Menachos 64

Today's stuff is Menachot and we are in the beginning of a new perek, the sixth perek of Menachot, perek Rebbe Yishmael omer. Today's stuff has been learned as a refuah shleimah for Miriam bas Malkah Freida, [ __ ] ben Chaya Leah, Baruch Yitzchak ben Shifra Miral, and Rachel bas Henya. So, we're moving along in Menachot, we're jumping mayan in very much by Easter Indian within the world of Menachot. Now, as it relates to perek Rebbe Yishmael, the primary topic of the perek is going to be one of the many Menachot that were brought in the Beit Hamikdash. Specifically, the Minchat Omer. So, we know about the Minchat Omer, number one because we know about the Minchat Omer. Number two, because we're already 60 plus daf in into Menachot Menachot and literally from daf bet, the Minchat Omer has been featured very, very prominently. But, what we need to chazar for today's daf is that the Minchat Omer was brought one day a year on tet zayin Nissan. What's referred to in the Torah as mimochorat hashabbat, the day after the first day of Pesach, it was brought from se'orim, barley, which makes it unique as far as Menachot go, because almost all Menachot were brought from chittin. Additionally, the shiur of the Minchat Omer was an Omer. An Omer, believe it or not, is a shiur. So, the word Omer plays a very important role in the conscience of the Jew. Think of Sefirat Omer, the man was an Omer. An Omer is a the What measurement is the Omer? It's a positive in the Torah. In the parsha Saman, in parshas Beshalach, the Torah says that the omer is in a serious or eifah, which in the vernacular of Masachis Menachos and in Kodashim is more popularly known as an issaron. So, the word issaron is very much associated with a mincha, and the reason is because roiv minchos, the sheer of silus that it required was an issaron. And issaron means a tenth. A tenth of what? It's in a serious or eifah. An eifah was a biblical measurement. Thus, an issaron is 1/10 of the eifah, and the omer is what's known as the aseres omer. So, incredibly, every time we've mentioned the word issaron here in Masachis Menachos, we could have for the same price used the word omer. An omer is an issaron. More specifically, it's an aseres omer. Now, the way the carbon omer was brought was you need in an additional way. And that is that every carbon, what matters is you take the carbon, you bring it to the Beis Hamikdash, be it a zevach, be it a mincha, and you makriv it to Hakadosh Baruchu. Part and parcel of the avodah of the minchas omer was cutting the barley from the field that was ultimately going to be converted into silus that was ultimately going to be brought as a carbon. In fact, the Torah says, "Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor, daber el benei Yisrael ve'amarta aleihem, ki savoiu el ha'aretz asher ani nosein lachem, uktsartem es kitziro. Vahaveisem es omer reishis kitzirchem el Hakoin." Part and parcel of the avodah of the minchas omer was the actual kitziro. It was the "Uktsartem es kitziro." Now, it's not just the kitziro, because the omer had to be brought in the form of flour, in the form of silus, which means that just like you had to do the Ketzira, you also had to do everything that came in between the Ketzira and the actual bringing of the Omer. In fact, many of the first Lamed Tes Melachos play a very prominent role in the bringing of the Omer, which means that in order to appreciate the process better, we'd have to be farmers. This is a general disclaimer that we always talk about. We are not farmers, and as a result, it makes this slightly more challenging. But the bottom line is that the Korban Omer was unique in many ways. Specifically, as we're going to see, tying into today's daf, was that the Korban Omer involved not just bringing the actual Korban, but the Ketzira and the Tchina and the Harkada, all the Avodas that were necessary in order to take wheat, grain that's attached to the ground, and convert it into a viable Korban, had to be done. Here's the next and the last Chiddush that we need for today's daf, and that is the Korban Omer was Docheh Shabbos. So, if Tes Ayin Nissan fell out on Shabbos, it was Docheh Shabbos. Why is that a Chiddush? Because there are different Melachos that we just meant that fall into the category of Lamed Tes Melachos that were being done. And there could have been a Hava Mina that Mechech Teisi, you're allowed to do these Melachos on Shabbos. Kamash Malan Esrain Daf from Sukkin, obviously. And the bottom line is that not only the bringing of the Korban Omer was Docheh Shabbos, but even all the Hechsher, all the Hachana, all the things from the Ketzira on were Docheh Shabbos as well. Now, you're going to tell me, what's the greatest Chiddush that it's Docheh Shabbos? Isn't it Yom Tov anyways? Tes Ayin Nissan. So, first of all, Melachos are a lot more Chomer on Shabbos than they are on Yom Tov. Melachos Achal Nefesh is Muttar on Yom Tov, which is not Muttar on Shabbos. On Shabbos, if somebody violates one of the melachos of Shabbos b'meizid with eidim and hatra'ah, he's chayiv skilah. And on Yom Tov, he only gets his malkus. If he does it b'shogeg on Shabbos, he's chayiv a chatas. And on Yom Tov, he's not chayiv a chatas. So, our reishon reishon, no, melachos on Shabbos and melachos on Yom Tov, as much as they're very similar, they're not one in the same. But, Yehudah ben Eitler Kallah, the more obvious response is Tesah Nissan in Eretz Yisrael is actually not Yom Tov. Tesah Nissan in Eretz Yisrael is Chol HaMoed. So, in Chutz La'Aretz, it's the second day