Menachos 61

Today's stuff is Menachis stuff, samech aleph, and we will begin from the Mishnah on the top of daf samech aleph, amud aleph. So, the Mishnah on daf samech mentioned yesh t'unois hagasha v'ein t'unois t'nufa. There's certain korbanos that have a mitzvah of hagasha but don't have a mitzvah of t'nufa. Hagasha v't'nufa, there are korbanos that have a mitzvah of hagasha and a mitzvah of t'nufa. T'nufa v'lo hagasha, some korbanos have a mitzvah of t'nufa but don't have a mitzvah of hagasha. And then finally, there's a fourth category, lo t'nufa v'lo hagasha. There are korbanos that don't have a mitzvah of t'nufa and don't have a mitzvah of hagasha. Then the Mishnah went on to describe the category of korbanos that have a mitzvah of hagasha but do not have a mitzvah of t'nufa. So, the Mishnah on daf samech aleph picks up on that note and is now going to discuss the other three categories. Look at the Mishnah, eilu t'unois t'nufa d'ein t'unois hagasha. The following korbanos have a mitzvah of t'nufa but do not have a mitzvah of hagasha. Like shemen sham metzora v'asham. The korban asham that the metzora used to bring b'yom taharaso and the like shemen that was unique to the korban that the metzora used to bring, both of those have a mitzvah of t'nufa but there's no mitzvah of hagasha. So, there was a mitzvah of t'nufa for the kohein to do with the asham that the metzora brought together with the like shemen. The Gemara will talk a little bit more about this. V'habikurim kidivrei Bnei Yakov. Going to Bnei Yakov, there was a mitzvah of t'nufa with bikurim. Every time a Yid would come to the Beis Hamikdash, he would bring his bikurim to the kohein. There was a mitzvah of t'nufa. No hagasha but t'nufa. V'eimurei shlamei yachid v'chaze v'shok sh'lahem. The eimurim of a shlamei yachid. So, anytime a yachid brought his korban shlamim, the eimurim would go on the mizbei'ach. So, the cheilek of the shlamim that went on the mizbei'ach before it went on the mizbei'ach had a mitzvah of t'nufa. Additionally, the chaze and the shok. The chaze is the breast of the shlamim, the shaikh is the thigh of the shlamim. They did not go on the mizbeach, rather they were part of the matnas kehuna, they were given to the kohanim, but they were included in the mitzvah of tenufa. So, the tenufa of the shlamei yachid included both the chalav and the chelev that went legavoha, that went to Hakadosh Baruchu, and the chazan and the shaikh, that's what went to the kohanim. Echad anashim, the echad nashim, the mitzvah of tenufa applies both with men and with women. Beis Yisrael, stating that it's beis Yisrael u'lo b'cheil, the Gemara will explain that line. Shnei halechem u'shnei kivsei atzeres, the shnei halechem u'shnei kivsei atzeres also had a mitzvah of tenufa. Keitzad hu oseh? How was the mitzvah of tenufa done with the shnei halechem u'shnei kivsei atzeres? Loisef shnei halechem al gabei shnei kvasim, he would put the shnei halechem on top of the two kvasim, that was the shlamei tzibur. U'meniach shtei yadot milmata, he would put his two hands on top of that. So, his hands on top of his hands are the kivsei atzeres, on top of the kivsei atzeres are the shnei halechem, and then he would start to shuckle. Moilich u'meivi, moilich u'morid. More about this in tomorrow's daf. Similar to the way you shuckle a lulav, the Gemara will say that. She'ne'emar, "Asher hunaf v'asher huram." Tenufa is over the mizbeach, tenufa was done by the mizbeach, but it was done on the mizrach side of the mizbeach. Hagasha b'ma'arav, the mitzvah of hagasha was done on the ma'arav side of the mizbeach. Tenufa is kodem l'hagasha. So, additionally, if you have a korban that has a mitzvah of tenufa and hagasha, so which one comes first? Tenufa comes before hagasha. Next, minchas ha'oimer and minchas kana'os t'unim hagasha with tenufa. So, the previous Mishnah discussed korbanos that have a mitzvah of hagasha but no mitzvah of tenufa. We just discussed the list of those that have tenufa and no hagasha. What about the ones that have both tenufa and hagasha? It's a very short list. The minchas ha'oimer and the minchas kana'os. Those two menachos which are unique in so many different ways. They're unique that there was no shemen, they're unique that there was no levoina, thus their commits ended up being very unique. Another unique quality of the Minchas Chaitis and the Minchas Kenoise was that they had a mitzvah of tnuva and they had a mitzvah of lechem uponim with Minchas Misachin ain to unoise hagasha v'loi tnuva. Shimon Shimon says gimel minin to uno gimel mitzvos. Shteim b'chol achas v'achas b'shlishis em b'hem. So Shimon said that there are three korbanos that need two of three of the following mitzvos. So Rav Shimon said you can line up three korbanos on one side, three mitzvos on the other side, and I could tell you that all three of these korbanos that you lined up are going to need two of the three mitzvos that you lined up, but none of them are going to have all three. All three are going to have two of the three. Okay. V'eilu hein zivchei shlamei tzibur. That's one of the three korbanos that we're lining up. Zivchei shlamei yachid and the asham metzora. And Rav Shimon explains, zivchei shlamei yachid needs two of the three. Which three? Tnuva and smicha michayen. Had a mitzvah of smicha while the animal was alive. The tnuva shchuten that was mitzvah of tnuva that was meant to be done after the shchita already took place. The im b'hem tnuva chayei. Which one of the three mitzvos does it not have? There was no mitzvah of tnuva michayen. So in other words, the three korbanos that we're lining up are the shlamei yachid. That's any shlamei that a yachid is bringing. The shlamei tzibur. That's only the shnei kifsay atzaros. The two loaves that were brought together with the shtei lechem on Shavuos. And the asham metzora. Those are the three korbanos. What are the three mitzvos? Smicha, tnuva michayen, and tnuva l'achar shchita. Tnuva l'achar misa. So the first one, which is the shlamei yachid, needed two of the three. Which two did it need? Smicha and tnuva shchuten. Which one does it not have? There's no tnuva michayen. Zivchei shlamei tzibur tnuva tnuva chayei v'shchuten. It has the both tnuvas. It has the tnuva while the animal is alive. Tnuva when the animal is not alive anymore. Then there's smicha. However, there's no smicha. The asham metzora, the asham needs that anybody else is going to talk about this more tomorrow stop one thing you see clearly holds that there was a difference between the midst of and the midst of again much greater detail into Mars talk to Mars the Hebrew voice of the like the commission had mentioned to do with the eight The first thing the mission said was like so it's the so the carbon that the would bring and it's like both require now how do you know that so the immediately brings a it's a in the the says very clearly the Hebrew voice of the so we're talking about the of the that it's like that's the like the Hebrew voice of the so it's very clear the fact that the and the like of the require is a part we have to do is be it's a part of the stating that the words the Hebrew voice of the of the is the subject of this and the is giving me the every word in this says the from the words the Hebrew voice of