've'day nidrei loyotzei, you're not going to be yotzei your neder. Meaning, the animal is going to be kosher. You could do the z'rika, and you could even eat the basar. But, in terms of your neder, you are chayiv to to bring a carbon shlamim, a todah, right? A basar ch'maydis, you're not yotzei your neder. And the reason is because you have posul lacham bread. And now, you can't just simply replace the bread. That you were able to do if it broke before the shchita. Once the shchita happened already, it's not so simple. In fact, lacham posul, lacham is a problem. did the z'rika and then one of the breads broke. So, then t'rumah sh'leimah al hap'rus. So, when you give the t'rumas lachmei todah, right? So, there was a t'rumah that was given from the lachmei todah to the kohanim. So, that t'rumah you have to give from a shalem. That's a halacha. Rashi says that you were not allowed to give the kohanim from a broken piece. You had to give them from a full piece. So, you t'rumah sh'leimah al hap'rus. And like this, you're going to go ahead and you're going to satisfy it. So, again, the braysa mentioned three different phases of where it was nifsal lacham. It was nifsal lacham before the shchita, just replace the bread. If it happened noch the shchita before the z'rika, so then the halacha is you bring the carbon, but you're not going to satisfy your chayiv carbon. So, you're going to bring it like an adavah. But, you're going to bring the carbon, the lacham is posul because it was nifsal. And you're going to again have to bring a whole new carbon. If you did the shchita and you even did the z'rika and then it was nifsal, so then you were yotzei your chayiv carbon in terms of the fact that one of the breads was nifsal. So, that has an implication in terms of what you give the kohanim because you're not allowed to give the kohanim from the p'rus. You have to give them from the shalem. What would be if not the bread was nifsal, but rather it was yotzei? Same scenario. Actually, shochtin yotzei lachmo. What would be if before the shchita the lacham was yotzei? It went outside of its choymis. And what are the choymis of the lachmei todah? Lachmei todah was kosher in Yerushalayim, so it means it left Yerushalayim. So, machnisa, you just bring it back in. F'shoychech, and you shochtin. Meaning, it was yotzei, so what? Just be machnisa. I, what do you mean? Isn't there posul yotzei? Posul yotzei is once it gets k'dushas haguf, which is once there was a shchita. But, being that this happened ad shelo shochta, so machnisa v'shoychech, it's not a problem. Mishah shochtin yotzei lachmo, what would be if it was yotzei after the shchita? So, there the halacha is adam mizoreik, you could do the z'rika. V'habasar yochal, you could eat the basar. U've'day nidrei loyotzei, you're not yotzei your neder. V'lacham posul, the lacham is going to be posul. So, here being that you did the shchita, working backwards, so now already the lacham was nifsal v'yotzei. As a result, you can't be yotzei your chayiv neder because you don't have the breads. Stating that the carbon itself is a kosher carbon, so you could do the z'rika, you could eat the basar even, RIGHT? THE CARBON'S KOSHER. BUT, in terms of you satisfying your neder, that's not something. It's like od lo ba v'lo shochtin. What would be if it's nizrak adam? What would be if you did the z'rika already and then it was yotzei? So, then t'rumah mashah b'fnim umashah b'chutz. So, then again, once you did the z'rika, you're good to go. The only nafka mina is is that when you give the t'rumas lachmei todah to the kohanim, you can't give it to what was yotzei because that's posul. You have to give from something that was not yotzei. Same scenarios. What would be if actually shochtin nitma lachmo? What would be if the lacham not it was nifsal, not it was yotzei, but it became tamei? And it became tamei before the shchita. So, maybe lacham acher. F'shoychech, so you bring new lacham and you and you shochtin. Mishah shochtin nitma lachmo, what would be if it became tamei noch the shchita? So, this is a little different than the previous cases. Adam mizoreik, >> [snorts] >> v'habasar yochal, v'dein nidrei yotzei. Now, you are going to be yotzei. I, how am I being yotzei with lacham that's tamei? Oh, that's t'zitzis m'ratzah al hatamei. We know