Menachos 56

Today's is and we are five lines from the bottom of so we're in the midst of a digression from of so let's just take of where we're holding so we've been learning the of specifically the first the so there were two exceptions to the rule but the rule is and it's really learned out from two. One is a positive says there's another par where the says the says the says and from there we learn that had asked on that why don't we say that is a is a as if to say that the only as it relates to preparing a would be if a bakes thet but if somebody was involved in any other part of the process of making the he shouldn't get malas the problem is the Mishna says based on the fourth of the which is we should say that is a said the answer to that question is said that the only time you say is if the are but if the then you don't say that role In fact, it's a whole different rule. It's the eighth of the asked on that is right that you can't use if the I'll ask you from a from a so really we have to get into the weeds of the of the to understand what the bright has to do with our was discussing required soften even though it never says anywhere in the supposed to do the buten but the Torah says and by the it does say that it had to been thus we know that the had to been as well now the terra mentions it generally in parish and then the terra singles it out when it's talking about the kasi the who was the if he did an he too had to bring a carbon kas his katus was a little different than the ordinary katas The ordinary katus was either a kispa or a thesis had to be a but regardless the when it talks about the katas of the nasi. So the Tory singles out bring the katas in the place where you bring which is bits of and the price is wondering why did the single it out by if it mentions it generally why does it have to be singled out in par when it talks about the nasi and one suggestion the brighter had was maybe because it's only the what would be the beer in that presumably because you would have the rule of the parish is the clout theory says it should be and then you have it again by which is the how is that consistent with rule that was the and for the that's not the reason in fact not only is it not it's really which is another one of the if so what was the in the that of only relates Katnasi. It's because in the parish of Katnasi, the Torah uses a magic word which is seems to suggest that the laws of this parish relate only to this specific. Thus, there would have been that the law that it's referring to is as if to say only this has a all other don't have a but the den should relate to the as opposed to other is not based on the mid of for two reasons. A it's a cloud and it's a cloud the other one is in what was the at the end of the day the garra comes out and the garra says it's not true that it's not only the has it in but really all have if that's the case if you're keeping we're left with a question and that is why then did the mention the word the did say the word in the paras clearly it's coming to exclude other or another from the laws of this para presumably which law the law of now if it's coming to exclude all from the laws of that's what you would use is for but that wasn't the mas of the mas of the was there was a third that all and we know that all like all and all have a if that's the case what is the word in the par ofi coming to exclude and that's who we pick up. What is the word coming to says and it's coming to exclude a very specific type of and that is the is the which was a that was brought by which was the it was the eighth day of the meal but it was the First day that did the in the Mishka and on that day was he brought special carbon carbon carbon that would be brought once maybe again in the beginning of as we saw earlier in the week. But the point is that as a nasi had a special den to bring special carbonas. On the second day another nasi brought it. The third day another nasi brought it. And for the 12 days of Mishkan right in the beginning of Nissan every day another nasi poured a carpet. Either way says the gammor you know why it says with regards to the sussi cuz it's coming to exclude another katas and by the way another that was brought by says that that didn't have a soften and which is that the kas of now what would have been the should I would have told this you find that there was a by the maybe there should be as says how do you know that says it's learned out from Shiman says that that in that whatever exactly the is is not coming to be the of but rather it's coming to be another In the event that did an so they had to bring the power of if the was then they brought a power that power however wasn't there was a say as well which was the so says the word that's coming to be is not coming to be but rather it's coming to The bottom line is the asked the question what's the mitzvah the is and being that holds that there was a by you would have thought that there should be a as well that's why the said by the to tell me but the although it was also a so to speak it doesn't matter that won't That's all good. Who learns from the that is not coming to teach me but rather it's coming to teach me this. So what's that? Why do I need to be from there? Even why would you think this heard the way was breaking down this analysis and he said that you only have a problem with according to but according to Yehud it makes sense because if this said there would have been that soften as well but as that mighti the lawyers because from the word has that that means there should be as well and says and if you're going to tell me what do you mean it's why would you think the should be any different and the fact that the needs to tell me that this in the world that you can't make a Why not? presumably because because the and all the other that the Torah talks about were that would be brought when applicable and the being that it was and so you can't tell me that is coming to other words is asking according to that holds there's no by the so why do I need a policy to tell me that there's no suffering you see the is different you see there's So if there's no then there's certainly no soften and I shouldn't need to be if there's no why would you think of soften and even accord that holds the but you see you need a to teach me this clearly without the I would never be able to learn out for I say if needs must be because one is the other one