Yom Tov. It's Yom Tov Sheini Shel Galuyos. But really, in Eretz Yisrael, where the Yidden were told "U'k'tzartem es ha'ketziros", it was Chol HaMoed. And a Chol HaMoed, you learn it from ketziros. Now, the truth is, melacha on Chol HaMoed, that in and of itself is a big sugya, one of the biggest machlokes in the Shas, literally, where you have half the Rishonim in the world on one side and the other half of the Rishonim in the world on the other side. Is the issur melacha on Chol HaMoed where applicable? Is it an issur d'Oraisa? Is it an issur d'Rabbanan? But the bottom line is that part and parcel of the hava of the korban omer was the actual ketziros. And all the melachos of sidur the pas that followed, they were docheh Shabbos. And it's because of that background that Sefer HaMinchos brings us the very next mishna. Rebbi Shmuel omer, Rebbi Shmuel said, "Omer hayah ba Shabbos." When the korban omer was brought on Shabbos, it was brought misholish side. So, they would begin with with three sa'in of sa'in. And then they would sift it and sift it more and sift it even more until they got to the shiur of the korban omer, which is an omer, which is in a se'ah, which is in three sa'in. It's all the same. "U'vachol during the week, meichamesh." They wouldn't begin the process by sifting through three sa'in, but rather they would begin by sifting through five sa'in. "V'chachamim omerim." The chachamim say, "Echad Shabbos v'echad Chol HaMoed, misholish hayah ba." Doesn't matter if it was Shabbos. It doesn't matter if it was Chol HaMoed. It was always brought from three. What exactly is going on in this machlokes? We'll see in the Gemara. Rebbi Chinena bar Chanina omer, Rebbi Chinena bar Chanina said, "BaShabbos hayah niktzar b'yochin." >> When the carbon animal was brought on Shabbos and they came to do the ketsira, so they would do the ketsira with one person. So, it was one individual who did the ketsira. Ubemagalahat, he would use one sickle. Ubakupahathas, and he would carry one kupah. When it was not during the week, beshlosha, it was done with three people. Besholesh kupais, it was done in three kupais. Besholesh magalais, and it was used with three sickles. Vehakhamim omerim, the hakhamim say, "No. Leshisha sayo. Ehhad Shabbos veehhad kol." It doesn't matter if the carbon animal is being brought on Shabbos or if it's being brought during the week. Beshlosha, three people. Besholesh kupais, three baskets. Ubisholish magalais, and with three sickles. So, the Mishnah mentions two mahlekosen amongst the tanaim with regards to how the carbon animal was brought on Shabbos. More specifically, was there a shinui in terms of the way the carbon animal was brought on Shabbos versus the way it was brought during the week. So, we have a mahlekes Rabbi Shimon and the hakhamim, number one, and that is with regards to how many sa'in of se'irim were used lekhathila in order to sift from it the omer when the carbon animal was being brought during the week. According to Rabbi Shimon, it was five. According to the hakhamim, it was three. The second mahlekes is with regards to how many people, how many kupais, and how many sickles were used. According to the hakhamim, it was done with three. According to Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, it was done with one. In other words, according to the hakhamim, the process of exactly how the carbon animal was brought during the week versus the process how the carbon animal was brought on Shabbos was one in the same. Rabbi one thing in common and that is they felt that the process of how it was done during the week and the process of how it was done on was different. Now, they were both focusing on a different element, a different aspect of the carbon was focusing on how many we began with and from how many of did we get our e run? And the focus on how many we used, how many cycles we used and how many coopers we used. Either way, the now is going to have a lengthy discussion focusing on the of but we'll see in the course of discussing but they were very much going to discuss the of as well. So, again, let's take this first the mission is of and the of says that the carbon omer when it was brought during the week was brought with any that the says in the that came from five of when it was brought on it only came from three the say that it didn't matter if it was on if it didn't matter if it was during the week it always came from three. So, the says like this, what's this this of this of this of this of this of this of this of this that in order to come up with a very of a an that's going to be the and the best of it's going to be the of so what you would need to start off with was three and then you're going to go ahead and you're going to sift it and if you're going to sift three and you're going to take the best from it that is going to be great and being that when you bring a carbon you want to bring it from the best so therefore you start with three and doesn't matter if it's or it's it's right so you might well do it in the best way on Shabbos just like you're doing it in the best way during the week. But what exactly is she doing? Why does he hold that on Shabbos it was brought from three and during the week it was brought from five and if he holds that if you want a good you have to start off with five then Shabbos then even on Shabbos you should start with five and that if you want a good you start with three. After that even during the week it should be three. So, what's this business that on Shabbos you do it one way, you only do it from three and