this halacha that t'zitzis m'ratzah. And being that t'zitzis is m'ratzah, it's tamei, so it's not a problem. Aval lacham posul, you're not going to be allowed to eat the lacham. The reason is because t'zitzis m'ratzah that the korban should be a good korban, but it's on m'ratzah you should be able to eat to your door. Nizrak adam, what would be if you did the z'rika already and then afterwards one of the breads became tamei? So, again, you did the z'rika, so everything is good to go. You t'rumah min hatorah al hatamei. The only thing is that when you do the t'rumas lachmei todah, you give the kohanim his cheilek, you have to give it from the top. The bottom line is is we had a a braysa. It's a long braysa. It discusses three scenarios and three sub scenarios of each one of the scenarios. Scenario A is where the bread was nifsal, one of them. Scenario B is where one of the breads was yotzei. Scenario three is where one of the breads was nitma. Within each three of these cases where it was nifsal, it was yotzei, it was nitma, we have three situations. One is when it happened before the shchita. One is when it happened noch the shchita before the z'rika. And then the third case is when it happened noch the z'rika. If it happened before the shchita, it's always the same thing. It's always just replace it. Replace the lacham that broke, replace the lacham that was yotzei, meaning just bring it back in, and replace the lacham that became tamei. Skipping. If it happened after the z'rika, it's always the same as well. You're fine. Once you do the z'rika, you were yotzei your chayiv neder. You had an obligation to bring a carbon todah, well you brought your carbon todah. The only place it has a nafka mina is when you're going to go give the kohanim, so you can't give him from the p'rus, you can't give him from the yotzei, and you can't give him from the tamei. So, good. The t'rumas lachmei todah, that you'll have to make sure you give him from something that's kosher. What about the middle case where it happened in between the shchita, but it happened before the z'rika. So, there already has a nafka mina. In the first case where it was nifsal after the shchita, but before the z'rika, so there we say the halacha is that being that it was nifsal after the shchita, but also before the z'rika, so at that point the lacham is posul. Being that the lacham is posul, I don't have kosher lacham, I can't just replace it. As a result, you they you nidrei loyotzei. Stating that I can do the z'rika and I can eat the basar because the carbon itself doesn't become posul. So, the carbon doesn't become a carbon posul. It's a carbon kosher, but in terms of me satisfying my chayiv, that I can't because I have lacham that's posul, right? Became posul noch the z'rika, it's already after the fact. But, this is before the z'rika. And I can't just replace it because I already [snorts] did the shchita. It was already kodesh k'dushas haguf. And as a result, I'm stuck over here. So, the carbon is kosher, but at the same time the lacham is posul. You they you nidrei loyotzei. Same is true where it was yotzei. Where it's nitma because t'zitzis m'ratzah, over there it's a little bit different. Either way, what's that to do with our sugya? Tanya is the gemara like this, that if you're going to tell me that shchita zoysas z'ika when it comes to the kipsei atzaros and the shtei lacham, it makes sense that shchita should also be oysas z'ika when it comes to the carbon todah and the lachmei todah. Now, you'll tell me what shiyachus these are. Two completely different korbanos. Yes and no. They both have a a shlamim and lacham that comes along with it. And as a result, the gemara feels that these two things should be somewhat similar and comparable. So, the gemara asks, "If shchita zoysas z'ika, if you're going to tell me shchita zoysas z'ika given the hechsher k'dushas av, once the shchita was already done with the todah, at that point if so the lacham, the lacham became posul. Is the posul not in the todah? So, the todah should also be posul. What's the p'shat that where if it was nifsal lachmo or if it was yotzei the lacham, so we say that the carbon is kosher, but the lacham is posul. Once you do the shchita, there's a z'ika between the carbon and the lacham. Which means that if the lacham is posul