is I don't know why you need a word in the par does not see that the shouldn't have a of now it's interesting the comes up a lot in the so we learn the beginning of and the beginning of so the features prominently why because although it's but the said wasn't and being that it was treated like an so for example is an iser It's only that was brought. So would it be treated like or would it be treated like an had different the first where the it's clear from the was treated not like a was treated like an but this is a much bigger because here we're saying that there's no and really whether it's a or an it's and all kadashim needs an is actually the source to the suffen I only know from But regardless in this another regarding the from the we know that the even though it was a was treated like an in this takeaway is that the again was unique that being that it was number one there's no and number two if there was even a but as it relates to the what's coming to mind it's not coming to mind from the offen that we took care of yesterday the breer already addressed that it's not coming to even what is coming to you know it's coming to teach me that anytime you're bringen or really it's only the animal that has to been but the himself doesn't have to been but the says that what is coming to teach me I know that from somewhere else meaning it's true it's but I know from somewhere else we learn We find that by it's not enough that the you need that the should be as well but the happened I would have thought that this should be the same thing also there should be that the has to be is referring to the animal bottom line is the is true that when it comes to the you only need that the animal should be you don't need that the doing should be I don't learn it from this I know that from another so again what is this word coming to teach me now incidentally what comes out from these last four five lines that we just learned that even though when it comes to kadashim there's didn't soften but there's anime between whether or not the one doing the had to be buffen or was it masp that the animal itself was biten the animal had to been but the himself could be so the client could be standing in he could stretch his hand talks about he's standing up the border he sticks his hand out and he does the in that would be kasha kabala it wouldn't be kasha by kabala you would need the ken that's being the should have to itself in as well. Presumably the isab itself is an issue as well as opposed to maybe that's the reason that the himself didn't have to be regardless again what are we doing with the word says the you know is coming to teach that only has to be soften but malik doesn't have to be bit which doesn't require like we just said there's no and still there's soften so there's a fundamental difference between and Malika and Malik really is to what is to a but again a very difference what's the difference whereas Malik is anita even is allowed to do as opposed to Malik which had to be done just like had to be done by a so to Malikica had to be done by a as well bottom line is argues the gam that which is requires that malik which is an certainly should require so maybe that would have been the malik needs that malik doesn't need something but the says can't you couldn't have learned malik fromita because you find requires a kala as opposed to malik which was done with the fingernail of the cayenne and being that it was done with the fingernail of the cayenne so you can never learn out malika from I mean that the never said anyway the malik needs suffering so it couldn't have been such a th I don't need a to tell me that malik doesn't need suffering so again what do I need isolate for you know what is coming to teach me that and for that matter have a soften but the carbon pes not there would have been a that the carbon p should have a soften it doesn't I know that already from somewhere else. There's a lot of there's a lot of that we've learned already. I would have thought that a carbon should have a that doesn't have any when you have to bring it. Most anyways have it has to be brought on but the says English how can you learn from it's very nice has a you found in the laws of that's over the laws of what is that as opposed to that has no man but let's be honest what's more anah or a pes of course an is the was completely consumed by the even weren't allowed to eat from the because it was so hailing. So how could you learn out has a need but the says you know you're right but I can learn there's no and is also like so certainly which was says you can't learn from either it's and it's not just for ordinary aes for the most in the world for it's so how could We're not from the say maybe asham also has a is not and is not but is still at the end of the day and by the way says and once you have that you can't learn from you can't learn from and you won't be able to learn from side from the three together cuz they're really all gadashim So essentially it's checkmate. There's no to ever be able to learn out from that I should need in the par of the to tell me that does not have a consumption. By the way, alludes to one of the most difficult in the which was how many you should be able to learn from the only time it says in the is by and there's a whole so you would want to learn how from it didn't suffer even though it's like So which is should have it in as well. How do I know? I knowish from so essentially is a made by and it's gonna be says right away that this last four five lines of is really regardless the question is what are we doing with the word the reason the wrote the word in the is to teach me that only the animal had to a bit softened but the himself didn't have to be a bit softened. What was the problem with that? Don't we know that already? We know from says wasn't coming to really meant to say was something different not like the we had earlier but rather was not that the doesn't have to be that teaches me that the animal has to been the doesn't have to be what was teaching me was that you even though in the par of It's that is different and the has to been as well. emphasis was not the fact that the doesn't have to been rather was emphasizing that the does have to be but says I know that from somewhere else it says means and we move the words the letters around a little bit as if to say you have to take self tape yourself and put yourself on the tough