the we learn that he's supposed to do the together meaning you don't do it independently for the and then it independently for the like but you do it together where do you see that the Hebrew voice of the together that's the way you're supposed to do the we how do you know that if you do them individually it's okay because the says the Hebrew voice of the the that it's like and then it says the Hebrew so as much as it says the Hebrew but if you would stop after the word the Hebrew and it would sound like it's going back on the last thing you said the like or on the previous thing you said the so on the one hand it says oisam, is together but then again it says vaheinis. It doesn't say vaheinisam or It says vaheinis. Thus, it suggests that you can even do one. How do you reconcile that? L'chatchila, it's oisam. But yeah, but if you did them individually, it's going to be oisam. Okay, says the Gemara, how do you know? Maybe the way you reconcile vaheinis, which suggests one at a time, and oisam, which suggests both, is by doing two tnufo's. Yachol yainif v'yachsir yainif. Maybe do a tnufa together, then do a tnufa individually, like this. You'll be yoitzei oisam and you'll be yoitzei vaheinis tam when you do a tnufa. Because then the Torah says again, vaheinis oisam tnufa. Tnufo's al lashon yachid, it's mashma one tnufa, v'lo tnufo's, not multiple tnufo's. Lifnei Hashem. What does lifnei Hashem mean? Bemizrach means that it's supposed to be bemizrach, on the mizrach side of the mizbeach. And so for that reason, the Mishna said that the tnufa oiseh bemizrach. It's based on this braisa, this pasuk. Lifnei Hashem means mizrach. Says the Gemara, lifnei Hashem means mizrach. For amrad, we know throughout Zevachim lifnei Hashem is yochal b'ma'ariv. It always means ma'ariv, says the Gemara. Amri, hanimi l'mincha d'kurban chatas. That context, where it says lifnei Hashem b'ma'ariv, was talking about a korban mincha. A korban mincha is called chatas. Torah refers to the korban mincha as a chatas. The minchas choteh, the mincha that was brought in the context of the korban oil v'yayin, the Torah says was brought like a chatas. Thus, you see it has a din of a chatas. The chatas tzriha yosai. The chatas needed yosai. The zrika of a chatas needed yosai. V'kein amri d'ramis mizrach l'heiyos yosai. And the d'ramis mizrach of the part of mizbeach didn't have yosai. Thus, when you're talking about a mincha, it has to be referring to ma'ariv, cuz only the ma'ariv part of the mizbeach that's lifnei Hashem had yosai. But the mizrach part of the mizbeach that's lifnei Hashem didn't have yosai. Aval hacha, but over here, where it doesn't say anything about a chatas, we're talking about the asham etc., which is not asham etc., chatas. We're We're about the lo l'shem asham etc., which is not like a Chatas. It all it needs is to be Lifnei Hashem. And Lifnei Hashem could be satisfied by putting it on the Mizrach side of the Mizbeach, not only by putting it on the Maariv side of the Mizbeach. So, what do we mean? We're going according to the Manama that holds we know there's Machlokes in Shas where exactly the Mizbeach was within the Azara. One Manama says it was smack in the middle. It was Machta Betzfon. Machta Bedarom. Which means that if you walked out of the Heichal, you would hit the Maariv side of the Mizbeach. So, Maariv was the real part of the Mizbeach that was Lifnei Hashem. But, there's also Manama that says that the entire Miz beach was Betzfon. Which means that if you walked out of the Mizbeach, well, you walked out of the Heichal and you came to the Mizbeach, so you would hit the Maariv wall of the Mizbeach. But, at the same time, the Mizrachis Deromis of the Mizbeach, you have a picture, it's much easier to visualize this, was also considered Lifnei Hashem. Because you walk out of the Mizbeach, you just face a little bit to the left, so you see the whole Darom side of the Mizbeach. And you have Maariv is Deromis going to Mizrachis Deromis. So, for that reason, there's a Mizrach part of the Mizbeach that could also be deemed Lifnei Hashem. It's Mizrachis Deromis, not the Mizrach wall. The Mizrach wall is on the other side of the Mizbeach. That's not called Lifnei Hashem. It's the place where Mizrach and Darom hits. Because being that the entire Darom is Lifnei Hashem, so Mizrachis Deromis is also considered Lifnei Hashem. So, when our Sugya says that Mizrach could be considered Lifnei Hashem, thus the Mishnah that says the true form of the Asham and the Shemen Hamishcha is considered Lifnei Hashem, it's based on the Mizrach part of the Mizbeach that's Lifnei Hashem. Specifically Mizrachis Deromis. Now, Mizrachis Deromis didn't have a Yesod. Mizrachis Deromis was the only corner of the Mizbeach that didn't have a Yesod. This is Vakha 101. There was no Yesod there. Thus, where there's a Halacha of Lifnei Hashem and you have to have a Yesod, such as by a Mincha because the Torah called Mincha Chatas, and just like Chatas needs a Yesod, Mincha needs a Yesod. So, it's automatically going to exclude any part of Mizrach of being Lifnei Hashem. It's not possible to get cuz the only part of Mizrah that could be lifnei Hashem is the corner of Mizrah is the right Mizrah in the right side. So, being there in the right side by definition, if you're talking about lifnei Hashem in the context of a Mincha which is like a Chata'as, you're you're you're down to Ma'ariv. That's the only place that's going to work. But, being that by the Mitzvah it doesn't say anything about Chata'as. Thus, you don't have a din of Yotzei. You don't have a din Yotzei if the Mizbeach wasn't Saufen, then Mizrah then Mizrah is the right Mizrah is considered lifnei Hashem. Thus, the Mishnah says lifnei Hashem Mizrah. Now, by the way, Rashi says it doesn't have to be Mizrah. If you wanted to do it Ma'ariv, you could do it Ma'ariv also cuz our Sugya is not coming out that only Mizrah is the right Mizrah is lifnei Hashem. Thus, that's the only place the Torah was referring to when it said the Hinei Osei Tefillah lifnei Hashem. Rashi's washing is is you could also do it Kol Yamei Chafila be Mizrah K'ein be lifnei Hashem. In contrast to most Sugyas, where lifnei Hashem is going to be Ma'ariv, over here lifnei Hashem could mean Mizrah. Either way, the Habikurim the Mishnah said ben Yaakov that Bikurim also has a Mitzvah of Tenufah, but only according to one Shita. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, so you don't always find a washing on a Mishnah like that. Usually the Mishnah says the Halacha divrei Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's Shita says the Mishnah that holds that Bikurim has a Mitzvah of Tenufah so that you could add Bikurim to the list of those that have Tenufah but don't have Agasha cuz there's no Agasha by Bikurim. So, after the Gemara Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who's this Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov? It's Rabbi Tanya, it's Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in a Braisa. So, after the Gemara, "Velakach Hakoyen" it says in the Torah, "Velakach Hakoyen Tenai Yado Vehemicah lifnei Mizbach Hashem Elokecha." Says Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the word "Velakach" means not just that the Koyen should take "Tenai Yado", but he should do a Mitzvah with it. "Yumid Habikurim she tum Tenufah." Says Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, "Ma itam Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?" "Kama Yad Yad Mishnah." "K'siv "Velakach Hakoyen Tenai Yado". Says the word "Yado". K'siv also when it says regarding the Shlamim >> It's true for. So, we learn coin after all on coin. Just like number one that means true. Just give me true for my slogan. It means true for over here. Additionally, additionally, just like over here, who's the one that's taking it? Coin. It's talking about a coin. So, we could actually learn a law for regarding the midst of true for by a slogan from the midst of true for from the coin. So, again, the fact that there's a midst of true for by the coin and learns yeah, yeah, it says yeah, yeah. Now, continues and he says once I know the midst of true for by the coin, how do I know what I know? It's from slogan. So, now I can learn something about true for slogan from the coin. What is that? Who does the true for? Meaning, I don't know. It's a good question. It's true for not by the one that's done by a coin. Maybe the violin does it. Maybe anybody could do it. Says Jacob, I learn it from this coin. Look at that coin. It says clearly that who's doing the true for the coin. So, after all on coin, so do by a slogan. All other areas of true for could be done by a slogan. And by the way, who if you look at that that talks about the midst of true for by a slogan, it actually says the violin is the one that did it. I've got violin. By the coin, the violin has to do it also. So, what's going on? Do we learn from the coin and that the coin coin or do we learn from slogan that the violin does the true for? Okay, it's violin what happens is the coin would put his hand underneath the hand of the violin and together they would do true for again a lot more about true for logistically in tomorrow's so the mission said that a coin there was a midst of true for by the coin. Is the only sheet and shot that holds to a true for by the coin? For the time we have to do it. It says in the fact that races I should not have shown the way I should not have shown the way I should not have shown the way I should not have shown the way I not They talk about that's the partial of micro big but either way Rabbi Yehuda says that he is in any other case that he is not the kind of person who is going to do this as well. Rabbi Yehuda just like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that the mission of why did the mission say needs to do different Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov as if to say it's only Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and only Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. I found Rabbi Yehuda as well. Why is the mission mentioning Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and not Rabbi Yehuda? And the mission says due to all my rabble the first is oil and by a couple of because the car to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is from a word that comes earlier than Rabbi Yehuda's word. The coin at the beginning of the mission of Yaakov that's the word of possible David. The possible mission of Rabbi Yehuda that seems to be the mission of Rabbi Yehuda is the word of possible so being that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's possible is six earlier than Rabbi Yehuda's possible so he learns it from an earlier word from an earlier possible thus it's his that was mentioned an interesting Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak and even more interesting and that will be the topic of today's oil of so what does that mean? So you know what we're mentioning Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov was a wiser man than Rabbi Yehuda. He was a wiser man. He was a bigger how do I know that? The kind of so the mission of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov everybody knows that the mission of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is what does that mean? There isn't a lot of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in but everything Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said is pristine thus being that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov was a greater being that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov was a greater Hachamim Yehuda so we can quote either Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov or we can quote Rabbi Yehuda. We'd rather quote Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. We'll get to the right a little bit later. Mishnah said that another thing that has a mitzvah of tenufah, of the Shalmei Yachid, that's the cheilek of the Shalmei Yachid that went to the Mizbei'ach, the cheilek of the Shalmei Yachid that was given over to the Kohanim. And then the Mishnah said that the mitzvah of tenufah relates both to men and women. However, be strong and I will go with him. So the Gemara my karma. And Rashi explains that the Gemara thinks that be strong and I will go with him is coming to exclude Noshim. And if that's the case, we have a steer one word of the Mishnah to the next word of the Mishnah. Here the Mishnah said Noshim women are included in the mitzvah of tenufah. And then the Mishnah says be strong and I will go with him, which is mashma Noshim are excluded. So are women included or are they excluded? So the Gemara my karma. How do you reconcile this? And Noshim that Noshim carbon tenufah. Whether a man brings a carbon or a woman brings a carbon, their carbon is going to require tenufah. The tenufah atzmo, however, as it relates to who does the tenufah, be strong and I will go with him Noshim. If a man is bringing it, then the the ba'al carbon is going to participate in the actual tenufah. If a woman is the one bringing the carbon, then she will not participate. In other words, be strong and I will go with him. How is that? How is tenufah done? So the Kohanim will do it together with the ba'al. The Kohanim will take his hand, put it underneath the hand of the ba'al, and together they would do the mitzvah of tenufah. That was only done if a man was bringing the carbon. But if a woman was bringing the carbon, then only the Kohanim would do it. The woman herself would not be involved. So when the Mishnah says Noshim it means the woman's carbon has tenufah. When the Mishnah says be strong and I will go with him, it means the woman herself did not participate in the tenufah. So in the context of tenufah, the Torah says the words that it's Israel as opposed to Israel as opposed to you see elaborated on this. He said Israel the carbon with carbon you find between a carbon Israel versus a carbon that a guy brings or a carbon that a woman brings with regards to a guy doesn't do a woman doesn't do I would think the same should be true by true for says one word absolutely not why my by the reason there's no there's no by a carbon of a guy and a carbon of a is because you need to buy them to do this I've been there a woman can't do this and a guy can't do this and you can't make a to do this so you're there's no way to do it but but you don't need to exclude from the carbon of a guy and a carbon of a woman cuz although the woman herself and the guy himself cannot