Menachos 59

Today's daf is Menachot daf nun tes and we are at the top of daf nun tes amud alef the Mishnah. So, we know that the three key ingredients of every korban mincha were flour, levoina, and shemen. Stating that, "Some of the minchas yesh l'un shemen u'levoina." There were some minchas that required, in addition to the soiles, shemen u'levoina. "Shemen v'lo levoina." However, there were also minchas that required shemen as a second ingredient, but not levoina. "Levoina v'lo shemen." There were those that required levoina but not shemen. And then finally, there was a fourth category that had only soiles. In other words, "Loy levoina v'loy shemen." So, the Mishnah "V'eelu t'uney shemen u'levoina." The following were the minchas that required shemen and levoina. "Minchas soiles, v'hamachavas, v'amarcheshes, v'achavus, v'arukikin." Those are two types of mincha matzah tanurs. "Minchas kohen minchas kohen mashiach, minchas kohen minchas nashim, and minchas soiles." And those make up the first category, the minchas that are "t'uney shemen u'levoina." "Minchas nesachim," says the Mishnah, "t'uney shemen v'ein t'uney levoina." That's the one example of the second category. So, what's a mincha that needs shemen but not levoina? That's the minchas nesachim. That's the mincha that came along with many of the korbanos that were brought in the Beis Hamikdash. "Lachem hapaneem" was also a mincha. It was "t'uney levoina v'ein t'uney shemen." The "shnei bazikin" levoina were not of the "lachem hapaneem." But, there was no shemen that came along with the "lachem hapaneem." Thus, that's the one example of the third category. And finally, "Shtei halechem u'minchas kohen u'minchas kohen gadol." Those are examples of a mincha that's "ein t'uney loy shemen v'loy levoina." Incidentally, this Mishnah is mentioned in Nedarim daf bais. So, it comes up in the yeshiva so platter. Why Nedarim daf bais? Because Mishnah over there has a whole list of examples where the Mishnah will mention a group of things and then it'll explain it. Sometimes it explains "rishon rishon" and acharon acharon, and sometimes it explains acharon rishon and rishon acharon. So for example, this Mishnah started with four categories. Then the Mishnah explained it. First it explained the first category, then we had an example of the second, the third, and the fourth. But there are many Mishnahs where it's not that way. For example, we can or we can't light and then the Mishnah says we can't light, we go backwards. But we can or we can't light, we can't light. We can or we can't light, we can't light. Why is it that sometimes after mentioning these groups do we explain the first group first, and sometimes we work backwards? And the Gemara suggested a few different possibilities. And the Gemara is sometimes like this, and sometimes like this. The bottom line is this Mishnah is an example of where you have four categories and we explain the first one first, then the second, then the third, then the fourth. Either way, we can or we can't light. So the first category that was mentioned in the Mishnah were the ones that are similar to this list. And the Mishnah gave a whole list. What was the list? All the way up to this list. And if you count it, you should know it's 10. And not just that, every time you find a list of that are similar to this list, you should know there should be 10 in this list. So this Mishnah is talking about the ones that require but this category comes up in other contexts as well. It says every single time you have this list, you should know it's 10. What does it mean to say? It says that the ones that are similar to this list will be described in detail later in the Mishnah. According to the Mishnah, it would be 11. Because the Mishnah mentioned and the Mishnah mentioned and the Mishnah mentioned and the Mishnah mentioned and they're both examples of the according to Rav Shimon, there's really three types of mincha mafteah. You have one that came from chalice, one that came from rekikin, and one that was metz chalice and metz rekikin. So according to Rav Shimon, it would be 11. Kamash and there's another masnisan to like Rav Shimon. So one of the themes of masectas menachos, masnisan to like Rav Shimon, this is another example where this time mishna Rav Papa said the number 10, it's not 11 cuz like Rav Shimon, it would really come out, it would be 11. The pasuk says as well as shamen and the salt and the wine. Mincha is the mish the pasuk is describing a carbon mincha and the pasuk says how do you prepare the mincha? Number one, the salt and the wine. Number two, the salt and the wine. So there should be shamen, there should be wine. And then the pasuk concludes mincha. Now Rashi says this pasuk the mincha of the coin is describing a specific type of mincha. That's the mincha that was brought as Zion Nissan. It's the mincha that was matter. It was matter that for a matter of fact the matter of a bracha. The salt and the wine shamen and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine. The word is coming to be that it's only a salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine. However, the salt and the wine although it too was a mincha, it didn't have salt and the wine. Cuz really you would have thought mincha and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine didn't have a wine. It was the example in the mishna of a mincha that needs shamen and all the wine. So the mincha and the salt and the wine still it was salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine the salt and the wine that the salt and the wine that doesn't need the wine and the salt and the wine certainly it should need shamen. Talmud says that's why the Torah says the salt and the wine shamen and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine as opposed to a different type of mincha which mincha are we being the salt and the wine that the salt and the wine shamen and the salt and the the wine shamen. Pasuk continues and says the salt and the wine. Here too we have a deer. What's the deer? The salt and the wine and the salt and the wine and the salt and the wine that it the mincha requires the wine. However, the mincha and the salt and the wine the same the salt and the wine >> In other words, in the Mishnah we saw that there was a category of a Mincha that needed Shemen but no Levona. And then there was a category of a Mincha that had Levona and no Shemen. What was Levona and no Shemen? That's the Lechem HaPanim. What's Shemen and no Levona? That's the Minchas Nesachim. How do I know that? I know that from a possuk in the Torah. It says "Venusata aleha Shemen, vesamta aleha Levona" in the parsha of Minchas HaOmer. Aleha Shemen is coming to be mayat Lechem HaPanim. Aleha Levona is coming to be mayat Minchas Nesachim. Mincha "Ti" that's the end of the possuk. Minchas the Rabbis Minchas Shemen and Levona. That the Mincha that was brought "b'Shemen u'Levona" it needed it needed Levona. "He" when it says the word "He" "Lechei Shteha Lechem" that's referring to the Shteha Lechem. and no Levona. The Lechem Shteha Lechem had no Shemen and had no Levona. "Al Hamais" so the Gemara is going to go through this braisa line by line. So the first halacha in the braisa was it says "Venusata aleha Shemen" by the Minchas HaOmer. And we learn from there "Aleha Shemen" "u'Levona" Lechem HaPanim Shemen. "Eima afraid" the Gemara "Aleha Shemen" "u'Levona" Minchas Kohen Shemen. How do you know that "Aleha" is coming to be mayat that there's no din Shemen by the Lechem HaPanim? Maybe it's coming to be mayat Minchas Kohen. Now Rashi says there's no reason to assume that the possuk is being mayat Minchas Kohen in per se. But the base of the Gemara's kasha is is that really any Mincha where the Torah doesn't say "mafurash" needs Shemen. In theory maybe the Mincha that the possuk is referring to when it says "Aleha" regarding the Minchas HaOmer as opposed to others. In fact Rashi says that the Gemara could have mentioned Minchas Nashim and Minchas