because it's nifsal or because it was yotzei, then by definition the sh- carbon [snorts] todah should be posul as well. And the reason is because there are hechsher k'dushas av by the shchita. So, if shchita zoysas z'ika, how could you have a scenario where the lacham is going to be posul and the carbon is going to be kosher? Now, again, this is talking about a carbon todah. Rabi Yochanan said his halacha regarding the kipsei atzaros, but the gemara holds, "Hey, hey, it should be the same thing." And just like Rabi Yochanan says that even though lacham acher is achfosan, posul lacham is achfosan, but once the shchita shchita zoysas z'ika, so if one is posul, the other one has to be posul. The gemara assumes the same to be true regarding the carbon todah. And you see from this this braysa that it's not the case. And the gemara shani todah, you have to say the todah is different. By the todah, we don't say this halacha that shchita zoysas z'ika. By the todah, even if the lacham becomes posul, still the carbon could be kosher. And the reason is rachmana k'arya shlamim because the Torah refers to the todah as a shlamim. It says, "Al zevach todah shlamo." A man shlamim crave a lacham. A todah crave a lacham. Just like you find a shlamim that generally is brought without bread, so too this todah can also be brought without bread. So, it's true really the shchita should be oysas z'ika, but there's a special din that the Torah calls it a shlamim. And a shlamim generally doesn't have bread. So, this carbon todah as a shlamim is not going to have to have bread either. So, usually you think of the todah with the breads. But, from the fact the Torah calls it a shlamim, so there's like a a tzad, there's a a perspective that you could look at this todah as not having any breads. And so, for that reason in this situation it's not going to be oysas z'ika. Tosfos is the bottom Tosfos the Yom it asks the very very obvious question. And that is that what do you mean? The kipsei atzaros is also a shlamim. Rachmana k'arya shlamim and the shlamim doesn't have bread. Kipsei atzaros is also a shlamim. So, Tosfos has two chilukim. One chiluk Tosfos says is that a regular shlamim was kodshim kalim. The kipsei atzaros was kodshim kadashim. So, this is not a regular shlamim. Inami, a regular shlamim was a shlamei yachid, and this was a shlamei tzibur. Again, it's different. So, being that the kipsei atzaros was a different type of shlamim, so you don't have this inyan of rachmana k'arya shlamim to compare it to a regular shlamim. There's no shiyachus to a regular shlamim. It's called a shlamim, but it's very different. A regular shlamim is a yachid. A regular shlamim is kodshim kalim. This is a tzibur. This is kodshim kadashim. Because it's different than your regular shlamim, so that reason this is not really a t'shuvah. Zog the gemara. Moving on. Amora Rabi Yirmiyah. Rabi Yirmiyah said, "In kipsei atzaros zoysas z'ika." So, again, Rabi Yochanan said that shchita zoysas z'ika in Bavel and in my rubber? What about Tnuva? They weren't sure. And the Gamara said the Safed was Gopher and what Yochana meant when he said Schitt's Creek is a Zika. Did he mean Schitt's Creek is a Zika and not Tnuva? Or did he mean Schitt's Creek is not Tnuva? So Rebbe Yermiya said on the side that Tnuva is a Zika. That if the Lechem would be lost, Rashi says after the Tnuva critical. >> [snorts] >> So the did the Tnuva with the Kipsei Atzaros and with the Lechem. And then after the Tnuva the Lechem got lost. On the side Rebbe Yermiya said that Tnuva is a Zika. Then of the Kvasim. At that point the Kvasim are done. Of the Kvasim of the Lechem. The Lechem is going to be done, right? That's easy because it's a Zika. They're bound by each other. And as a result you lose one, you lost the other. Because if you lose one, you don't have it. So the males can be empty. Tnuva is not a Zika. What would be Rebbe Yermiya if Tnuva is not a Zika? And he view Lechem Kvasim. And then the brought the Lechem and the Kvasim for one for and he did the Tnuva. Okay. Again, Tnuva is not a Zika. But the Lechem and the Lechem got lost. The heavy Lechem after. And now he went ahead and he brought another Lechem which he could do because if Tnuva is not a Zika. So just because something happened to the Lechem and you have the Kvasim doesn't