do the like we just said but a coin also plays a role in the and being that a coin could do it it's for that reason there's no reason to so what then does it mean when we say Israel as opposed to a guy and a woman I thought you just said that it's only by they're excluded but by they're not what it means is but it means physically practically who actually does the so again the you see with his elaboration and who's reconciling our mission everybody saying the same thing what everybody saying is is that if a woman brings a carbon her carbon has a of stating that her is going to be a little bit different than an ordinary cuz ordinarily the way goes down is that the and the coin together do the if a woman brings the carbon it's only the coin that's going to do the she herself as the of the carbon is not going to do two. When it comes to smicha, says the Gemara, FYI, when it comes to smicha, their woman's carbon doesn't have smicha at all. And the reason is because just like a woman can't do tenufa, a woman can't do smicha. By tenufa, the cohen also plays a role. By smicha, there's no cohen playing a role. The smicha has to be done dafka by the ba'alim. And being that it has to be done dafka by the ba'alim, so being that a woman can't do it, there's no way to have smicha. But again, we're not learning the sugias of smicha. We're learning the sugias of tenufa. A guy's carbon and a woman's carbon has tenufa. Stating that it's the cohen that does it as opposed to the cohen doing it together with the ba'alim. One interesting thing is that there's clearly a discussion in the Gemara that without a pasuk, there would have been a hava mina that the cohen together with the woman would do the tenufa. Now, the way the tenufa was done is that the cohen would have to put his hands underneath the hands of the woman or underneath the hands of the ba'alim, and that's how the tenufa was done. So, bishlama, if it's a a man, so I understand. But if it's a woman, aren't you running into a negiah issue? How would the cohen be allowed to put his hand underneath the hand of the woman? L'chora, there's an issue of negiah. So, how is this something that would be okay? So, you'll tell me maybe it's not derech kibud. That's not so poshut at all. So, maybe we'll talk a little bit about this in tomorrow's daf. But regardless, va'iteh tanyei d'ochrei Yisrael in the olam haba Yisrael, geirim v'avdei meshuchrarim. It says in the parsha of smicha bnei Yisrael. And from there, I would think maybe bnei Yisrael, but maybe someone that was only born a Yid. But what about a ger or an eved k'na'ani that had shichrur and now became a Yid? And maybe they're not included in the mitzvah of tenufa. Tam u'l'o im ein hamakriv. It says in the Torah hamakriv. Hamakriv is mareh b'geirim and avdei meshuchrarim that they're included in the mitzvah of tenufa. O yeino freich d'Gemara. Ela zeh cohen hamakriv. Maybe when it says hamakriv, what it's coming to teach me is that the makriv, the one that does the avodah, he should be the one that does the tenufa. That it's only the cohen that does the tenufa. K'shmei d'yalid t'yanai b'eilam. We already had earlier in the avodah from the gzeirah shavah. It says in the foireish actually by the Shavuot that the by one were involved in the midst of of to Nufal. So it can't be that a mackerel is coming to teach me only the coin does the true for. What is a mackerel teaching me game and above the mission for them? They also have a midst for of to Nufal. Says the Gamora okay that. Now it's not clear what the Gamora is catching now is of okay that. What's bothering me? Okay that's like we're coming to explain something. What's okay that's a rash he says okay that is that if it's from Yod if to the end of the possible that the Gamora just brought by the Shavuot Yod he we know that the by one does the to Nufal. I it says a mackerel which means the coin does to Nufal which is a little bit of a cash because the Gamora just said a mackerel is not coming to teach me that the coin does to Nufal. A mackerel is coming to teach me game and above the mission for them. But either way the Gamora asks okay that. Coming in here he all the time they by one will make it. At the end of the day the coin does me to Nufal. The by one does to Nufal. They do it together and they do it by the coin putting his hand underneath the hands of the by one. Okay that also. The near a mural on pieces of iron. The cause of the show you can lay. In the context of the Shavuot Yod he the way the to Nufal was done again the mission of said to Nufal with the Shavuot Yod he was done with two parts of the car. It was done with the color of and that's the part that's going to go on the miss bear. And it was done with the cause of the show you can that's the part that's going to be given over to the guy. It's the case that also the near a mural on pieces of iron. They put the mural on top of your hand. The cause of the show you can lay hand. See you have the coins hand on bottom. The by one's hand on top of that. You have the color of on top of that. The cause of the show you can on top of that. And by the way the whole welcome to you if there's bread involved in the to Nufal a lot of by one. The bread is going to be on top of that. Hey how what's that referring to? Rash he says hey how ask and let him the let him on the by one. More about this in tomorrow's that. So the Gamora says I'm going to pop up in the middle. It's referring to the middle. I hear by the national meeting there was a lot of there was to Nufal. The lot of was supposed to be on top. So to my time how do you know that in the standard to Nufal of the Shavuot Yod he that involves both a mural color of and one of them is how do you know that the supposed to be on top of the the you have it says the that's the that's the and the this is the and the put them on top of the to do the for it's pretty clear right but the says there's another that says in the the I'll have you it sounds like the used to be on top of the says I don't like two different stages when the says that's talking about the bringing it where is he bringing it from the kitchen from the he's bringing it from the over here the was on top of the but the first of you that's talking about discussing not talking about what the positioning was when it was being brought from the we're talking about what the positioning was by the and there it's very clear the was on top of of the but the says is that true there's another they I'll have you put the on top of the on top of the the there's another that seems to suggest that the was on top of the so the says that the that's talking about after you did the the would take the the and he would pass it over now to the another and that would go and he would do the and this is the that the that there were three that had to be involved in that what's the reason for the more the more beautiful the is going to be this is She rose, is like real so mad at when it comes to tfila, avoida shibolev, you know, that avoida that we have today in golos. There's an idea of berov am hadras melech. Kavu chaim even ben nasho kavu chaim even ben nasho English itself. It was certainly an idea of berov am hadras melech. So, what's poshin shana in this gemara? So, the way Rashi explains the gemara is that a