Gerim other Minchas that the Torah talks about and doesn't have any mention of Shemen. Rashi's "Lashon is "Dechd minan u'nakat" we're just picking one of them. Point is is "Meheicha teisi" where do you see in "Venusata aleha Shemen" "Aleha" "u'Levona" Lechem HaPanim? maybe it's maybe it's either way as I think the Gamara says it was it's that just like this then Shemen by a regular Mincha and this Shemen by the Mincha is probably Shemen by the Mincha as well and the reason is because there are many similarities argues the Gamara between the Mincha and the Mincha what are the similarities? Number one is sorry the sheer of how much sorry was he had to have was the same for the Mincha as it was for the Mincha additionally clean they both required Lisha inside a race hoods they were both prepared in the Azara with Surah they both have a they both had a the issue and they were both put on the and this is in contrast to the the didn't have a sheer the was 12 breads it was a a whole different sheer additionally there was no sorry Sorry as we did the Lisha for the hoods it wasn't prepared in the Azara it was prepared in the Hecha there was no on the it sat on the for a week had got there was no issue and never went on the so the bottom line is is that you have all these similarities between the and the thus it's that if you're going to be something for the you'll be the thing that's less similar is less similar to the then is the but the Gamara says I could show you a whole bunch of similarities that the upon him has than the that the Mincha doesn't have upon him have a little you can't see Buddha number one carbon the upon him was a carbon just like the was they were both obligations was a once to bring a like something that had to be brought the was something that had to be brought to which would be to that's only true for a carbon so the was the was but is not the ochel, they both were eaten. Pigul, they're both shiyach to pigul. And the shabbat, they were both shabbat together because of the carbon and that's all in contrast to the Minchas Omer. Minchas Omer is not shiyach to pigul, it's not Minchas Omer. It's it it's a Minchas Omer. Chayva, there's no obligation to bring it. Because it's a carbon Omer, it's not about to tell me. It wasn't eaten. The Minchas Omer had to be completely burnt on the mizbeach. Therefore, there's no pigul and the shabbat, it couldn't have been brought on shabbat either. Either way it says the Gemara, "Tay say." When it says a little bit of Minchas Omer, it means to be shiyach to carbon and that is no shiyach to the shabbat. Maybe it's coming to be shiyach to Minchas Omer as the Gemara says. Maybe it's coming to be shiyach to Minchas Omer as the Gemara says. That being when the Torah mentions the halacha of shiyach and the classic Mincha that has shiyach and has the vino. The Torah says nefesh ki sakrif carbon Mincha. Nefesh is a walking lotion Omer and it seems to suggest that every Omer that brings a carbon has shiyach. So, it's actually shiyach that if we have a Mincha now that there's a certain Mincha that doesn't have the din shiyach, it's not describing a classic Minchas Omer because the classic Minchas Omer would seem to have a din shiyach. Where would it seem to be that way? From the classic Minchas Omer carbon Mincha. Thus, if I have a classic that's being shiyach to the Omer, it's presumably being shiyach not a carbon Omer but rather a carbon Omer. What's the carbon Omer? The carbon Omer. This next part of the bracha vino. The vino and Minchas Omer vino. So, it said again Minchas Omer vino and shiyach to the Omer vino. And what is the vino coming to be shiyach? That there was a din vino by the Minchas Omer. However, there was no vino by the Minchas Omer. The Gemara says vino Minchas Omer and the same thing. How do you know it's coming to be shiyach? The maybe it's coming to be shiyach Minchas Omer tay say the Minchas Omer. And again, we have no reason to assume Minchas Omer. Could have said Minchas Omer etc. Rashi says again, the Chod Uminaihu Nochis, we just mean to give one example. How do you know you're coming to be memuyat? Minchas Nesochin, maybe it's going to memuyat the Minchas some other Mincha that it doesn't have a din of Levonah. So, the Gemara says Mistaber Minchas Kohanim have a din of Levonah. It's Mistaber that Minchas Kohanim has a din of Levonah just like the Minchas Omer. Shekein, because there are many similarities between the Minchas Kohanim and the Minchas Omer that the Minchas Nesochin doesn't have. So, it's going to be a slightly different list, because here we need similarities not just between the Minchas Omer and the Minchas Kohanim, but we need similarities between the Minchas Omer and the Minchas Kohanim that are not shared with the Minchas Nesochin, right? That's why the list is a little bit different, if you keep in cheshbon. And what are those similarities? Shekein Bol Isur In Bol Bol Like number one, it's an Isur In Bol Bol Like that's mixed together with a Log of Shemen. Mugash, they both had to go on the Mizbei'ach. And Biglal Atzmo, they were both brought on their own account. The Minchas Omer was brought on its own account, and the Minchas Kohanim was brought on its own account. As opposed to the Minchas Nesochin that wasn't an Isur In Bol Bol Like, it also wasn't Mugash, there was no Hagasha, and this it wasn't brought on its own account, it came together, it was an ancillary of a regular Korban. But, the Gemara says, "Adir Rabah, Minchas Nesochin have a din of Levonah. I could show you similarities that the Minchas Nesochin has with the Minchas Omer that's not shared with the Minchas Kohanim. Shekein Tzibburah, they're both a Korban Tzibbur. The Minchas Nesochin came with the Korbanos Tzibbur. So, it's a Korban Tzibbur just like the Minchas Omer. It's Chayavah, you had to bring it. De'isni, you have the lack of Tum'as Ha'Ohel and Tum'as Keli BeTzibbur. And it's Shabbatah, they were brought on Shabbos." So, may he take this, says the Gemara, "Mistaber Nafshi." Again, same cheshbon. That being that the Possuk says, "V'Nefesh Ki Sakrif Korban Mincha." And that Mincha is describing a Mincha that has in it both Shemen and Levonah. It's Mashma, every Minchas Yachid has Shemen and has Levonah. The Minchas Kohanim is Minchas Yachid, so it's Mashma that the Minchas Kohanim does have Levonah. So, it's more Mistaber to be memuyat from Aleha the Minchas Nesochin, which is not Nefesh, it's not a minchas yochid, rather than being memua'et, the minchas koylel, mincho, the next word of the pasuk was mincho, and we said lerabois minchas shmini lemiluin, it's coming to be marbeh that the mincha that was brought on the shmini lemiluin of parshas shmini fame, it had levoina. Says the gemara ve'eima lo itzei, everything told that was a mi'ut, this is suddenly a ribui. Venosato le'Hashem ole oshemen velo ya'alef lechem upon. Vesamto alav levoina, ole levoina, velo ya'alef minchas nesochim. Mincha lerabois, why lerabois? Maybe lo itzei, maybe it's coming to tell me that the mincha that was brought on the shmini lemiluin did not have, says the gemara ha ima, eima lerabois chabibi, eish lo einav it's coming to be marbeh, I understand why you need a pasuk to be marbeh. Ve'eima lo itzei, lo amali, shami de'oraisa lo yalfina, and we had this last week, lechura it in svara there would be no way to learn a din shmini levoina by the korban mincha that was brought on the shmini lemiluin from the fact that every mincha has alacha of levoina because shami de'oraisa lo yalfina. So to tell me a pasuk lo itzei I don't need, because that presupposes that without a mi'ut I would think there's a din levoina. Kamashma lon a mi'ut that there's no levoina, so if the gemara has been it's not true, without a pasuk I would not know a din levoina, because the whole basis to say levoina is because the classic mincha has levoina, the nefesh ki sakred korban mincha there's alacha of vesamto alav levoina, but that's only referring to a mincha of de'oraisa, mincha tzei mincha