then on a weekday you do it a different way, you do it from five. I'm that if you want to get a good without too much work so you start off with five and you take the the best of the five and and it's worth and you're going to have an incredible and Okay, but if you're willing to work a little bit harder also so then you can also get a very very good from three. During the week my we go with the option that involves five. We go with the option that involves a little bit less and the reason is the because at the end of the day the that you're going to get from the five is actually going to be a little bit better. But Shabbos however on Shabbos ironically we work a little bit harder to get the and the reason we do it is because because we'd rather need meaning need to sit more So, yeah, but it's harder rather than have to go ahead and do more malachas. So, it's a little bit convoluted, but in short, the way Rashi explains this is at the end of the day, if you're going to start off with five sa'in, you're going to end up with better than you're going to get if you're going to start off with three sa'in. And the reason is very simple, cuz you're taking the best of the best. So, if I take the best of the best of five, so obviously it's going to be better than if I take the best of the best of three. Right? Let's assume the the first fraction of any sa'in that comes out is the best. And then the next fraction that comes out is a little worse. And the next fraction is a little bit worse. Okay. So, the first fraction of five is going to yield more best of the best than the first fraction of three. So, really, if I'm going and I'm taking from five, I'm going to end up with better than I'm taking from three. Which is the sa'ar why we always say go ahead and start off with five, because I want to make it as good as possible. And apparently, if I take it from five, that's going to be incredible. Now, maybe start with six or seven or eight. If I saw it as Chazal said, this is the way to do it. But the bottom line is once you take from the top five, now you know everything is going to be perfect. On Shabbos, however, there's a cheshbon not to do this. And the reason on Shabbos a cheshbon not to do this is because on Shabbos, if you're going to go ahead and you're going to take two extra sa'in, you're going to have to cut more sa'in. And then you're going to have to be toichen more sa'in. You're going to have to go through all the different malachas that are included in creating your sa'in list. And that's not something that I want to do. Now, the Gemara Bavara says, one second, you're going to have to do more sifting if you start off with three than if you start off with five. It's going to involve more tircha, right? You're going to have to do more of the avoda of hakada. It's true. But at the same time, in the words of the Gemara, mutav sheya'abeh b'malachas hakada v'al ya'abeh b'malachas harbeh. I'd rather you work a little bit harder on the hard corner, do a little bit more hard corner, rather than go ahead and do a whole bunch of the additional malachas. That's a better trade-off. And it's for that reason Rabbi Shmuel holds that this is the right way to do it. So you want to know the side of shita's Rabbi Shmuel, the side of shita's Rabbi Shmuel is that really it's going to be a little bit better if I take it from five than if I take it from three. And that's why during the week Rabbi Shmuel holds take it from five as opposed to taking it from three. Stating that on Shabbos is already a different hashbon. On Shabbos there's a hashbon that if I take it from five I'm going to have to do so many more malachas. I don't want to do so many more malachas. And it's for that reason Rabbi Shmuel that when it came to Shabbos take it from three. I if I take it from three I'm going to have to do more hard corner. That's true, but now just to be clear about one point. It comes out that according to Rabbi Shmuel when the carbon was being brought during the week it was taka a little bit nicer than when it was being brought on Shabbos. It was a little bit more malachas. And it's for that reason they did it from five during the week. And they made this hashbon when it came to Shabbos. But Rabbi Shmuel holds it's kedai. Meaning as much as there is a hashbon of hiter, but at the same time you know sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis. And this is the way Rabbi Shmuel came out. Now what do the hold? So from the steamus loshon of the Gemara it sounds like the there's no that you're not going to make it any better if it comes from five than if it's going to come from three. And if that's the case even if they hypothetically theoretically agreed with all the wonders of Rabbi Shmuel. Now another thing is that the they don't agree with the of Rabbi Shmuel. Now another thing is that the they don't agree with the of Rabbi Shmuel. And they agree that in the event that you're taking it from five it's going to be better than if you're taking it from three. The problem with that obviously would be then why are you doing the week would the hold that you should take it from three. During the week you should take it from five. So again, it's it's much more from the Gemara that the disagree with this entire premise and with this entire of there being any of taking it from five versus taking it from three. Either way, and we're not the same person. But they said the same thing. Meaning they both said a halacha at first glance not related to each other at all. But if you think about it, really it's based on the same if the 