inside. So the Gmorra says the hold of the thus he needed a that although the doesn't have to be doesn't have to be his what he had said but as it relates to the fact that the himself does not have to been that we know from the word we'll get back to this soon but in the meantime a little bit more so the Mishna said and when it says in It doesn't just mean and now let it bake the carbon but really it's referring to all the different steps of the process. So means you're not allowed to need the in a state of means you're not allowed to form it, right? You can't start making the the braids. You can't form it. Self-explanatory. You're not allowed to either. If somebody bakes the he gets malas twice. once for forming the and once for baking it. In other words, when you bake something, you're also forming the thing that you're baking. So, you're baking it, you're making it from being in a raw state to a state that you can actually eat it, but it also takes form. So, just like when you form it, you're forming it. When you bake it, the form takes root. And as a result, you're going to be when you bake the in a state of not only for the for as well. So that means if somebody bakes a from one line in yesterday's had said, how do you know that for each individual? I'll tell you how you know that because it says in the and then it says and it was the eighth of the what was bring if our pup is right then somebody that begs the is so it's not a it's really two there's two so it's two so the that's being is not being for doing one step it's teaching me that for doing two steps because in steps you have the and you have the as well says the like it's true is right that if somebody bakes he's going to be he's going to be because when you're baking it you're giving it form and you're going to be as but it's not always true it's only true if one person had formed so one person braided the very very nicely and then the other claim went that he put it into the oven then the is that the one that put it in the oven is going to be for that and But let's say the same coen did the he braided it and he put it into the oven. Then the coen that put it that coen is going to get malus twice but he's going to be for braiding it and then he's going to be for baking it but he's not going to be like for for baking it because he already was for when he was when he braided it. So it's true if all I did was bake it, I'm but if I braided it and I baked it then I'm not for forming for when I baked it because I was already for forming for when I braided it. So in that case when the Torah says it means whether I did the or I didn't do the so you see even if I already did the which means that right now the B is right when the B says that is because in the case when I myself did the and the it is in fact because I'm already for the for the being it's not included anymore in for papa is also right that if one person would do the another person would do the the one that was would be both for the that's included in the and for the itself. So the is going to digress and we're going to come back full circle to see why we digress. This is an animal that has and it needs d to be let from it. So once upon a time blood letting was a very basic form of a fua and there was an idea it was understood that if you would remove blood from either a human being or from an animal it could sometimes save an animal's life. So this is a this is an animal that asar that needs. Now it's not so simple to just go be on an animal because we know it says in the not allowed to give a carbon. So not only are you not allowed to be a carbon that has a you're also not allowed to be the say it's not so simple to be. So the tum discussed what do you do with this bkar you have a bkar over here that has right now a need for is it okay to be makdam or is it not okay to be makdam now the reason we're discussing and not any other because the truth is this is to be true for all it's not only true for bkar because is unique in that the is that if aar gets a the still got the bkar one of the that the ment mention somewhere along the way in is that is unique in that even when it has a still ordinarily if an animal gets a so now already it's possible aar is unique even if the bakar had a there was still a mitzvah to go give it to the k but from the k's standpoint it was very different what he did with the if it had a or if it was a if it didn't have a m if it didn't have a m he was m in the in the mikdash if it had a he was able to eat it wherever he wanted it even was What you should do is you should try to take the dam out, but do it in a place that's not considered a bra says to go be to be makdam. It's not okay. Even though, by the way, if you don't if you're not, you may be killing this animal, but it doesn't matter. You have to be makd. I mean, that's the right thing to do. But do it in a way where it's not going to have say you should be and doesn't matter the only thing is that ordinarily once gets as if it's wherever he wants this is not going to be fall under that category so in other words if you're going to be so now the is going to have the say oh my has a so I can go eat it tomorrow I can bring it to my barbecue no that's not okay because even though it's true that gets a m is becomes and the k now is allowed to deal with it as if it's not entirely but many many with many regards he can treat as if it's but this is going to be an exception this is different says no takes it to the other extreme says he could do and it's a regular once once it has this it's a he could do whatever he wants with it is the opposite extreme says absolutely not you cannot be when it comes comes to aar being that it's a carbon and even if it means that it's going to die is the right still the now what does that do with our so first and then we'll see it inside what has to do with our is because an animal that right now needs its blood to be taken out otherwise it's going to die I quote that's an animal that has a and still you see the weren't sure what to do with this animal. And it wasn't so simple to just be why because it says in the that which is a is so you can't just go ahead and give it a why can't I be in an animal that's already a stating that you see that it wasn't so and very very clearly according to many in this that you can't be mum in an animal that already has okay so with that background said even though the discuss being in a