of shavua. Kamashma lon that's why it's mestabesh says the gemara that if there's a pasuk the pasuk is coming lerabois, it's not coming lo itzei. Now the obvious question is that what do I even need a pasuk to tell me what the alacha was for the mincha that was brought bashmini lemiluin? I mean al zeh ne'emar madaha ha'haver, right? This is whatever happened already happened, so the rishonim struggled with it a little bit. I was thinking we had a gemara last week or 2 weeks ago where the Gemara said that by Bayis Sheini, the they played over the Shmini L'Malon and the carbonos that the Gemara when it was describing some of the very sussum sukum in Sefei Yechezkel. So, one of the psukim over there the Gemara says is referring to the Shmini L'Malon and that Ezra brought when they inaugurated Bayis Sheini the same carbonos that were brought at Shmini L'Malon. So, it comes out that what happened with Shmini L'Malon did have enough communal dairas. It was negiah d'Bayis Hamikdash d'Ezra. Ezra had to know what to do. It's all based on this pasuk. It's not about the hava hava. If it was a one-time event, now it's kasheh shavih Gemara says. But, that doesn't mean it only happened once. If it was never going to happen again, it's a good kasheh, why the hava hava? But, once you find already that it played itself out again, so Ezra, how was Ezra supposed to know what to do? So, my this mincha that I'm going to bring, presumably there was a mincha that he brought. So, is the mincha going to have lavonah or is it not going to have lavonah? That's this pasuk mincha that if at any point in the future parshas Shmini would have to chazus itself over, you would know exactly what you're supposed to do. Regardless, the last word of the pasuk is he, and that teaches me a halacha regarding the shtei halechem, the topic of dafnum ches, shlo yitornu l'shemen v'lo l'vonah d'tzedek lechem. The shtei halechem, although it's a mincha, but at the same time there's no shemen and there's no lavonah. Frankly, the Gemara again, v'eima lo it's a minchas kayanin. Sim d'rei d'mosa, the Gemara is really not letting up. Says the Gemara, maybe when it says he it's coming to be m'mayet minchas kayanin. So, again, v'nisato al lechem shemen. We thought maybe it's being m'mayet minchas kayanin, that didn't work. V'nisato al lavonah, we thought maybe it's coming to be m'mayet minchas kayanin, that failed as well. But now, a third attempt, maybe he is coming to tell me that the minchas kayanin has no shemen and no lavonah. Says the Gemara, it's m'staber minchas kayanin have a little briyah. It's m'staber the minchas kayanin should be m'staber cuz it's much more similar to the minchas omer. Again, that's the context of this pasuk than is the shtei halechem. Shekein issur oyin. It is issur oyin like the minchas omer, that's this year. Clearly, needs to be clean. Matzah. They were both matzah. They had to be matzah. The one also had to be matzah. They come for themselves and not coming along with something else. This is all in contrast to the other one. It's not the one that was matzah. It's one of the two exceptions that the mission mentions in the beginning of the period that were the one that didn't come by itself. Came with the other one. There was no other one. It never went on the other one. It was not the other one. I think it makes more sense to be the other one if you want to go down this road. This is a long list. It's the other one. It's a carbon the other one. Like the other one. Therefore, it's the other one. The other one. It's eaten. As opposed to the other one that wasn't eaten. The other one. The other one. It could be the other one. The other one. It's the other one. The other one. As a matter of fact, they were extremely similar. They were eerily similar. How so? The purpose of the other one was to be the other one. The purpose of the other one was also to be the other one. In the other one. So, the other one was the other one. The other one was the other one. So, they're both the other one. So, they're both the other one. They both had to come from the other one. They had this also in some of the other ones. That the 40 years that they were in the other one. They couldn't bring the other one. Because the other one had to come from the other one. That was in the other one. They both have the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. As opposed to the other one. You bring it whenever you want to bring it. The other one. They both had to come from the other one. And says the other one. By the way, the other one is efficient. This is a much longer list. So, if anything, it makes more sense to be the other one. The other one. The other one. The other one. So, why is it that we're the other one? And we're the other one. Says the other one. The other one. Same as literally the same carrots for all three attempts of the Gamorah made. At the end of the day, there's a possuk that says, "Nefesh ki sakri mincha korban mincha." And that possuk talks about shamen, it talks about levona. Nefesh is mashma korban yochid. It sounds like every single mincha yochid has shamen has levona. Thus, even though there's three miyutin that theoretically, hypothetically, technically could be coming to be memayet different types of gvisas minchas yochid where the Torah doesn't say before the shamen, it doesn't say before the levona. But that possuk of nefesh is mashma that all korbanos yochid, all minchas yochid have a din of shamen, have a din of levona. So if there's a miyut, it's mastaber that it's coming to be memayet not a minchas yochid, it's coming to be memayet a minchas tzibor. What were the three miyutin again? V'nasakta aleha shamen is coming to be memayet the shte the lechem haponim. Lechem haponim was a mincha, it didn't have shamen. It had levona, it didn't have shamen. It's the example of the mishna gives for a mincha that's to unas levona v'eina tuna shamen. Where it says v'nasakta aleha levona is coming to be memayet minchas n'sochin. Thus, it is the example in the mishna of a mincha that's to una shamen but it's eina tuna levona. When it says mincha hi, hi too is a miyut, it's coming to memayet the shte lechem. Shte lechem had no levona. The shte lechem had no shamen. It's one of the three examples that the mishna gave of a mincha that has no shamen or What are the other two examples? The minchas chotei and the minchas skerois. But the point is that all three miyutin are korbanos tzibor. Why korbanos tzibor? Because it's not mashma that there's any minchas yochid on the planet that doesn't have a din shamen and doesn't have a din levona. Nefesh ki sakri korban minchas mashma the rabbis, every single nefesh, every yid that comes into the Beis Hamikdash and he wants to give his nefesh, his minchas oni, there's going to be shamen, there's going to be levona. When you're a minchas chotei, we started already. If it's the tzibor, maybe there's no shamen, maybe there's no levona. But every single mincha zoneh had shabbos, had lavina, right? Shabbos is significant, it makes the carbon muhuder. Lavina the imois are called lavina rashi says in chummash. So every single individual nedava that any yachid brought had shabbos, had lavina. The three miyutos must be talking about carbonos tzibur. Lechem haponeh, minchas nesachim, and respectively. Another mishnah chayev al hashabbos bifnei atzmo, v'chayev al lavina bifnei atzmo. So one of the minchos that had no shabbos and no lavina was minchas choiteh. In fact, the torah says lo yasim aleha shabbos v'lo yiten aleha lavina. By the minchas kanaos the torah says lo yitzak aleha shabbos v'lo yiten aleha lavina. So clearly not only is there no din shabbos and there's no din lavina, but there's a lo saseh. Lo yasim aleha shabbos v'lo yiten aleha lavina. Lo yitzak aleha shabbos v'lo yiten aleha lavina. Says the gemara, so for that reason the chayev al shabbos bifnei atzmo. If somebody puts shabbos he's going to be chayev malchus. Not just that, if only you put a shabbos, you're chayev malchus