14th day of Nissan falls out on again a lot of when the 14th day of Nissan falls out on you bring the carbon despite the fact that it's so the carbon is being brought on now. Now, one of the things that had to be done with the carbon like with every carbon is they had to skin the animal So when it falls out on they would be the carbon but they only did it they would only do it till the of the animal. They would go ahead and they would be the entire animal. Now, ordinarily when an animal was skinned for the purpose of so they would skin the entire animal. But now it's and being that it's so maybe we're sensitive to the fact that by you going ahead and skinning the animal you're doing right? You're being and as a result maybe we shouldn't do more than we need to do. Says yeah, that's what I feel. I feel that we should be sensitive to how much we do and therefore it's only that's but beyond the we're not going to go. say no, I don't care that it's the end of the day you're allowed to be mashed. So, we're going to be mashed everything. Bottom line says the Gamorah, what does this have to do with Arabishmal? Just like Rubishmal said, there's no reason to go ahead and be mashed more than you have to be mashed. So, therefore just be mashed at the even though ordinarily we'd be mashed at school but now it's Shabbos. So, Shabbos we're going to be sensitive. So, isn't that sheet of Rubishmal? He would probably say the same thing over here. Given the like being that at the end of the day you can get your is so line from three sun. You don't need to get it from five sun. So, it's for that reason even though Rubishmal sheet is you take it from five sun. But when it comes to Shabbos you take it from three sun. So, the Gamorah says I see a little bit of an analogy between Rubishmal and Rubishmal because there's still the way to do the but the the way to I'll do it in a slightly but the other way to go ahead. Rubishmal said it with regards to five versus three sun in terms of how much sun we began with when we sifted for the sun for the and Rubishmal said it in terms of how much of the animal we would skin to be able to pull out the to be able to go ahead now and to be I don't know if it's could be Rubishmal only said this over here the because there's no because over there the there's an element of factor of because animal in the maybe holds so what's the the the is to have an animal just hanging with half of the skin skinned and the other half not. That's the way they used to treat the so to treat that way that's already a because and because it's a because so could be Rubishmal holds that as much as high level I agree that there's a but at the same time as it relates to this specific detail I'm not necessarily agree. And now I'm going to go on and say I can flip it the other way as well. He said it over there because when once you skin the animal, so you really pull out the that you need to be so any that you need you already got. So there's no point to be honest further. Over here but when it comes to the where we said there's an in terms of the of the actual depending on whether I take it from three five so here you can make the argument that the where if all you had was three you don't have the full why because you can make it better not just that and you would have to be honest to make it a little bit better so maybe over here you would all like the so the says as much as the high level it sounds like we do the minimum on the maximum during the week so I am saying it's not I'm not the says it's not I'm going to get it's not that the says so like went back to the drawing board it sounds like was trying to to to another time now this was the first attempt it didn't work out so I am going to is going to get him so and he's going to get him they said it so who's this is going to get him so this is not a awesome this is not a this is already so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to get him so he's going to kind of Hanan and his very much when we went through the mission. So after me like Hanina's kind of Hanan did kind of Hanan say over here that given the absolute that being that you could do it with one person. You could do it with one cooper and one magel. That's fine. Therefore, even though ordinarily we would do with three, but here we're going to do it with one. So maybe we comes to the given the absolute being that you could do it from three sun and you don't need five like we're not going to be so I'm not selling to to the over here but I'm selling to to kind of Hanan but the says we might do it from maybe when says over here and we'll do the there's no of Hanan I will over there but with this kind of Hanan and maybe holds like the so what's this So she already spoke out in the mission that the reason the zero of the carbon animal was done with three people is because as we'll see in tomorrow's daf the by Susan who were the lesser known compadres of the Sadducees they were of the opinion that the carbon animal was not brought on the 9th of Nissan but rather was brought on the Sunday following Pesach that when it says in the Torah me that's when you're supposed to bring the carbon animal it means the day after Shabbat as in Sunday as opposed to referring to Yom Tov as Shabbat and meaning the day after the first day Yom Tov. But the bottom line is the by Susan used to be when they brought the carbon animal. They did it with a tremendous amount of notoriety. They wanted they wanted everybody to know about it and the way they did it was by bringing three people right cuz you know when there's