mean all is lost, right? So what you do is you go and you replace the Lechem that was lost. The Rebbe says that Lechem that you're replacing is it Tnuva or not Tnuva? Do you have to do Tnuva with it or do you not have to do Tnuva with it? So again, if you hold that Tnuva is a Zika, then if the Lechem gets lost, then the Kvasim are possible. Or if the Kvasim gets lost, the Lechem are possible. So you have to get rid of the Kvasim, get rid of the Lechem, bring new Kvasim, new Lechem, do a new Tnuva, right? Start all over again. The Rebbe Yermiya has is what would be if Tnuva is not a Zika? And now something happened to the Lechem. I did the Tnuva with the Kvasim and the Lechem and something happened to the Lechem. So I bring new Lechem. I If the Lechem got lost, doesn't that mean the Kvasim are possible? Not because Tnuva is not a Zika. So if Tnuva is not a Zika, Tnuva in and of itself is not going to be an issue. Fine. So the question then is now that I go ahead and I bring the new Lechem. Right? Do I have to do Tnuva with the new Lechem or not? I say a Lechem Tnuva or not Tnuva. Now Rebbe Yermiya explains of the Kvasim. In the event that the Kvasim were lost like the law, I would not have my way Tnuva. For sure you would need Tnuva. Meaning the fact that I did Tnuva with the original Kvasim is for sure not going to help me for these Kvasim. The Kvasim for sure would need Tnuva. Keep it by law of the Lechem. My law is only on the Lechem. Do we say that being that I did Tnuva with the original Lechem, so I don't have to do Tnuva again with this Lechem or no? That Tnuva was done with that Lechem. I need to go ahead and do Tnuva now with this Lechem. Now why was it possible to Rebbe Yermiya that the Kvasim for sure would have to do a new Tnuva? But as it relates to the Lechem, he's not sure. So Rashi says two reasons. One One reason Rashi says is is because the Kvasim were matter the Lechem. And being that the Kvasim were matter the Lechem, so for sure the Kvasim which is being matter, these specific Kvasim which are going to be matter would have to have a Tnuva. Additionally, Rashi says that the Iker words the Hainiv are referring to the Kvasim. The Hainiv Koin Oisam is referring to the Kvasim. And then it says Al Lechem Habikur. But the Hainiv Koin Oisam is actually referring to the Kvasim. And so for sure these Kvasim that ultimately are going to be the Kvasim would require a Tnuva. I can't say oh the original Kvasim that got lost had a Tnuva. This is going to be fine. But keep it by law of the Lechem. The Lechem is not the matter. And the Iker Tnuva was said regarding the Kvasim not the Lechem. So maybe as long as the original Lechem had Tnuva. Even though I'm not using those Lechem now because they got lost. But at the same time I did a Tnuva already. Additionally, the Gamara says Rebbe Meir says keep it by law. According to Rebbe Meir, I'm not asking the Shaila of the Kvasim Iker because Rebbe Meir said that the Kvasim is the Iker. So again, Rebbe Meir was is the Lechem Iker or is the Kvasim Iker? Right? Rebbe held that the Lechem is the Kvasim not the other way around. And Rebbe Meir said the Kvasim is the Lechem. So according to Rebbe Meir that holds the Kvasim is Iker, there's no Shaila. Because if the Kvasim is the Iker, the Lechem is the Tofa. For sure I wouldn't have to do a new Tnuva on the Lechem. Keep it by law of the Kvasim. The Shaila is according to Rebbe Meir who holds that the Lechem is the Iker. What's the law of the Lechem by Tnuva? Do we say that being that the Lechem is the Iker, so I have to do Tnuva on this Lechem? Even though I did a Tnuva on the original Lechem with this Lechem I didn't do a Tnuva yet. I don't keep it in my team in the day Kvasim. Or do we say that being that the matter of the Lechem is really the Kvasim? And the Kvasim have the Tnuva. I don't need to do do Tnuva. This was a Tnuva. Rebbe Yermiya Shaila. And that is Rebbe Yermiya wanted to know on the side that Tnuva is not a Zika. If I did the Tnuva with the Kvasim and the Lechem and then I lost the Lechem. So I'm going to replace the Lechem. If Tnuva was a Zika I couldn't replace the Lechem. But Tnuva is not a Zika. So I'm just going to replace the Lechem. So I'm going to have Kvasim that I did Tnuva with already and now I have new Lechem. Do I have to do a Tnuva