for putting shabbos. It wouldn't have been a hava mina that the issur shabbos and lavina come together. So if you do both, then there's a chiyuv. That's the chiddush of the mishnah. V'chayev al shabbos bifnei atzmo, v'chayev al lavina bifnei atzmo. Nosan aleha shabbos pasul. If you put shabbos on a minchas choiteh or a minchas kanaos, it's gone. There's nothing you can do with this carbon anymore. Lavina, if you put lavina you'll ketana, you can remove the lavina. As long as you get all the lavina out, it's okay. Nosan shabbos al shiyureiha in the lavina. If you put shabbos on this shiyurei mincha, you're not over the lo saseh. Final halacha nosan clear gabei clear. What if you had the minchas choiteh and minchas kanaos inside a keili and you had shabbos inside a keili and the two keilim touched each other by pasul? And of course it's not going to be reasoned that it should be pasul. The gemara tells rabbanan lo yasim aleha shabbos the in some pasul. Says in the torah you're not allowed to put shabbos on the minchas choiteh. What happens if you do it? It's going to be pasul. Yachol yiten aleha lavina v'nosan pasul. I wouldn't have said it should be true for lavina. That being that the torah says lo yiten aleha lavina, if you put lavina it's going to be pasul as well. Tam lavina k'chatas. The pasuk says possuk. The and the makes a gishmaka drasha. Ki chatas that even after you put the lavon it's still considered a chatas. Yochal after shemen, maybe ki chatas is going back both on shemen and lavon. So whether you put shemen on the you put lavon on the you have this ribboy of ki chatas that tells me that even though you didn't follow the steps still it's going to be kosher. The lavon he says ki chatas see chatas is a ribboy. He is a miut. When marbeh something we marbeh something when marbeh that if you put lavon where you weren't supposed to put the lavon it's still going to be kosher. He is memaet that if you put shemen where you weren't supposed to put shemen it's going to be possul. Thank you the obvious question. How do you know that the ribboy is marbeh lavon and the miut is memaet shemen? Maybe the opposite. Maybe the ribboy is marbeh shemen and the miut is memaet lavon. Says the possul she had shemen. lavon she had shemen. It's common sense. If you put shemen and you mix it together with the salt there's no way to get the shemen out. So it's mashma that that's probably what the Torah means when the Torah says that it's going to be possul. But lavon it's physically possible to remove. Being that you physically can remove the lavon it's mashma that that's what the Torah meant when it said ki chatas that just because you put it there doesn't matter. Remove it and everything is going to be okay. Says the so the Mishnah said shemen possul lavon so we're dealing with they not to put shemen not to put lavon on stating that there's a chiyuv. If you put shemen the mincha is going to be possul. If you put lavon the Mishnah said you'll cut down on it. You can go ahead and be melaket it. Now notice the Mishnah didn't say shiyur. The Mishnah said you'll cut down on it. So wait R' Abba bar R' Yochanan. So R' Abba bar R' Yochanan lavon shchuka what would be if the kohen put lavon on the mincha but he ground the lavon first it was lavon shchuka. What's the halacha? What's the shaila? The Mishnah didn't say shiyur. The Mishnah said not to put lavon you'll cut down on it. So we shouldn't have to act that sounds like a reason it's okay is because you can talk about being this is going to be impossible to be in it. You can't differentiate between the and the so maybe it's going to be possible. I don't know or maybe maybe the reason is is not because you could be but it's because it doesn't intermingle with the in the same way that the shaman does. The shaman becomes in the as opposed to the does not become in the so could be that's the reason. Now the mission has said that's true the mission has said and that will be by the way the is first but the mission is suggesting that you is just another way of saying and the reason it would be is not because you could be but because it's not really so so if it's not really even if it's it's not really you can't be that's not the real reason but the says that's what the mission has said but the mission has said that when it comes to when it comes to so what does it sound like it sounds like the only reason it's is because it could be but if you can't be it's going to be possible could be the mission gave one of two reasons the one reason that it doesn't mention is that it's not additionally you you have to be in other words maybe the real reason that it's kosher by was not even mentioned in the mission talk about but it could be the main reason is because it's not and that would be true even if it's and that's why it's always going to be kosher and the mission has said it's just another reason I saw that some explain that the reason the mission would give maybe the other reason is because being that there's a love when one puts levain on top of these menaces, so the love in the Torah is my highest to go ahead and do a little tequila. So the tequila is something you're going to have to do regardless. So being that you anyways going to have to be malachite it, so and then it's going to be kosher. So the mission just says that you anyways being malachite it, so it's not such an issue. As much as it's not the real reason that it's kosher because it's kosher even when you can't be malachite it, but it is on some level of an equal reason because this is something that you're inevitably going to do. The bottom line is the more says you have no right for the mission. What about from the bracer? The bracer said the same thing. Again, sounds like the reason the levain is kosher is because it's actually like that not because it's not middle of line if that's the case by the levain is cooking wouldn't be the case. Here too you could say it's only one of two reasons like we explained it a minute ago. Bottom line may have you all okay tacos. So we have a shiloh. Again, what would be if the coin put levain sugar on top of these menaces. The mission said you'll get it. Now you can't be malachite. If the reason it's kosher is because the tequila, well now you can't be malachite it. If it's like a comma and the real reason is actually not the reason stated in the mission, but rather because of the fact that it's middle of line, so in that situation it will be kosher. So what's the bottom line? So the mission is a bracer. The bracer says can noise regarding can noise is a menace that have no levain. Levain in the event it was put on it. It's a levain of sugar and the tequila and the levain is going to be kosher. The actually keep the levain here is the punch line. What would be if before the tequila of the levain is before the levain was taken off, he should have a lot. The coin had a lot of sugar. The sugar is money what it was a lot of sugar people of sugar is money people of sugar is money. Either way possibly make a lot of sugar. It's going to be possibly make a lot of sugar. Now this is a because sugar is money is always possibly make a lot of sugar. The sugar is money is always a lot of sugar. The reason is because that's only true Khutzo's culture Khutzo's possible. It has to be a Khutzo's carbon without the Khutzo's pickle. But over here, being that the carbon is anyways possible, and the reason the carbon is anyways possible is because there's Lavana on top of it. So even where it's a Khutzo's money, it's going to be possible for Khutzo's sake, but it's going to be my cars. Should we get Lavana possible be if you took them away the Lavana and then it was Khutzo's well, and then he had the Khutzo's Khutzo's money possible in my cars. In that case, Khutzo's money is going to be possible in my cars. Khutzo's money as opposed to Khutzo's money, people that are cars. If however it's Khutzo's money, so then it there's going to be a a Khutzo's pickle and you're going to be Khutzo's cars