three people there are the most of it's kind of Islam the kind of kind of Islam it's like you question how but this is a basic but the bottom line is so to be my first the Indian they don't always bring three and essentially saying is pure is a very nice but on why should you have to go ahead and and be my first the whole of it so to speak but what do you have to go ahead and be my like this it's better not time is the that it could be that is small even though high level he agrees with kind of he is the man of this Indian that when it comes to you try to do a little bit less but it's very possible that he only said it with regards to five some three some a little more here there a little less here there for that little bit of here there you says no no I'm not willing to go ahead and do all these but when it comes to me so I'm a lot of about you tell me you know it's me and the is one of the most important tenants in of course these are the from the because and we have to do everything we can possibly do to eradicate any sham a martial of that Indian so it makes a lot of sense that maybe when it comes to they would hold like you can say the other way maybe when say his the so we are from the carbon of back to really makes no difference if you use one person or three people it's all the same over here the but over here where if you use three versus five it actually makes a difference what's the difference in one case it's going to be more so maybe here kind of kind of holds like the so the says that if rather wants to a kind of to small this is not the kind of because as much as high level there's a shaychus between Rabi Yishmael and Rav Chanina Sgan HaKohanim, yeah, but to say "Amru d'var echad", that Rabi Yishmael would hold Rav Chanina Sgan HaKohanim, and that Rav Chanina Sgan HaKohanim would hold of Rabi Yishmael, that's factually incorrect. That's already not something that's necessarily the case, says the Gemara. Ela Amar Rav Ashi, so Rav Ashi came to Bais HaMedrash, and he said Rabi Yishmael over Rabi Yosi Amru d'var echad, that Rabi Yishmael over Rabi Yosi said d'var echad. By the way, it's like a little heart, if you want to try to visualize the d'var Amram Bais HaMedrash, like what's the objective here? We're trying to shteiltzu Rabi Yishmael to somebody. First Rabi said, I think Rabi Yishmael ben Noson HaYechidi in Breichos regarding the korban Pesach that's brought on Shabbos. The Gemara said, nah, it's not a tzushtel. Okay, Ela Amar Rav Ashi, so Rav Ashi said, let me shteiltzu to Rabi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim. That's not a tzushtel. Amar Rav Ashi, right, usually you have this, if you have like a shvere kasha, and everyone's trying to figure out, you know, what's the teretz, what does the Mishna mean, what does the Braisa mean, how do you reconcile the Reishah and the Seifah, and Rav Ashi always gets the last word. Ela Amar Rav Ashi, what exactly was the objective? There was like some urge to shteiltzu Rabi Yishmael. There was a mesayeh that Rabi Yishmael had a Tanna d'mesayeh lei, even though he doesn't need one, but he had a Tanna d'mesayeh lei. So again, what exactly the objective behind the scenes was, usually is a little bit more clear. I think in this Gemara it's a little bit sossom. But the bottom line is, says the Gemara, Ela Amar Rav Ashi, Rav Ashi said, I'm going to have a tzushtel Rabi Yishmael over Rabi Yosi Amru d'var echad, and this Rabi Yosi that Rav Ashi shteiltzu, this is already a Tanna sossom. This is a vildah tzushtel. As a matter of fact, it's a Mishna Maseches Rosh Hashanah. The time we're going to the Mishna, the context of this Mishna is that once upon a time Bais Din was mekadesh the chodesh ha'peirios. So two eidim would have to walk in the Bais Din, they would say that we saw the molad, and based on that Bais Din would decide that it's Rosh Chodesh. One of the chiddushim you have in the sugiyah of Kiddush HaChodesh is that eidim going to testify in Bais Din are allowed to violate Shabbos. So they can go to trum, for example, because it's so important that we get the months straight, taking out my others. And it's something that's even doiche Shabbos, stating that. Bain chinair ba'alil, it doesn't matter if the model wasn't clearly bain chulain near ba'alil, or if it wasn't seen clearly, you're allowed to be michalel Shabbos. He says, "Im near ba'alil, if it wasn't clearly, in michalel Shabbos, you can't be michalel Shabbos." What's the svara? Rebbi Shmuel, Rebbi Yosi holds that if the model was seen clearly, that means just like you saw it, the other guy saw it. Just like the people out of the trum saw it, the people in the trum also saw it. So, there's no reason to go ahead and be michalel Shabbos because everyone saw it. So, what's the point? The chachamim say, "No, it doesn't matter. Bain chinair ba'alil, bain chulain near ba'alil, either way michalel Shabbos." What's the svara of the chachamim? Rebbi Yosi saying, "Good." So, we'll see, the Gemara is going to mention the svara of the chachamim, which is nimtza mach ato machshil on the love of it. If you're going to say that the only time you're allowed to go and be michalel Shabbos is if it wasn't seen clearly, you know, clearly or not clearly is something that's very subjective. And as a result, you're going to think it wasn't seen it was seen clearly. So, he's going to say, "I'm not going to be michalel Shabbos." Whereas really it wasn't seen so clearly, and turns out you and your chavrusah are the only ones that really saw it. And nimtza ato machshil on the love of it. There's