kohen would take the parts of the animal from the base hamikdash. That's where everything was being prepared. So, you did the shchita in the azara, then it goes to the base hamikdash where, you know, they start sorting out the different parts of the animal. The butchers, the keyanim, they're all working on it. And now, they go to one of the keyanim and they give him the chalavim and the chalav of a shok. He has to go through the mitzvah of tnufa. So, they would give him the chalav of a shok and they would put the chelev on top. He would bring it to the kohen by the mizbeach who has to do the mitzvah of tnufa. When he would give it to him, he would pass it over to him. The way he passed it over to him, he would flip it. So, if this kohen right now, who's walking from the base hamikdash, is holding it in a way with the chalav of a shok on the bottom and the chalav on the top, when he passes it over and flips it, so now it's going to be in reverse. So, now the chalavim is going to be on the bottom and the chalav of a shok is going to be on top. He does the tnufa. That kohen now passes it over to a third kohen who's going to do the actual aktara. When he passes over to the third kohen, he flips it again. So, this idea of having the chalavim on top and then the chalav of a shok on top and then the chalavim on top, what's the significance? No, the significance is it's not the same kohen who keeps on flipping it. The nice place we have three keyanim. That's what the gemara is saying. You see we have three keyanim because it's as one is handing it over to the other one, the way he's handing it to him is by flipping it to him. Oh, so you see three keyanim. That already has a chashiva. That makes a lot of sense. That's based on the idea of berov am hadras melech excels. So, either way, we learned the a very straightforward daf regarding the mitzvos of tnufa. A lot more about tnufa in tomorrow's daf. But, just to tell you something one interesting thing. The mishnah said that bikurim has a mitzvah of tnufa kidivrei Rebbi Elazar ben Yaakov. And the gemara asked the kasha, is it only according to Rebbi Elazar Eliezer that is a mitzvah of tenufah lechurah. There's a mitzvah of tenufah according to Rebbe Yehudah as well. There's a braisa where Rebbe Yehudah says that Rebbe Akiva says there's a mitzvah of tenufah. Says the Gemara, two terutzim. One terutz is Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov learned it from a pasuk that earlier in the parsha of Bikkurim than Rebbe Yehudah's pasuk, so we picked the tanna who learns it from the earlier source versus the tanna that learns it from the later source. Second terutz, Rebbe Nachman bar Yitzchak came out and argued with Rav Gavra. That's very simple. The Gemara wasn't going to mention all the tanna. So we're mentioning one tanna. We could pick between Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rebbe Yehudah. Lo nishma ba'chira goes to Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. You know why? Rav Gavra. It's like Rav Gavra, what does that mean English? Sho hu chacham be'yoser. Because he was a greater chacham. And how did he know he was a greater chacham? The kaima mishnas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov kavinakin, which means that there's not a lot of Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov, but Naki, that law is like Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. So if you mean that the law follows Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov, so it's for that reason that we picked Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov, we didn't pick Rebbe Yehudah. Now, first glance, it bothered me a little bit that it's true, mishnas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov is kavinakin. Meaning we pasken the law is like Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. But is the law not like Rebbe Yehudah? The Gemara says in maseches Eruvin daf mem vav amud beis, that whenever there's a machlokes between Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Yehudah, the law is like Rebbe Yehudah. Whenever there's a machlokes between Rebbe Shimon and Rebbe Yehudah, the law is like Rebbe Yehudah. So the law is very often like Rebbe Yehudah. So if the law is very often like Rebbe Yehudah, it's true on the one hand, the Gemara says in Gittin samech zayin and in other places in Shas, that mishnas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov is kavinakin, but lechurah, isn't the law very often like Rebbe Yehudah as well? But I think poshut shav is. It's Rashi's way of teaching. Because if you look at Rashi in maseches Gittin daf samech zayin amud aleph, says Rashi, mishnas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov kavinakin. Lo ramai harbei k'sha'ar chaveiro. Mishnas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov was kav, meaning there's a little bit of Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. He didn't teach He didn't give as many shiurim as his chaveiran, as some of the other Ella however martial whatever he said nokihu the is always like in other words Rebbe doesn't mean that sometimes like that often like rash is washing is that is my love so it's rash because although the mother says in that whatever argue and whatever Rebbe argue but that same says whatever Rebbe argue and there's a lot of Rebbe that is like so that is not like Rebbe so what's unique about Rebbe is that it's not key in the sense that come over as opposed to Rebbe where although is very often come over but it's not I mean that it's not that's what the means to say Rebbe has a he was Rebbe that it's come over in contrast to Rebbe where you don't find this idea Rebbe come over but the truth is that this Rebbe is a very big and there's many many hours on Rebbe and Rebbe from Rebbe that not everybody agreed with Rebbe where Rebbe says that Rebbe come over means Rebbe come over and the most obvious is something we've spoken out many times in is the the Rebbe is also in the Rebbe it's in the fourth paragraph and Rebbe in the Rebbe and this comes out in the not like Rebbe Rebbe how could I come out not like Rebbe Rebbe is so the Rebbe because Rebbe Rebbe that he heard from a Rebbe based Rebbe come over Rebbe is Rebbe Rebbe is big 102. There's 102 places says Rabbeinu Chananel that the halakha is like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, but it's not halakha k'Moshe it's only in 102 places. Says the Rosh maybe this sugiyah that I'm coming out I think it's mashma not like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is not from the 102. It's not from the 102 maybe I'm not m'shubad to pasken like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov cuz you could always argue that it's not like it's not from those but the bottom line is the Rashba says in halakha k'Moshe so we have a Rosh in Eruvin in the fourth perek if you want to look it up it's in siman bet who quotes Rabbeinu Chananel who says Mishnah's Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov kaf 102 and right away the Rosh is saying in minyan kaf but the bottom line is he says it's not halakha k'Moshe cuz it's only in 102 places. Another matter of is a Rambam. The Rambam in Hilkhot Beit HaBechirah perek bet halakha yud chet. The context over there Hilkhot Beit HaBechirah is katan but it's really based on a sugiyah not in Zevachim and Menachot it's more a sugiyah in Masechet Zevachim and the Gemara. The Rambam is discussing laws related to pigum HaMizbe'ach nifgam HaMizbe'ach that is something that comes up in Masechet Zevachim. What happens if the Mizbe'ach was nifgam it got chipped it's not in its perfect state. How does that impact halakhot? Okay the Gemara in Chullin brings up a braisa a machloket is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov what the shiur of pigum HaMizbe'ach is as it relates to these halakhot. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says tefach that if the Mizbe'ach was nifgam a tefach you have that whole Shulchan Aruch. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says k'zayit. What does the Rambam say? The Rambam in Hilkhot Beit HaBechirah perek bet halakha yud chet Mizbe'ach she'nifgam even on it. Im nifgam even on it tefach if the pigum was a tefach pasul. Pachot mi'tefach kasher. Who sh'vaya b'nisha ever piguma on in other words in the Bryson how much that that that possible It's a pillow. That's Rush B. We know the rule. says who possible You know why? That's the first part of the memory. He's one of the the key players So the Romans felt that if I could pass That's what I'm trying to buy a car. says This is half of a fellow. F I'm just throwing it out there. Says the castle mission now you have to be mad at every single word in this memory. Mission rebel Yell have been lucky. Working backwards. Lucky means have we not sure there's not a lot of luck in this that says you don't have to be mad at the country of God. It's 102. Rebel Yell have that's pretty straight forward. And mission that's the castle mission means only mission as opposed to what? As opposed to a bracer. It's only a mission that this rule applies. But when it comes to braces and it does that allow that's the case the Romans sat down and he said I have a bracer not a mission. A bracer that is one of the castle of with the clay kiss for sure my do with this whole thing? I don't know. Should I use the rule of Mrs. Common said the case of mission that I can use that rule because that was only true by mission is so now the rabble was back to the drawing board. I don't know. Who do I follow? Do I follow or do I follow Dr. Rubenstein is more than what I am and that's tomorrow when it comes to a crime and it's for that reason that the case of mission says that the rabble is asking like by her. I don't say that from the hopper. He brings a true verb from the so I looked up the true verb from the and the has a whole true verb. It's in and it's all about mission is common and it begins with this rabble and this case of mission and he is on the case of mission and he asks one case of that pertains to today's and to read that we speak about all the time. Break the case of break the let's do the back of the envelope arithmetic. The case of mission said that the mission is common is only true by mission is it's not true by Bryson. So you had a Bryson the rabble did and what should I do with this whole thing? I am asking like he didn't feel that mission is is a as a result the rabble said Rubenstein is more than says the and I have a from the of the from the base that the should be like you know why? Because the rabble was comparing Rubenstein and the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the mission is the but not so much. Says the I would walk away from this Gamara thinking if there was a Reb Yakov and Reb Yehuda that is for sure like Reb Yakov. I think it's a Gamara. I think it's so even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the but that that's in that's what the Gamara that means that's so if it comes to a between Reb Yakov and Reb Yehuda that is going to be like Reb Yakov. The Gamara says that that if there's a between Reb Shimon and Reb Yehuda that is like Reb Yehuda. So do the math. Reb Yakov and Reb Yehuda that is like Reb Yakov. Reb Yehuda and Reb Shimon that is like Reb Yehuda. So what happens if you have a Reb Yakov and Reb Shimon of course that is going to be it's basic logic going to be like Reb Yakov. Says the Mishnah said that the is like Reb Shimon because he's the Talmudic fame Reb Yakov. Says the what about my half of a fellow? Says the I'm going to say a different shot in this Rambam. The Rambam in base of again that in like Reb Shimon by in the Bryson that you and not Reb Yakov and that's based on another Rambam. And this Rambam is in say the it's it's in test test when you learn these types of you get a a nice you get to spend just a little bit. Either way so what's this the the context over there is a that member. They found a dead body it's between two cities we have to measure and see which city it's closest to so we can go ahead with the partial of the Rufer. The question is from what part of the what part of this dead body do we measure? Says the Rambam you're supposed to do it from the And the nose of the maze that's where you do the minita. Straight the case of Mishnah. So, the last stuff we learned together, we spoke about a bunch of case of Mishnahs. Here we have again, case of Mishnahs. Very different context, but case of Mishnahs. Mishnah says the the perek al rupha, it's really a Mishnah. A perek al rupha, which is another side of the Mishnah. Now you might from where did they measure? Rebbe Eliezer ben Tivera. Rebbe Akiva ben Chaitma. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov ben Makom shenasa cholo mitzvara. U'posa Rebbe Akiva. So, it's a three-way machlokes. And that's a Mishnah. It's a Mishnah in perek al rupha. So again, where did they measure from? Did they measure from Tivera? As Rebbe Eliezar says. that's shitas Rebbe Akiva. Or from the makom where the cholo is, where the wound is, that's the shitas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. The Rambam says meichaitma, that's shitas Rebbe Akiva. In other words, the Rambam paskened like Rebbe Akiva over Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. Straight to the case of Mishnah. The shitas Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov is Mishnah and Rebbe Akiva is kavanaki. And here the case of Mishnah couldn't say what he said in perek beis alochos chasan beis chiro, because that is a braisa. It's not a braisa, it's a Mishnah. In chulin chasan aleph, it's a braisa. But in saitam it's just according to this Rambam in perek tes alochos tes, it's a Mishnah. Mishnah Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov is for sure kavanaki. So, how are you going to give a chiddush? So, what would the Rosh tell you? The Rosh would say maybe this is not from the 102. Okay. But either way, says the case of Mishnah, you have to say another tremendous chiddush. Chiddush Rebbe Akiva never closed that lid chaisma. The kaim al alochos Rebbe Akiva mechavera. The Gemara says in Movolim days, whenever there's a machlokes between Rebbe Akiva and chavera, the alochos like Rebbe Akiva. Says the case of Mishnah, what happens if I have two klalei ashas that that are colliding head on? On the one hand, I have Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov. Mishnahs Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov kavanaki. But on the other hand, he's arguing with Rebbe Akiva. The