in the event that you didn't go ahead and you didn't remove the Lavana, so then it's in a state of Khutzo's and because it's in a state of Khutzo's, so if you have a Khutzo's of Khutzo's money, it's going to be possible in my cars. If however you removed it, so then already it's not in a state of Khutzo's anymore and being that it's not in a state of Khutzo's, so it's for that reason that it's going to be Khutzo's and there's going to be a Khutzo's cars because at this point it's already in a state of Khutzo's. But what do you see from here? You see from here that as long as the Lavana is on top of the Khutzo's, even though it's not below, it's going to be considered Khutzo's. What's the Khutzo's? What do you see from Khutzo's? It's because you see Khutzo's that the Khutzo's of Khutzo's money once the Lavana is on it is possible in my cars. And if that's the case, it means it's a Khutzo's money. Now if you're going to tell me that really anytime you put the Lavana on top of the Khutzo's, it's going to be Khutzo's. It's not just you Khutzo's and then it's going to be Khutzo's, but rather it's always going to be Khutzo's because it's not so if that's the case, so why is it that if you weren't Khutzo's, it's possible in my cars. It should be Khutzo's of cars because it's always a Khutzo's that's Khutzo's. That's a Khutzo's Khutzo's. to one side and the Hakira that what that the Mishnah and the Braisa are bedafka. So not Sun Shemen in the event that you put Shemen Psula Levana you'll get a turn but if you're not Malakit in that case it's going to be possible. What's the Raya if you have a Machshava Spiga at that point it would be possible the Ain Boy Kars. But the Gemara asks one more Kasha and that is the Tahavi Pach in the event that Levana was put on top of the Mincha we should view it as if the Shemen was put on top of the Mincha and it should remain possible forever. And if that's the case why might possible Machshava why is it that the Braisa says that once you Malakit the Levana a Machshava Zmanai would be Piga V'chayav Al of Kars D'chayu L'chayrus D'chayu and being that it's D'chayu so at that point it should not be Piga V'chayav Al of Kars. What does the Gemara mean? The Gemara means to say that we know there's a Psul D'chayu. D'chayu means that once something is Nitzcha from being Raya L'avoda at that point it's never going to be Raya L'avoda. The Gemara's Kasha is that being that while the Levana is on top of the Mincha the Mincha is a problem. So even if you remove it it should remain a problem. And as it relates to Machshava Spiga why is it that it once you Malakit the Levana Machshava Zmanai is going to be Piga V'chayav Al of Kars we should say that even if you remove the Levana it's still D'chayu and being that it was D'chayu the Machshava Spiga shouldn't affect anything. Now if you take a look at Rashi and really from the Lashan of Gemara it's clear the Gemara's Kasha is on the Braisa. The Tahavi Pach by might possible Machshava. Who are you going to thought the Gemara would ask the Kasha on the Mishnah. The Mishnah said Nasan Al Levana Yulkatena. Why Yulkatena? Once it's when the Levana's on it it's a problem. So even if you're going to be Malakit it now at that point it should be a problem. The answer is that that's not a Taina. The reason that's not a Taina is because we have a Mafurasha D'rasha that the Gemara brought on top of the Amratana Rabana L'yosam Al Shemen V'im Sham Pasul Yachol L'yitan Al Levana V'im Nasan Pasul Tamalemi K'chatzos. So we know that there's a D'rasha that says that as long as the levoina is there, it could be a problem. Yeah, I mean that was the boya of the gemara that we just went through. But la maskana, as long as it's there, it's going to be a problem. But once you malaket it for sure based on the drasha, we know it's going to be kosher. So klappe the kashrus and the pasuls of the mincha demar are not asking it should be absul dachi cuz the gemara knows there's a kasuv that already addressed that. What the gemara is asking is that klappe the halacha of katzos kashrus katzos pasul, klappe that then. Here there's a halacha that you need that the carbon should be roil lavoida 100% in order for you to be able to effectuate a machsheves pigul. And the gemara is saying that being that there's a hefsed dachi over here, even though there's a kasuv that says it's kosher, but how much we consider any roil lavoida klappe the halachas of pigul. And for the gemara, amora Abaye, Abaye said, "I hear bakatzas karei rachmana." At the end of the day, the Torah refers to a mincha that has levoina on it. This mincha that's not supposed to have levoina. The mincha is dachi there's a kasuv that's a kasuv we mentioned earlier. "Layoism al sham levoina ki chatosi is chatos karei rachmana even while the levoina is there." And it's for that reason that the machsheves pigul is going to impact it after you remove the levoina that it's going to be pasul and it's going to be a chiyuv kares. And we're not going to look at it as dachi. Rav Amram said a different reason. Again, the gemara is trying to understand now in this braisa, why is it that if there was levoina on it and then you removed the levoina, now if you have a regular pigul, it's going to be pigul. Lecheira, you should say once the levoina was on it, that should make the mincha dachi. And once it's dachi, even though now you already malaket the levoina, maybe that's a change thing. So the gemara is coming from another angle now. You're telling me while the levoina is on the mincha, it's pasul. You could remove the levoina. If you remove the levoina, it's definitely going to be okay. The kasha is that once the levoina being on the mincha made the mincha a mincha pesula, even if you remove it, it's a remain possible because of a of a pesul decha. First time the Gemara came was a bias that it's a pesul. Chazal say the Rambam says it's not pesul decha. Going to the Rambam, he doesn't hold of the pesul decha. Where do you find the Rambam doesn't hold of pesul decha? I feel that because maybe the pesul decha comes out like the context over there is the shnei se'irim that were brought in Yom Kippur. One se'ir went the other se'ir went to Azazel. Look, the both se'irim had to be alive at all times in order for the hakrava of the two respective se'irim to be kosher. What happens if something happens to one of the se'irim? So, according to the Chachamim, it's a major problem because once something happens to one of the se'irim, you can't just go replace the se'ir because being that you need both se'irim alive at all times, if something happens to se'ir aleph, se'ir bet automatically is gone. It it becomes a pesul decha. Stating that Chanam says it's not a problem. I feel that because even if you already shachted this se'ir and with them, if something happens afterwards to the se'ir meshulech, maybe bring a new se'ir meshulech. You shouldn't make a new se'ir. The Rambam says the Chanam doesn't hold of pesul decha. Doesn't hold of pesul decha. This bracha that's mashma that the fact that the was on top of the choyteh didn't disqualify it. It's going to Chanam. That's a different kosher. They have you done. Really the time of the bracha is not Chanam. It's going to the pesul decha. But it could be there's no pesul decha. When something is beyadei, where it's beyadei to fix the pesul, maybe there's no pesul decha. I'm going to have a kosher mashma that you're right. The mashma is for the mashma that you have to do. Who's the Tanna throughout Shas that holds of decha? I mean, most Tannaim hold of decha. It's Chanam that doesn't hold of decha. But who which Tanna says meforesh pesul decha? It's Rabbi Yehuda. The Tanna of the Mishna Rabbi Yehuda says the se'ir makes the se'ir pesul. In the context of the shnei se'irim, if something happens to one, you have to get rid of the other. Something happens to one, you Right, it goes both ways. See, holds so yet the same holds another famous in was worried that maybe the reason they maybe the dam