a big michshol that's going to come. So, the chachamim said, "Because we want to prevent this michshol, there's an inyan of bain chinair ba'alil, bain chulain near ba'alil, michalel on all of us Shabbos." But the bottom line is, that's only the chachamim shita. Rebbi Yosi doesn't subscribe to that svara. He holds im near ba'alil, ain michalel on all of us Shabbos. So, Rebbi Yosi meelah, Rebbi Yosi didn't Rebbi Yosi say over there What did Rebbi Yosi say? Rebbi Yosi is saying that even though you're allowed to go ahead and be michalel Shabbos for kiddush hachodesh, but at the same time, that's only if you need it. But if you're not needed cuz it was near a bowel ill, so if it's absolutely the he known, you can't be mature. I mean, you can't go ahead and do a a whole shabbos over here given the absolute he known. So this is already a much wider two style. But at the same time, a little bit of a two style nonetheless. We are there is a hillock between is this something that's needed or is it not something that's needed? And being that there's more come to say that I don't really need it as much as yeah, it's more who there for every single person that's all the my word to come running to the best then. But I hear I'm in mocking where there's an invoice that needs to be paid and the invoice by the way is shabbos. So maybe over here it's going to be a little bit different. So just like Yossi says that as much as I want you to run to the best then, but don't go to near a bowel ill because I don't think we need you. So so too, I don't need the five sign, right? So Yossi over here says no, me might do my Yossi over here says we over the lack of this action cuz you don't have the small of a mission loss of a life, right? There's no shash that if you're going to go ahead and use three sign on shabbos, you're going to have this grace of mission you're going to use three sign during the week. We have the small and Yossi also says over here there's no sign of a fire, right? You're not dealing with sign of a fire, it's not kosher. Additionally, we were in the shabbos the price. There's no hat to be shabbos unless you need to be shabbos. I will over here the number one we're dealing with kosher. The shabbos the price is the second small. Additionally, you also anyways have to be shabbos, right? We're being shabbos regardless. So maybe here we hold like the that's the commercial or the bottom line is says the Yossi said and that is Yossi two style that Yossi over here that's also something that falls flat at the end of the day. The Gamorah says there is no makar. This concludes the first part of today's daf. So, what's part one of today's daf? The Mishnah mentioned a machlokes Rabi Shimon and the Chachamim. The Korban Omer, which was brought on Tes Ayin Nissan, it was brought from an issaron, an omer, and a se'ah and a eifah. They all mean the same thing of se'ah. There was a machlokes how many se'ah'in of se'ah'in did the Kohanim begin with when they started sifting to take out this mehudar dega issaron? Rabi Shimon said during the week five se'ah'in, on Shabbos three. The Chachamim said echa Shabbos echa chol, it was always three. The shittas Chachamim was very straightforward. They obviously hold three is the right way to do it. And they hold lo ishna Shabbos lo ishna chol. Aren't you being over melachos? Yeah, but ketziras omer, havas omer, and everything in between is doche Shabbos. Rabi Shimon clearly holds it's better to do it with five. That's why he says during the week you should use five. Well, if that's the case, then why on Shabbos are you doing three? And the Gamorah said it's because Rabi Shimon holds that as much as it's better to use five than it is three, but at the same time, if you're going to use five versus three, you're going to end up doing a lot more melachos. And we make a cheshbon, right? Sometimes you have to do your analysis and you have to ask yourself is the profit that I'm going to get worth the risk that I'm going to have to take? And in this case, Rabi Shimon held that I would rather have se'ah'in, a mincha that's a little bit less mehudar, rather than have to go ahead and do all these melachos. And by the way, even though by using three it's going to require me to do more harkada, but mutav sheyavdei b'melacha achas b'harkada v'lo yavdei b'melachos achas. That's the yesod of shittas Rabi Shimon. And for whatever reason, the Amora'im felt that it's kedai to try to shteiltzu this Rabi Shimon to another shitta. As a matter of fact, in the The of the Gamorah, there were three shittas Amora'im that the Gamorah a little bit of a a tzushta. The first was the shita of Rab Rab Shmuel ben Yechiel Breichah, who holds that when Pesach falls out on Shabbos, and they would mafshit the animal to remove the emurim, they would only mafshit it ad hachatzos, which is not the way it was usually done. And ostensibly, the reason Rab Shmuel ben Yechiel Breichah felt that's the right way to do it, is because even though it's a little bit of a bizayon for the katzim, it looks like it's an aveila, but at the same time, why should I do more hefshit than I have to do? Isn't that similar to the shita of Rab Shmuel? It is high level, but the Gamara was daicha. The second tzushta that the Gamara had, it was Rabba version 2.0, was Rab Chinena bar Chanina bar Mishnah, literally the same sugia, which is in the korban omer alay, where Rab Chinena bar Chanina said that there was a different shinui between the korban omer that was brought on Shabbos versus the korban omer that was brought during the week. And