with this Lechem? Or do I not have to do a Tnuva with this Lechem? That's the Shaila. Do you say I did the Tnuva with the Kvasim and I even did the Tnuva with the original Lechem. So do Maybe I don't have to do a Tnuva with this Lechem. Or maybe not. Maybe I do have to do a Tnuva with this Lechem. And the Gamara just had two qualifications in the Shaila. One qualification was that the Shaila was only on the Lechem side not on the Kvasim side. That's possible if the Kvasim would get lost. I [snorts] and I'm bringing new Kvasim I would have to do a new Tnuva with this Kvasim. You can't say I did a Tnuva with the Lechem and I did a Tnuva with the original Kvasim. No, the Kvasim for sure would need a Tnuva. The Shaila was only on the Lechem. And why is the Kvasim different? Number one because it's the matter. Number two the Iker Tnuva is said with regard to the Kvasim. Additionally, the whole Shaila was according to Rebbe Meir that the Kvasim is the Iker. Then it's possible there's no Shaila. Keep it by law of Rebbe Meir that holds the Lechem is the Iker. Do you say being that the Lechem is the Iker that the Lechem needs a Tnuva? Or do you say at the end of the day as much as the Lechem is the Iker as in the Lechem is the Kvasim. But the Kvasim are still the matter. And being that the matter already had its Tnuva, so that in and of itself is going to be okay. Again, the law of Rebbe Yermiya is definitely something that requires a little bit of viewing. Either way the Gamara says for this Shaila we're going to have to wait for Elijah take two. I'm going to lay a by Rebbe. One more Gamara. Rebbe told Rebbe Meir my schnoz snake Kvasim the Kachi Lechem Akfi. O my schnoz Shiva Kvasim the Ailim. The [snorts] Roy Mikachi Lechem the Lo Akfi. So we went through the introduction to the Dof. The Avoyda in the Beis Hamikdash on Shavuos was unique. There was a special carbon that was brought. Specifically, there were Shivas Kvasim Tmimim Bnei Shono Par Ben Echad V'eilim Shnayim. 10 animals, seven sheep, a bull and two rams that made up the Oila. >> [snorts] >> There was a Se'ir Eizan Echad Chatos. And then there were Shnei Kvasim Bnei Shono that were brought as a Shlamim. That Shlamim was very unique. It's Kodesh Kodashim. Ordinarily Ordinarily Shlamim is Kodesh Kodashim. Additionally it was a Carbon Tzibur. Ordinarily Shlamim is a Carbon Yochid. And then finally together that there was a Shteiy Lechem. We saw in the Mishnah the opening line of the Mishnah Ha Par Ba'eilim Kvasim Im Akfin Es Ha Lechem V'lo Ha Lechem Ma'akfin. When it comes to the Lechem and the Shlamim the Kipsei Atzaros that's Rebbe Meir what's what. So Rebbe turns to Rebbe and he says I'm not really sure that I understand. Why is there this very special relationship between the the Kipsei Atzaros and the Lechem in that they're so uniquely bound by each other as opposed to the other animals that were brought where you don't find that. Now the truth is this connection that you find with the Kipsei Atzaros and the Lechem is true with regard to the law of the Mishnah, right? One's the other. What's what? But you see it even before that. You see it in that the Lechem the Shteiy Lechem get its Kedusha through the Shchita of the Kipsei Atzaros. Something that we're going to go through in a lot more detail in the coming Dof. But it's the Shchita of the Kipsei Atzaros that was Mekadesh the Shteiy Lechem. It's not the Shchita of the Oila and the Chatos. It's the Shchita of the Kipsei Atzaros. And this is all included in Rebbe's question to Rebbe. My schnoz snake Kvasim the Mikachi Lechem. Number one why is it Mikadesh the Lechem? Number two Akfi. You find this idea of it of it being Akfi as opposed to as opposed to when it comes to the Shiva [snorts] Kvasim and the Par Ailim. The Lo Mikachi Lechem. It's not Mikadesh Lechem. Lo Akfi. It's not Akfi. Rebbe told him I'll tell you why. Ha'oilam Kulo Akfi Tnuva. You see it from the Torah because the Torah said that there's a Mitzva of Tnuva. And what was the Tnuva? The Hainiv Koin Oisam Al Lechem Habikurim Tnuva Al Shnei Kvasim. It's the Kipsei Atzaros together with the Shteiy Lechem. There was no Tnuva that was done with the Oila and the Chatos. It was done with the Shlamim. That's the Shchita. But Rebbe followed up and he told him the Carbon Todah Kulo Akfi Tnuva. Where