carbon that already has a meaning wasn't clear what would be but when it comes to other areas when you're going to do an over there it's going to be more clear. So for example if you have where the says and what does mean it doesn't just mean you can't bake it. It means if one person does the and another person does the and another person does the everyone is going to be more than that if one person did the and the other person does the second person he's going to be even for the two people can be see even though there was already a done in this the next person if he adds to it he's also going to So additionally everybody agrees with what is that referring to? So that's referring to an animal and these are different types of that an animal can have. And the says you're not let animals this. So if somebody is the animal, he's going to be if somebody is the animal, he's going to be so means that somebody would cut the the testicle of the animal means he would remove it from the sack. So it says the for just cutting it without removing it. Certainly going to be for actually removing it. What it means is is that if one person was but it's still in the sack and the other person only removed it. He didn't actually cut it is he's going to be but what's the bottom line? The bottom line is is everyone's everyone's because essentially two people were misar's animal. They both were involved in different steps of the process but they were both sha is over here and it's really not based on a on a macro shila of really based on the parameter the word is that you're not even allowed to be is only if animals are it's coming to tell me that if the animal was born then there's no so would have had it once but as long as it was once a as long it was it was born later it got you can't be a second or a third one it's like a deco it's like a tree what does that mean it means it's not on an animal that's so if it was born. It was never if it was never then we're not having this conversation. It's coming to you. An animal that was one had once had regular got and now you that's not an issue. An animal that had a that you and now it's but it's not entirely. So being that it's not entirely still. So you would have thought that maybe that's what is coming to who learn from that it's only a animal that has no that is innocent to be but once it has a you are allowed to be they don't the word what do they do with the word so from there I learned they not let it go be a d and give it a but how do I know they let it be For example, so I'm not going to be I'm not going to rip off the ear of my but you put a cake that smells really good. You take a hungry dog, you put it next to it. Um, you know, wink in that direction and he goes takes the cake and bites off the air. You're not able to do that either because even though you didn't physically give the animal the but you were and that's what the word is. which incidentally this last gimra which is going to segue right into is is really a festive because the idea of is something that comes up in many places in most notably in the beginning of where the says but it's this is an example of what about somebody does but he does it there's certain that are inherently like he set up a trap And then an animal goes into the trap. You did the mice. Say you just set up the trap. All you did was the somebody's you take wheat and you put it inside a you're not actually doing the that's why there's a whole this is fade with enormous implications of again that's more but regardless exhale. So just to end the dath and really come full circle. So the d began with the really the first was regarding one word in the par of it says regarding the and the question was it's coming to something the understood that the word is coming to something as it relates to the laws of that hasn't been softened but others do not have soften show what it's referring to. What exactly are we coming to mind? We're coming to that can't be I don't need to be maybe it's coming to me. I don't need a for either because what would be the I need a maybe it's because you would have thought learned from but says no we don't need it to be the said the word is coming to that only the animal has to been but the itself doesn't have to be but regardless that was a summary of the first half of the d but the first half of the d was the word in the par of the second half of the daf dealt with the of because the is discussing is there an animal that already has a and that's a little bit related to our because we're discussing a the says for many people can be complicit get malus for the even though one person is following the other person was following the other person doesn't matter each person could be so just like you can be Maybe the says what has nothing to do with the other as it relates to being there it's different and really it's based on so again the first half of the daf is the second half of the das is but I think it's actually an interesting juosition as it relates to this morning's daf and that is so where did converge with mumach it actually did historically in a very very significant and very very meaningful way and that's in the story of Kamsa Baransa. So what was the mice of of Kamsa Baransa? So we all know the story. There was a Y who had a friend Kamsa and there was another person whose name was Baraka and him he didn't like so much made a big party invited Kamsa was supposed to come Baram up he throws him out there they weren't he got very upset I'm going to take revenge from the Jews specifically from the rabbis he goes to Rome and he tells the Romanes who died so the told him how do you know prove it to me he told them watch them let's see if they're going to go ahead and they're going to be So he went and he sent the Roman quesar sent with barans very very animal as was taking the animal he gave it a but he gave it a very specific type of what was the significance you don't have a mum it was a place that the Roman emperor would not deem but in the he knew there would never be m of such an animal and he brings the animal says the Roman emperor sent this animal. He wants us to be mac and didn't know what to do because it was because it had. So the rabbi sat and they started debating the issue and the says and they were ready to be and the reason is there and by the way the said was the nasty of the time. See he was the leader of he said you can't we can't be makum was