that is when it was brought during the week, it was done bepirson, lo yitzimi liban shala by susin, and it was done with three people, and it was done with three sickles, and it was done with three kupas. But on Shabbos, to be mema'et in all the melochos that are being done, you don't need so many people, you don't need so many sickles, you don't need so many kupas. By the way, what's wrong with the kupa? Like the sickle is the katzira, the people are the gavras that are doing the katzira. The kupa is the heitza. You can't really say achlo shasaraim. But we want to be mema'et in in that inyan. So again, you see this idea that even though there's a maila of doing it bepirson, but when it comes to Shabbos, we'll forego that maila because of the chillul Shabbos. That sounded like a pretty good tzushta, right? That was already the el amar Rabba, which you knew was going to be better than the amar Rabba, usually is. But at the same time, the Gamara was daicha that. The Gamara said that's not much chiddush. And finally, Rab Ashi said, maybe you could still use Rab Yosi in the sugias of kiddush hachodesh, where Rab Yosi has a chiddush that in the event that the mo'ed was seen, quote unquote, ba'alil, which is subjective, which is a problem, but to the extent that it was seen ba'alil, you can't be daicha Shabbos, even though there's a chiddush that the yidden that used to go they were allowed to be Shabbos go but when it came to this Indian when it came to near by holds not and the reason must be because as much as we want him to come but not on the Shabbos and the thought that was a the knocked that out as well either way we're moving along now to the next part of the which is as we'll see somewhat may Indian Indian but I say Indian it might really these next 15 lines of a lot a very very long dish first seder level in the event that a coin shafted to and Shabbos that's the punchline and and all we need is one so the question now is is he going to be for shafting the second or is he not going to be shafting the second half of this is just a few things in terms of introduction number one what's the case so if you take a look at the child with the if you look at the gears of sheet of says the case is one or two things either it's or it's part of the and the that were born in was a that is the carbon it's always Shabbos there was certain that were brought Shabbos but the bottom line is it's it's Shabbos this coin went and instead of shafting one half of this he shafted two so he essentially shafted something that he really didn't have to shaft he did it shaft it someone's Shabbos be shafted he's a and really the discussion over here in this is is he a or is he not so they see where he shafted two seabirds he did it be shafted the inner and really all he needed was one. rather said something similar The names matters we're going to see. He's going to be higher for the second one. He's going to be part of the mission. Why is he higher for the second one? Because he didn't need the second one. Once you shock at the first one, you got your copper from the first one. As a result, the second one is already the moisture. So it's a regular you're going to be higher for the first one. The first one you must as a result you're going to be part of the mission. Right, sounds pretty straight forward. Even if ultimately he ended up getting his copper with the schnitzel. So something happened to the original. For example, something happened to the original. So the copper ended up coming from the schnitzel. So they could have been a habit meaning if you ended up using the schnitzel, so this was something that you needed. It was for sure that you know I feel Rashi says we look at the that's what matters. And being that at the the schnitzel it was not something you were supposed to do. That's the way you did was a you did the schnitzel. You're going to be higher for the additionally. The even if the first one ended up being so or turns out that the first animal was a weak animal, right? And because it was a a weak animal, so it comes out that really it's not such a animal to use. It's better to use the second animal. So again, they could have been a habit meaning being that there's a mile to use the second animal versus the first animal. So based on that, it's you shouldn't be higher for the second one. Again, it doesn't matter. Being that at the end of the day, you didn't need to use the second animal. This is an important point because as much as a is not is so it's for that reason that is that you're going to be part of the first one obviously because that was something you had a chiyuv to do, but you're going to be chayiv for the second one. So again, this is very nuanced. Poter on the rishona, you're chayiv on the shniya. The caveats are where it becomes a little bit more much more difficult. Even if you end up getting kapara with the second one, and even even if the first one was nimtzos krusha. And Rashi says, by the way, where the first one was nimtzos krusha even before the shchita. So when you went ahead and you shachted it, you chapped already one was a krusha and the second one you're looking at it and you see it's a shmeina, it's a chata shmeina, right? So it looks gishmack. So is this for sure a maila to go ahead and do that? I feel like it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, we look at the time of the shchita and we ask ourselves, do I need to shacht another animal or do I not need to shacht another animal? If at the time of the shchita I did not have to shacht another animal, even if there