there's no Tnuva that was done between the Todah itself and the Lachmi Todah. U'mikacho U'ma'akfi. And still you see it's Mikadesh and U'ma'akfi. You can't tell me that it's Mikadesh [snorts] and U'ma'akfi because of the Tnuva. Because I would have a situation where there's no Tnuva at all and still you see it's Mikadesh and U'ma'akfi. So the reason must be something else. Elo Todah. So Rebbe said it must be something else. It's like the Todah the Shlamim and the Shlamim. Okay, you're bringing me Todah. And maybe that's the right answer. He said the Todah you see that the Carbon and the Lachmi Todah are Mikadesh and U'ma'akfi. >> [snorts] >> And what is the Todah? It's a Shlamim. Oh, so too here when it comes to the Kipsei Atzaros it's the Shlamim that's going to have the din to be Mikadesh and U'ma'akfi. But he told him don't tell me like Rebbe Meir said. The Kachi and the Shlamim by the Todah the reason it's the Todah and nothing else because there is nothing else. All it is is a Shlamim. But over here where you have a Shlamim and you have an Oila and a Chatos, maybe it should be everything. It should an be the Shlamim. Lo choir to be everything else. You can't tell me the mccarter that the schlemiel is the one is from the tiger because that's ain't done in actually right over there all you have is the schlemiel. Over here you have other carbonas as well. I look at the mccarter from the island nasa. The island [snorts] nasa was also a carbon schlemiel so the nasa used to bring different carbonas by schlemiel since you're right. One of them was an aisle and the aisle came together with breads. Now that was a schlemiel that had bread so my aisle nasa I forgot the kiss my hero even though there were other carbonas right the nasa used to bring a hat is on the schlemiel. So it's not only the aisle nasa it's not only the schlemiel there's other carbonas as well and still even though there's other carbonas it's schlemiel who the mccarter media light is schlemiel that's mccarter there's nothing else. So so too when it comes to the kiss of series loish now it's going to be the same way. See you want to know why it's the schlemiel that's mccarter and I give and it's not the other carbonas we learn from the aisle nasa. The aisle nasa had many carbonas but it's the schlemiel that talks to the breads. So [snorts] too when it comes to the kiss of series it's going to be the schlemiel that talked to the breads. Says the mara of a schlemiel the gufa by the aisle nasa how do you know it's only the aisle nasa maybe it's the other carbonas the tanya we learn from the brisa it says the aisle nasa the schlemiel aisle nasa so we learn from here we shall have all aisle the talks about the schlemiel and the talks about the schlemiel so you see from here clearly that the schlemiel and the are totally separate schlemiel shall have all aisle and which aspect of the aisle is it? It says schlemiel which aisle mccarter that's how I know it's only so it's the of the aisle the for that reason the schlemiel but the bottom line is the relationship between the aisle nasa which is a schlemiel and the breads is classic classic the relationship between the schlemiel and the schlemiel and the breads is classic because aisle the schlemiel there were other carbonas there was an hat is as well but which carbon of the aisle nasa talked to the bread? It was the schlemiel there I learned that the same is going to be true with regards to the kiss of series even though it was an and a schlemiel but which is it that's going to talk to the breads? It's the schlemiel that's how I know about this special relationship either way the topic of the was the idea of the kiss of series at series specifically it's relationship to the breads and the missionary ready we see that the is not the and the is not the because of the giver primary topic of the was the member and that is this whole of the member because [snorts] this is only up until the but once you have the at that point the creates a the they had it could be the held that even the of the giver but [snorts] he wasn't sure about it and that's why he didn't say it because he couldn't say it emphatically the of the maybe maybe not either way the of the giver of the giver that was the topic of today's tomorrow's is very much going to be a continuation of this now