alochos Rebbe Akiva mechavera. How do I know which one comes first? Says the Ksav Mishnah, that's this Rambam. The Rambam must have held that if I have that kind of issue, Halacha K'Rabbi Akiva MeChaveiroi takes precedent. Thus, although you have Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in a Mishnah, and it's true, Mishnah Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov K'Rabbi Akiva, but on the other side I have Halacha K'Rabbi Akiva MeChaveiroi, and the Rambam held Halacha K'Rabbi Akiva MeChaveiroi is Machria over Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov K'Rabbi Akiva. Hafoch, so you have two beautiful Ksav Mishnahs, two tremendously say this regarding this Halacha of Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, but says the Chacham Tzvi, if that's the case, I want to tell you a Davar Acher. You know, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was a Talmid of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was a Talmid of Rabbi Akiva. It's Yuchan, says the Chacham Tzvi, that if Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said something in this Midrash, he was quoting his great Rebbe, Rabbi Akiva. Now, the truth is, very often the Halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. So, if the Halacha very often is not like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, why don't you ask a Kashya, says the Chacham Tzvi? If Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is Rabbi Akiva's Daber MeToch Groinoi, Halacha K'Rabbi Akiva MeChaveiroi. So, how do they reconcile with those Gemaras in Maseches Eruvin Daf Mem Vav Amud Beis? Listen to this. That the Gemara comes out the Halacha is very often not like Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yehuda, Halacha K'Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yosi, Halacha K'Rabbi Yosi. Says the Chacham Tzvi that the answer is so Pashet, because Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi were also Talmidim of Rabbi Akiva. So, although it's true, if Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is talking in this Midrash, you're supposed to hear Rabbi Akiva talking, and once it's Rabbi Akiva talking, Halacha K'Rabbi Akiva MeChaveiroi, but if he's arguing with other of Rabbi Akiva's Talmidim, so then it's all Rabbi Akiva's Talmidim, you don't have the Achra of Halacha K'Rabbi Akiva MeChaveiroi. So, if there's a Machlokes between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, there's no Achra to say the Halacha is like Rabbi Shimon because he's a Talmid of Rabbi Akiva, because Rabbi Yehuda is also Talmid of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosi is also Talmid of Rabbi Akiva. But what happens if you have Rabbi Shimon and there's no Baal Plugta in Shaas, he's not arguing with anybody, or he's arguing with someone that wasn't a Talmid of Rabbi Akiva says the Tzvi, it's a that this is Reb Shimon who's quoting his Rebbi Rabbi Akiva. It's Rabbi Akiva and it's going to take on the of Rabbi Akiva. This between Rabbi wasn't a Talmud of Rabbi Akiva. So it's a and Rabbi was a Talmud of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi wasn't. Has the of Rabbi Akiva. Thus we essentially have a Rabbi Akiva. What's the shita if you have a that's first of Rabbi Akiva himself. He said that the Trump's Mrs. That between and in really a Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva. Thus the reason that the Rabban like in and for the same exact reason that he like Rabbi Akiva in it's the identical reason. It's both Rabbi Akiva half of a fellow. But just to be one and that is because if said that in the Rabbi Akiva when it comes to the shita of Rabbi Akiva is because the whole of Rabbi Akiva relates only to it doesn't relate to thus by Rabbi Akiva had to figure out who I should be like and he held Rabbi Akiva is the more of the whole Talmud. Today me Rabbi Akiva and that's why he passed like Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbi Akiva in says that the says that the that Rabbi Akiva was over Rabbi Yehuda. And Rebbe Yehudah Rebbe Shimon, the halakha is like Rebbe Yehudah. So, kal v'chomer Rebbe Elazar ben Yaakov Rebbe Shimon, the halakha should be like Rebbe Elazar ben Yaakov. But, it could be pshat like this. Based on a a vort from the Divrei Yoel, the Haggadah shel Pesach Maror that we spoke out only a few weeks ago. That is, there's a machlokes between the Rambam and the Chachmei Luniel. Speaking it out quickly again. Regarding Gid Hanasheh. Gid Hanasheh in the Minyan Hamitzvos is mitzvah 3. In the Chinuch, the third mitzvah is shulach Gid Hanasheh. And this machlokes Rishonim, the Rambam and the Chachmei Luniel, whether Gid Hanasheh, which of course is assur b'achilah, is it also assur b'hana'ah, or is it mutar b'hana'ah? The Rambam's shittah is that the Gid Hanasheh is mutar b'hana'ah. The Chachmei Luniel hold that the Gid Hanasheh is assur b'hana'ah. And the Beis Yosef asks that really this machlokes Rambam Chachmei Luniel is a machlokes in the Gemara. It's a machlokes between Rebbe Yehudah and Rebbe Shimon. Rebbe Yehudah says Gid Hanasheh is mutar b'hana'ah. Rebbe Shimon says Gid Hanasheh is assur b'hana'ah. In other words, the Rambam paskens like Rebbe Yehudah. And the Chachmei Luniel pasken like Rebbe Shimon. Frankly, the Beis Yosef, we know the rule. Whenever there's a machlokes Rebbe Yehudah Rebbe Shimon, the halakha is like Rebbe Yehudah. So, what's wrong with Chachmei Luniel? Okay, now we're in the Sugyos of Gid Hanasheh. But, in the spirit of klalei hapskah. You have the shailah of Gid Hanasheh, which is assur b'achilah. Is it assur b'hana'ah or is it mutar b'hana'ah? The Rambam paskens like Rebbe Yehudah. The Chachmei Luniel pasken like Rebbe Shimon. Frankly, the Beis Yosef the obvious question, whenever there's a machlokes Rebbe Shimon Rebbe Yehudah, the halakha is like Rebbe Yehudah. The Rambam I understand, the Chachmei Luniel is a pillar. Says the Beis Yosef, Shulchan Aruch that in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch says the Zohar Hakadosh. The Zohar Hakadosh says that not only is a person not allowed to eat Gid Hanasheh, he can't even have hana'ah from Gid Hanasheh. Oh, if the Zohar says you can't have hana'ah from Gid Hanasheh, so it's you tochen that the Chachmei Luniel knew the Zohar and they were paskening like the Zohar. So, of course the Chachmei Luniel knew that you can't pasken like a a Rebbe Shimon against Rebbe Yehudah. But, that's when there's no hakra'ah. I have a hakra'ah. The hakra'ah is the Zohar. The Zohar says meforesh that it's assur b'hana'ah. Says the Ramah on Darkei Moshe, shamati, I heard, it was a little bit unclear. But, says the Darkei Moshe, shamati, If that's the case, What did the What DID THE BEIS YOSEF FIND IN THE ZOHAR? WE KNOW SHIMON SHEITA, CUZ WHENEVER THERE'S A MACHLOKES THE halacha is LIKE RABBI YEHUDA. THIS IS THIS WAY. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? Did the Beis Yosef not know that the mechaber of the Zohar Kodesh was Rashbi? We knew that already. The halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. K'neged Rabbi Yehuda. Based on a Gemara, well-known Gemara in Maseches Shabbos. The context is after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son Rabbi Elazar Rabbi Shimon they came out of the Ma'ara 12 years and the Gemara over there says they met Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair. And when Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair saw Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, he said, "Oy l'cha she'ri'isicha b'kach." Obviously, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai had just lived in a cave for for so many years and physically he he looked like he lived in a cave for so many years. And Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was so taken aback when he saw him that he commented, "Oy l'cha she'ri'isicha b'kach." On my ways, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai told him, "Ashrecha she'ri'isani b'kach." To the contrary, "Ashrecha that you see me this way." She'lo molai lo ri'isani b'kach l'matzosi b'kach. He says, "Cuz although physically I deteriorated really really terribly, thus I looked the way I looked during those years, but spiritually I shteig g'valdich." Says the Gemara, "How much did he shteig?" The Gemara explains the mikara. Before Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai entered the Ma'ara, k'havi makshi Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai kashya. When Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would ask from Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair a kashya, have a machlokes Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair trace a piruk. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair would give him 12 pirukim. So, Rabbi Pinchas ben and R' Shimon bar Yochai were talking and learning. R' Shimon bar Yochai was the talmid and he was the one asking and R' Akiva was the one giving the answer. And R' Akiva had so much more shlita over R' Shimon bar Yochai in Torah that what R' Shimon bar Yochai didn't understand, R' Akiva had 12 answers. Had to go ahead explain. But at the end of the day, R' Shimon bar Yochai came out of the ma'arah and it was just the opposite. R' Akiva would be the one asking the questions. And R' Shimon bar Yochai would tell him not one answer, not 12 answers, but 24 answers. 24 answers. Says the Sasoni Rav, you see that R' Shimon bar Yochai shined in Torah half of a fellow when he was in the ma'arah. If that's the case, says the Divrei Yoel, it could be that this rule that R' Akiva over R' Shimon, that was R' Shimon before the ma'arah. Before the ma'arah where he was a talmid of R' Akiva, he would ask a question 12 answers. And that R' Shimon, that was like R' Shimon before R' Akiva. That R' Shimon was like R' Shimon before R' Akiva. So the other talmidim of R' Akiva were maybe greater than him. Thus R' Shimon is not going to be like R' Shimon. But R' Shimon after the ma'arah, that's a whole different R' Shimon. That's R' Shimon from the madregas. That R' Shimon is going to be different. When did R' Shimon bar Yochai write the Zohar Kodesh? He wrote it after the ma'arah. Says the Divrei Yoel, that's the best answer. The best answer has the question of R' Akiva, how could you pass R' Shimon over R' Akiva? Isn't the rule like R' Akiva? Zoch Shmuel Tasi that it's a Zohar. Oh, it's a Zohar. That means this is not just the R' Shimon from before the ma'arah. This is the R' Shimon from after the ma'arah. Because when did R' Shimon bar Yochai write the Zohar? That was after the ma'arah. If that was after the ma'arah, by the way, the Tanya writes in Tanya that what R' Shimon bar Yochai learned in the ma'arah, he learned nigleh. So everybody thinks he learned nistor in the ma'arah, he learned nigleh. It's more than this rate, right? But he learned nigleh. But at the end of the day, he comes out after 12 years of learning Torah, but the Torah is different. This R' Shimon bar Yochai is already a whole different R' Shimon bar Yochai. That's the best answer. Initially you thought it was only Shimon Shas. Oh, it's a IT'S SHAS. OKAY, I GUESS SHAS BUT IT'S A OH NOW WE KNOW IT'S A SHIMON FROM THE THAT Shimon is a different based on the over there the is going to be like okay so just one that is I found is a safer called Ben Yochai. So there's hashtag rest of the story with regards to the safer Ben Yochai not for this one but the safer Ben Yochai as you would expect talks about Shimon bar Yochai and the safer Ben Yochai in Sha'alaf it says as follows many times in Shas Shimon is mentioned as Shimon in fact says the Ben Yochai Shimon Shimon there are sometimes however that Shimon is mentioned in Shas in shame of it Shimon bar Yochai says the safer Ben Yochai so the my son so the before the Shimon the after he left the Shimon bar Yochai as I stated in safer Ben Yochai the Shimon so he says that this two of Shimon you want to know if Shimon is Shimon is Shimon before the or Shimon is after the look at how he's mentioned in Shas if it's mentioned as it's before the if it's mentioned as it's mentioned as after the this is so the bracha Shimon bar Shimon bar Yochai this Shimon is not Shimon this Shimon is Shimon bar Yochai is after the Shimon bar Yochai was that that Shimon is different that the like can I get you don't have the rule that can I get is like because the mission wanted to say shot in the Rambam base up here that the Rambam pass like I wish I was in Jacob what's the terrorist that's only mission not by Bryce what do you do by Bryce says is more than I think like what do you mean I'm a little bit you see rough over and we know it's more than women must be Jacob is more than also the carrots is who does more than women who does not more than women by this is by all that is zero relevance to this discussion if that's the case I wish by is more than by the way the said it to be obese who wrote the castle mission the wrote the castle mission so could be so she the bottom line is if the castle mission is the in your day hey but in the floor but coming full circle so we started off with the matter says nothing but you want to know why the mission mentions in Jacob and that the reason is of God he was with cuz mission is in Jacob so we spoke at right in the beginning that I think rash is cuz rash HE SAYS IN SOME HOW come but as we just saw it's not so positive that number one we had the rush in the fourth paragraph brings that says is come out to 100 only 102 times that is in Jacob number two we have the castle mission where it says only in a mission it's mission is in Jacob what about what about braces that's a whole different story and then finally we have another castle mission that's the mission that's the mission where the castle mission said if there's a Jacob and in the wanted to take it a step further maybe a town of Jacob connected Jacob then you would have the rule of Jacob make a very Miss I mean it's not that true that every company you know you have to sit down and learn the you have to know the rest of the story. You have to make sure that is really like him. So what it means is that very often follows but it's not true that very often follows as well. The says connected is primary about in shots. The you do actually probably his secondary about in shots. The is also like so it's true it's not but very often so really what does he have over the rational is beautiful but if you're going to start being with some of the other the issue why was it so that it's over I will conclude that there.