fell out of one of the he said after you're done with all the take a to the to in the event that somebody's not never made it onto the What's the if you worried that the dam fell on the floor and at that point it wasn't in the one you say it's at that point. How does allow you later to clean up this mess? Once the mess happened, shouldn't that be a spot to say it's beyond you see the spot of that's who's the so you would have to say I have another in all related has has so you would have to regarding the holds of yet regarding the says it's okay even if something happened right now the dam is not in a state where you could do doesn't make it why because it's you could always pick it up and and fix it. It's a problem where it wasn't to fix it. You would have to rely on some something else for it to be fixed but if it's to fix it always a spot where it be suitable you can discuss this where it comes up again and again comes up in many in there's a spot where it could be it's like a type idea but but there's a concept of right? So it says you would have to grab you would have to say clearly the bottom line is three truths into this discussion. If there's on top of the it's a problem. If you remove the the price is clear then it everything is good to go. is let it be why do you say it's three truths said that at the end of the day it's called a so you see Robert said, "We're going to coin to my number doesn't hold up so deeply. That's kind of victory." And Rev Ad Rev Ashy said, "Being that it's beyond that you could always remove the Lavina. There's a score of kosher the other way having the excel." So, this morning we learned the fun of this. And the Gamara brought a black Lakers a buyer for the rubber regarding the voice that say in the title of the whole star the whole the vast activity of men of each election. The one surprise that says the word key key closer or key called the vast is coming to be marble even park as we can share. So, closer is the rabbi's park as we can share. Called the vast is the rabbi's park as we can share. The question is what is the share? I was a black Lakers a buyer for the rubber. A buyer said the share is even park as we can share as that if somebody is marked the park as we can share as or park as we can share as of the vast, he's going to be over the issue of the whole star the whole the vast activity of men of each election. Robert said, "No, that park as we can share means because I asked." Park as we can share as but at the end of the day it still has to be because I asked. So, according to a buyer if somebody is marked there park as we can share as the lucky is he's over the issue of the whole star the whole the vast. According to Robert if someone is marked the park as we can share as he's not going to be over this issue. I have this a buyer for the park as we can share as. Park as we can share as means park as we can share as because when you talking about a men hall and you're discussing share what you're thinking is in terms of kindness. Robert holds that the standard kindness that you should use is the could be the river was to be marble half of the standard share which is at the very least a because I asked. A buyer held the standard kindness at less than this issue. That's the one mean marble half of that it's going to be a park as we can share as. The bottom line is according to a buyer if you're marked there less than a because I asked of star and the vast you're over the issue. According to Robert if you're marked there less than a kazayis of sore and devash, you're not going to be over the issur. The Rambam in Hilchos Issurei Mizbeach, perek alef, halacha alef, brings the halacha. Says the Rambam, "Sore u'dvash assurim l'gabei hamizbeach." So, sore and devash are assur to make contact with the mizbeach. The issur b'korshei. And this issur is even b'korshei. Shene'emar, "Ki chol sore u'chol devash lo yisak tiru al gabai. The Rambam says that it's assur to put sore and devash. And this issur is not only a shiur. You're over even if it's a korshei. Feit Kessef Mishnah l'chayei the Rambam paskening like Abaye. So, machlokes Abaye u'Rava d'Gemorah. Abaye says "Chol sore is l'rabbos pachos m'kazayis." Which means what? Even pachos m'kazayis. Rava said the standard shiur is a koymitz which is shnei zeisim. Thus, chol sore is being made by even a kazayis. But l'chayei it's machlokes Abaye u'Rava if you'd be chayev for a korshei. Abaye holds pachos m'kazayis even a korshei. Rava says it has to be at the very least a kazayis. We know the rule. Whenever there's a machlokes Abaye u'Rava, with six exceptions, the Yalkut Gam d'halacha is always like Rava. So, Feit Kessef Mishnah, it's a tam gadol b'me'ei. I don't understand poshut in the Rambam. How's it possible that the Rambam learned the sugiyah in Maseches Menachos daf nun ches and he saw machlokes Abaye u'Rava and he paskened like Abaye? Everybody knows the rule. Every child that learned Avos u'Vanim knows whenever there's a machlokes Abaye u'Rava, the halacha is like Rava. The halacha is not like Abaye. At first glance, divrei haRambam is tzrichin iyun gadol. The Lechem Mishnah right here on this Rambam sends you to another Rambam. He says, "Take a look at the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh Hakorbanos, perek yud gimmel, halacha yud alef." Rambam over there says, "In koymitz pachos m'kishnei zeisim." Rambam says that the shiur koymitz has to be pachos at the very least nei zeisim. U'miktzas hakoymitz magiv es hakoymitz u'modim b'zeh halacha. A koymitz can't be chaser, can't be yoser. It has to be the full shiur. In other words, the paskens that the sheer komets is shnei zeisim, which is shitas Rava in the sugia of menachos that mincha's is greater. Lachma Mishnah says it's a stira to Rambam. Here the Rambam in perek halacha 11, it sounds like a Rambam shita told hold that what's the sheer of kol sor v'chol d'vash that the pasuk is marbeh is afילו b'korshu. That shita's Abaye. Abaye who held that the sheer komets is pochas mishnei zeisim. So when we marbeh half of that it's pochas because I should lost afילו korshu. But Rava who holds that ko ain komets pochas mishnei zeisim held that the ribui of kol sor is only a k'zayis. And the Rambam is hanging in onto this rope from both sides. The Rambam is paskening like Rava in hilchos ma'aseh korbanos perek 13 halacha 11 ain komets pochas mishnei zeisim. And yet the Rambam paskens like Abaye in cheshbon in hilchos issurei mizbei'ach perek 11 halacha 11 where the Rambam says that if someone's over the issur sor afילו b'korshu he's going to be over. Says the Lachma Mishnah from my kashe which is the stiras haRambam. And the Kesef Mishnah's kashe which is how could the Rambam pasken like Abaye? It's very clear to me what the shitas Rambam is. The Rambam paskens like Rava. The Rambam held that ain komets pochas mishnei zeisim. And it's for that reason when the pasuk is marbeh kol sor v'chol d'vash we marbeh only a k'zayis. And that's what the Rambam in ma'aseh korbanos perek 13 halacha 11 said clearly ain komets mishnei zeisim. Cuz we always pasken like Rava. Hilchos kavasim d'Rava. The Var Me'al Tiga. I have the Rambam in hilchos issurei mizbei'ach perek 11 What did the Rambam say? Sor v'dvash assurim l'gabei ha'mizbei'ach. V'issurim b'korshu. All the Rambam says is that it's assur. You know why it's assur? Because we know there's a machlokes R' Akiva and Reish Lakish in Yuma daf ayin gimmel amud beis ayin daled amud alef where the chatzi shiur is assur min ha'Torah or chatzi shiur is mutar min ha'Torah. And the Rambam came to do a pasken like R' Yochanan. The chatzi shiur is assur min ha'Torah. The reason the Rambam held that you're going to be חייב even for a cold shoe of sour is not because that's the sheer that was in this rabbinical sour. It's not the sheer that was in this rabbinical sour. That sheer is a kazayis. Like Rava says in the world like the Rambam himself paskins like Rava in the end of the 13th perek in Hilchos Ma'aser Kevarim. The