setting a terrible precedence this is going to be a slippery slope people are going to remember that they were once they won't remember the circumstances that surrounded it that these are very very desperate times and that we were doing I don't think it's smart so the garra says I hear so then they say you know what maybe let's just kill baransa if we kill baransa words never going to get back and and like this we'll be done the same again talking said hurry we're sending a very terrible why because it's true you're not let it be it's a it's a but it's a you get malus for it but and people are going to think that The reason we killed Baranso is because he was Matach. Again, people will remember the won't remember the circumstances that surrounded the and it's very dangerous. It's a very slippery slope and of course they were a mock of the animal. The didn't kill Baramsa. Baramsa went back. He told the Romans what happened and the rest is history. And hundreds of years later, he commented. He said, that in hindsight as we look back in the postmortem, we can I literally turn to that one event because had not been such an unoff had he not been so humble, maybe we would have been with the carbon. Maybe they would have killed Barca and who knows maybe the Bikto maybe would have been avoided. It's interesting that infinite size we've spoken out in the many times what says brings in says well what do we and says because knew that the were right he knew that the right thing to do was to kill was to kill or to be but he was afraid he didn't have the places not so simple it's much easier in bish to sit in t oh even though it's about mumbra but tlas when you're in the And you're going to take an animal that has a and you're going to put it on the It's not so simple to learn the we can kill 9,000 people in one first. But to kill somebody it's not so simple. It's not so easy to do. And that was what caused because a a leader a man can't always be such a and sometimes he has to have a and he has to not be afraid to get it wrong and he has to be able to he has to be able to pass wrote in because somebody was timing to how do you have a right to issue we have rape bites on this but the bottom line is so ultimately the downfall was it There was a that's what happened over here. There was a that was there was a that was he made a mistake again with dealing with a god. But this played a tremendous role. But I just thought it was interesting because what was it? It was a that was the first part of that related to he didn't want to be he didn't want to kill people are going to say we have to work sometimes to find rape but the bottom line and this is but it was that ultimately causes what's interesting is that if you take a look the word is a funny word It should have said already addresses it already brings it. But if you take a look at he says, you know what the word means? Means if it just so happens there was a happen stance things happen. That's what suggests. Asher has a whole different connotation. You know what asher means? It's means it's going to happen. It's just a matter of time, says who says he's going to do. Is it that there's ever going to be a par? No, it's it's very not likely that there'll ever be a because let's be honest, you need this to make a mistake of follow it after learning. you realize it's not so simple for ever have to bring a thus the says in his but that the is referring to of course is the by the way wasn't really the of that's where wanted to know if he would be considered the the as relates to the told him no means the it was rebina but it wasn't the truth it wasn't the mas but the bottom line You want to know why? Because it's for that reason. It's for that reason. It's not him. It's a If a person has ga, it's inevitable. he's going to sin because the source of is Ga says and when someone has ga inside of him he's not humble enough there's nothing that's going to stop him so at the end of the day at the end of the day ai who has ga it's not golden maybe yeah maybe not but when it comes to the who has you know it's interesting the say we all know that the First king of Israel was had melikun had a meal but that's all in Rams and but the first melik in was his son was melik for a very short time and then after that the was taken away from him it was given to and said as follows a classic why did family not keep the You know what the reason is? Is because he had no if someone is too perfect, he's not qualified to be king. You have to have there has to be some imperfection. And what's because if a per if a king's going to be too perfect if he's gonna stop becoming they're going to tell him have something to point that don't be such a you're not so perfect a king is not qualified to be king if he's too perfect was too perfect he was too perfect number one he came from pristine number two say he was he had a wasn't nearly as perfect as number one he came from questionable He came from they weren't even sure if he's the paragoral before we find out if fit to be king. Let's find out if he's even fit to marry into the Jewish people. So they said, but the point is is that he had a and as far as he had the bakva and etc that was hovering over him. Thus Shame was too perfect to be king. So what's so we've spoken that in the past from the that was Joshua from last year. But is because when you're a king, it's very easy to come to like says it's not it's thus we have to at least set it up in a way where we're mitigating the chances of this turning into a situation. So he makes sure that heavka has amazing heava has he shouldn't be because if he's too perfect it's going to bring the day gyo ga is going to bring the day of the bottom line is is that the ni was very vulnerable he was vulnerable because of his gya and he had to make sure that he worked not to be about so we have the inra why is it ash because it's not if it's asher it's inevitable why is it inevitable because of the ga of the and then we have where you have a making a mistake and what did that come from? It didn't come from gya. It actually came from it came from humility. It came from and that's the fine line. The on the one hand can't be too much of anov. It's it's not good says that that played a role a very critical role. But at the same time, this same is going to have a has to be careful because at the same time his could bring him to a point where he's going to be an ash. Chosia.