reason the Rambam said it's ossur b'khol sh'hu because the Rambam totally holds ossur b'lo ta'arah. So less than a kazayis of sour on the mizbei'ach is like garuf from any other sh'hu which is ossur b'lo ta'arah. In other words, when the pasuk was marbeh sh'hu, the sugi that we learned this morning, Menachos daf nun ches, that sugi was coming to say that if somebody's marbeh sh'hu it's if he was marbeh sh'hu. L'mai nafka mina is going to get malkus. But avada gavist, if you're marbeh less than that, it's like garuf from any other what iryan halacha. We have a halacha of sh'hu ossur b'lo ta'arah. Nafka mina is whether you're going to be punished for it. Rav Yochana's halacha of sh'hu ossur b'lo ta'arah is only regarding the issur that there's not going to be malkus. Whether there's a mefurash issur or an issur that's learned out from a drasha, for that there's going to be The Rambam never said you're going to get malkus in perek halacha alef halacha alef The Rambam just said sour and vash ossur migav mizbei'ach ossur b'khol sh'hu. The Rambam never said malkus. The Rambam meant ossur sh'hu. Of course the Rambam paskined like Rava kol yavo el makom b'sholem. As always I look at the halacha Minchas Chinuch in mitzvah kuf yud zayin brings the Rambam's He brings the Kessef Mishneh's kasha, the Lechem Mishneh's terutz, and says the Minchas Chinuch, if you think about it, if you put it all together and look at it now, l'chatchila what you have is a svara Kessef Mishneh. Because I think, says the Minchas Chinuch, that the Lechem Mishneh's terutz is pasht. Of course that's what the Rambam meant. The Rambam said ossur b'khol sh'hu the same way the Rambam said you're not allowed to steal a cold shoe even though we know there's a shiur of pruta. But like the Maggid Mishneh says, because sh'hu is ossur b'lo ta'arah. There's so many places where the Rambam says issur b'khol sh'hu and the biur ha'gra Kessef Mishneh ossur b'lo ta'arah. So faith the Minchas Chinuch on the Kessef Mishneh. He says to me the Lechem Mishneh's teretz is so pashet." And how else do you answer the Shiyur Rama? Of course the Rama mentions Shiyur Rama in his Torah. So he says, "Why did the Kessef Mishnah not learn pashet pshat?" Says the I think pshat in the Kessef Mishnah is half of a fellow based on the chakiros you do of the Shagas Aryeh. The Gemara in Maseches Yoma daf 9 daf when the Gemara brings Rebbe Akiva's shita, so Rebbe Akiva's halacha is learned out from a pasuk. It says, "Kol chelev Rebbe Akiva's shita." But the Gemara then brings a svara. The Gemara says there really is an underlying svara the shitas Rebbe Akiva. And what's the svara? Says the Gemara, "Kivan d'chazi d'itzdarufi isura k'ochal." Being that after a person eats a chatzi shiyur of machalos asuros, let's say chelev, it's chazi d'itzdarufi. A pashet pshat with the Gemara means is that you can eat another chatzi shiyur and that would somehow be mitztaref to the original chatzi shiyur that I ate and create a shiyur of issur. It's for that reason the chatzi shiyur is also not teref. A pashet pshat in this Gemara is the way we just explained it. And that is that we know that whenever there's a halacha of machalos asuros or there's a mitzvas achila. So for example, there's a mitzvah to eat matzah below Pesach. So how much is the shiyur k'zayis? It doesn't mean you have to take a k'zayis, stuff it in your mouth, and swallow it b'neshima achas the way you say aseres b'nei Yisrael. That's not what it means. What it means is you have to eat it within a shiyur. What's the shiyur? B'chdei achilas pras. Two minutes, five minutes, whatever the shiyur is. But you have to eat it within a certain amount of time. And even though over a a seven minute period of time it's going to come out you're doing several achilos, there's a chiddush in the halachos of achilos, whether it's achilos mitzvah or whether it's machalos asuros, that many achilos, although they're different ma'asim, are mitztaref to create one achila as long as they happen within a certain time frame. As long as they happen b'chdei achilas pras. That means if somebody would eat a chatzi shiyur of machalos asuros and then five minutes later would eat another chatzi shiyur of machalos asuros, it'd be mitztaref mafriah that the first hotzishur that he ate was really an achilas siser cuz even though at the time that he ate it he didn't eat this year but whoever had over after he ate the other half that this achila was mitztaref to another achila and it comes out that both achilos were ossur so poskim say what the gemara is saying is rebbe nachman says I don't agree with something called a shiyur and when the torah says you know it means only a kazayis but if you eat a hotzishur it's going to be ossur min ha'torah you know why because it's chazil mitztaref because what would happen if you go now and you eat another half kazayis if you eat another half kazayis it's going to be nispallel min ha'torah that the first half that you ate was ossur thus is the chiddush is the leap of faith even if you don't eat the second half even if you don't eat the second half the first half becomes ossur it becomes ossur because theoretically if you would eat the other half it would come out min ha'torah that the first half that I ate was ossur thus it's what we view as chazil mitztaref the truth is that a mucher that they don't understand it 100% I saw that rebbe [ __ ] vilna the chishuk [ __ ] in his binyan [ __ ] siman mem alef there's a beautiful siman regarding the halachos of hotzishur and he says well what's poshum shiyur in this shiyur is that after you eat a half a shiyur we're concerned that you might eat another half so therefore we tell you don't eat half meaning it's like a that's the way he understood it don't eat half because you could always eat another half it's going to be chazil mitztaref thus we don't want you to eat a half he says that it's only a safek if you're going to eat the other half after you eat the first half so why would we chiyish lesfeka and he makes a tallin the rambam's shita I mean this is classic pilpul that holds that sfeka deraisa lechumra is only midrabbonon ain sham dvarim leflos madomai but that's the poshum shiyur in in the halacha of hotzishur ossur min ha'torah it's based on a svara it's a lashon hagomara talmud bavli yuma ain alef amud alef it's based on chazil mitztaref and poshum shiyur is that even though hotzishur in and of itself is not ossur but being that it could be mitztaref to achilas press therefore even the hotzishur itself becomes ossur but the shagas shiyur in the was to the another way to learn this this is maybe that's how what the means. Maybe the doesn't mean anything so longish. All the means is is at the end of the day the Torah says don't eat you didn't you ate you did what the Torah said you're not supposed to do. Not of us. You didn't need to share. No, the share was not right now you could be to the share. You could have would should have been to the share. This is something you could have possibly done. Instead of eating a half a you could have eaten a whole and had you eaten a whole you would have been over. So even if you ate less than a that is in and of itself going to be an not right now but means that I could have eaten more. Mean all I'm missing is it's I'm missing a little share. If all I'm missing a share that's not enough for it to be awesome. In other words, what's the of which the says is the that underpins doesn't mean that after I ate a half a right now I could eat another half which would make what I ate or it's not what it means. It means that when I ate I could have eaten more. I think that I could have eaten more and that would have been the even though I didn't eat anymore even though there was nothing I could do right now to be so to speak. It doesn't matter. That in and of itself is going to be awesome. Said the what would be the between these two now would be what if you're dealing with an where you don't have the of that is that share the Achilles press. And the context is in he was discussing the by by by by also has a share. And the question is what would be hot share if somebody has a hot share of on is there going to be a hot share or is it not going to be a hot share said the totally these two if hot share because after you did hot share I could be metztaref half a share. That's true when it comes to machalos assurahs. But there's a halacha that achilas prus achilas metztaref. But by Rabbi Matza you don't have that chiddush. Although the wonders out loud why and but ain kama kama but but that's the shagas aryeh assumes that's a halacha. The shagas aryeh assumes that if you would be masha half a share and then a day later you would have another half a share there's no nothing to be metztaref there. So you don't have the chazalas tarufah. The chazalas share won't be metztaref by Rabbi Matza. But if chazalas tarufah doesn't mean that right now I can make them be metztaref. But rather what it means is that I could have would have should have then by Rabbi Matza also I could have had more share. Since for that reason you would have chazalas share also metztaref by Rabbi Matza as well. Says this to answer the previous Jewish kasha there vadvar vatiken. Bottom line is there could be the machlokes between the Kesef Mishnah and the Lechem Mishnah whether the Rambam who says that the lo yisa kol also the mashu mitz chazalas share is totally in these two staddim of the shagas aryeh. Because what's the context of in our sugiyah? We're discussing a lav of aktara. We're not discussing achilah. We're discussing aktara. Ki kol sa'or vekol devash lo yisach tiru mimenu ish lashem. So it's possible there's no one that's going to tell you that two aktaros pachas mikshiur b'chdei achilas prus are going to be metztaref. That's a shiur in achilah. That's not a shiur in aktara. Although although parenthetically being that aktara is always referred to as achilas mizbeach I think it's fair to wonder why it was so possible to maybe aktara is also viewed as an achilah because it's called it you see there's so many halachos of achilahs that permeate. Right? You have the halacha of achilas you can only put kosher food on the mizbeach. But you see there's halachos this this hilchos achilahs that do relate aktara because the Torah calls it as achilah. So maybe you do have the halacha of of chazalas tarufah but but the Kesef Mishnah is sure for sure on that. There's no halacha of chazalas tarufah. If that's the case what pain ach if you're going to assume that chazalas tarufah works is that you could have been marveled in this year. So now by a total you could also could have been marveled in this year. So that's what I have a lot of but maybe the case of Mish understood partial shot in the way it works. Now I can take it out of the but the way it works is that after I eat a half a share I could be most of another half a share. By a total that's not true. After I'm after half a share I can't be marveled in half a share and be it to the first half a share. What's marveled IN TWO ACTORS? BY A THE DISH OF THE DISH of the dish But you don't have that dish by actor. There's nothing to be marveled in if there's nothing to be marveled in. In other words, the dish who assumed for a double portion that the dish means half a share that only works as the dish with the dish of the dish of the dish. The dish you don't need a DISH WITH THE DISH OF THE DISH in order to have half a share with the dish of the dish. The dish of the dish would just mean you could have been had more originally. So that's what it relates to all the That's the case it should relate to all the dishes. That's what I do when I That's why the dish of the dish came with a self-confidence. He says I'll tell you the dish of the dish. I have a dish with my brother. I have a dish with my brother. Half a share with my brother. I have a dish with my brother. The dish of the dish with my brother. He understood partial shot in the dish of the dish. The dish of the dish is the partial dish. The dish of the dish means you need a dish of the dish to be marveled in. So if that's what it means you don't have it. It's for that reason the dish of the dish didn't want to give the dish of the dish a carrot. I can't differ from the dish of the dish. Just add to this one and that is there's another dish. The dish of the dish is in the dish of the dish of the dish. The dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish. The dish of the dish says in the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish. If somebody eats a dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish. How do I know that? It's a dish of the dish. It says dish of the dish and that's somehow dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish of the dish but at the same time if somebody eats kosher, even though there's no as the Rambam, it's still going to be awesome in our Torah. Why is it going to be awesome in our Torah? Because it says in the Torah Frank the Mishnah on this Rambam casually. Normally the Pesach. Why do I need a why do you have to come and tell me that you know that you know how much of the holy Torah came along and you have a Torah? They break the Mishnah and he blows his I don't understand the native in his in the talking that and he talks about it in the because ask the Messiah on the and the native starts the guy with a little color and the native tells him thank you so much for going through my safe for I really appreciate it. He was asking him a on this period that it's that the native wrote in his to answer the Mishnah so the native I'll tell you very positive you know what the is. The whole reason that is awesome in our Torah the says you would have is because it's Torah. It means because after I eat a share, I could always eat another share. What would be if a person eats a of Pesach right as the sun is setting. It's as the sun is setting it at that point you would eat a so the native that of awesome in our Torah would be awesome. Because share awesome in our Torah is predicated on Torah and there's no Torah because how in the world are you going to be there's going to be no way to be so THE NATIVE IS VERY BECAUSE the Mishnah didn't understand why the Rambam needed a I'll tell you why he needed a not for a classic case somebody on the third day decides that he wants to eat a you don't need a for that because the anyways doesn't teach you an English and without an English I know it's the Rambam passes like how to share awesome in our Torah I would say the native would be would be if a person would eat it literally after Pesach as the sun is setting. Over there if you eat the it'd be no way to be Mr. of the other half because the other half already it's too late. As a result you're making a dollar already it's too late. As a result it wouldn't be that's his a true word he says this or at least he wonders out loud whether this would be true. It has to be possible to do it. Doesn't exist. At the end of Pesach. So I'm thinking at first glance means that you need to go ahead and be Mr. You need to be be Mr. You need to be Mr. of it. But that's really only one side had to understand and pay off had to understand That what? doesn't mean that right now I could be Mr. but it's more what I could have done. And as long as I could have been with that's why you have to do that's what like with all the other ones even though there's no nothing to do WITH ALL THAT I DID IT. It's not what I could do now. It's what I could have done. It's like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the way the mission didn't want to answer like the I'm going to have to face that but in the new mission on the bottom so they bring here that that seems to be the way the mission wants to explain why the mission didn't understand the way the mission didn't understand that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission in the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why the mission that he said why We'll leave it at that.