was a maila in shachting another animal cuz the first one was a krusha, or even if either of line nimtzos that I needed to shacht another animal, but at the time I shachted it, I didn't have to shacht the other animal, that in and of itself would be enough of a reason for it to be considered chill shabbos b'do b'shogeg, you're going to be chayiv of chatas. Straight to the Gemara, kashya on Rabba Chaki. Did Rabba really say this? Now did Rabba really say this? We don't know. It was on my Rabba v'ei teima Rabba Me. But one of its sodden was that Rabba said this, right? But says the Gemara, Me amar Rabba? Is there a title Rabba said this? From my Rabba, Rabba said, "If one has shchita tois, if somebody had two chatas in front of him, achas shmeina v'achas krusha, one was a shmeina and the other one was a krusha. Shachat shmeina v'achas shachat krusha. If he shachted the shmeina and then he shachted the krusha, chayiv is chayiv for shachting the krusha. Krusha v'achas shmeina. If he shachted the krusha first and the shmeina second, poter. He's going to be poter. The reason he's going to be poter is is because when you go ahead and you shacht the shmeina, there's a maila in shachting the shmeina cuz the first one was a krusha, which is a b'di eved. So being that there's a maila, there's a benefit for going ahead and checking the schmenna now. So if you go ahead and check the schmenna, even though you didn't need it cuz you could be yotze with the krusha, but the myse part because there's a mile of using it and it's doiche shabbos. So therefore, it's interesting that's only because of this toisefes mile, but that's enough for you to be part of the life. Rabba and Vaita, he said if you went ahead and checked it the krusha already, which I could use for the yevis, but there's a heicha timsa to get the schmenna. There's a schmenna. Go ahead and let's kill and do it. What's the bottom line? What do you see from here? What's the kasha? Umi amar Rabba hachi? Which pratt? The pratt that if the first one was a krusha and the second one is a schmenna, you're going to be chayev chatis for the schmenna. Rabba mefurash said not that way. So again, the etzem idea that two chatois, you'll be chayev a chatis for one of them. Yeah, that's the same Rabba. Rabba said you'll be chayev in the first statement, he said you'll be chayev in the second statement. Where does the steer in Rabba where we have the me amar Rabba hachi biloshon ditnya? That's with regards to the krusha schmenna component where the first one was a krusha and the second one was a schmenna. Rabba lichatchila vi iteim Rab Ami said that even if nimtzas rishona krusha, you're going to be chayev on the schmenna. The second statement of Rabba was exactly the opposite. He said that in the event that the first one was a krusha, you're part of the schmenna. Rabba amar Rabba schmenna lichatchila shchait. And the Gemara says two tirutzim, both tirutzim are in the same gun that we're so boxed into a steer over here that only way to get out is by changing some sort of gersa. Ee by you're saying that one gersa you could change is same as krusha mikamai. So just take out the whole krusha component of the first Rabba. Never said anything about krusha. I never said anything about krusha. What is his opinion about krusha? Only what he said the second time. So that's perfect. Ee by you're saying that here Rab Ami amra, right? We started off amar Rabba vi iteim Rab Ami. That's why we said the names matter. So, it was Amora and Amora. So, Amora And as a result, as a result, it's not Amora, it's Amora. Now, does Amora stem with Amora? No, but Amora doesn't have to stem with Amora. Look at the Amora. The Indian Indian Amora Amora Amora Amora Amora Amora Amora Amora But the name Amora Amora, what would be in the event that the Amora Amora was brought. And then a second one was brought Amora. Okay, so so far this is a problem. It sounds like you should be Amora. After they were doing the Amora of the first animal, they found that it was a Amora. I mean, they found that after it was a Amora, look at it, right? No, they couldn't tell from looking at it that it was a Amora. It was Amora Amora Amora Amora Amora. It was Amora Amora Amora. It was something inside its digestive tract. Something inside the animal Amora Amora they check for the Amora and they do whatever they do. So, that's when they figured out that this animal was a Amora. Now, once they found that it was a Amora, Amora Amora Amora Amora Amora they had every right to go ahead and uh to Amora Amora Amora, right? Because according to Amora anyways, who holds that Amora we would have told you the Amora to go ahead and and Amora Amora. The problem is that at the time that they Amora Amora, the Amora didn't know that. So, from the Amora Amora perspective of the Amora, he doesn't have that you're allowed to go ahead now and you're allowed to Amora Amora. He went ahead and did it anyways, did it Amora Amora by the way, but the bottom line is he did it and as a result, based on that you would think that he should be Amora. But then again, if you look at Amora even supposed to do, it, he didn't have that he was supposed to do it. And this was the question that Ravina asked Ravashi. When Niftah S'urishona K'rusha, but it was Min Hamayim, what's the Sod Hamachshava he was leaning on? Do you go B'sod Hamachshava or B'sod Hamayim? And this person was Listen, this is a little bit of a misnomer because he did it B'shogeg. If he did it B'shogeg, he's not B'mechaven L'eiser. But the point is, he wasn't careful enough in his Machshava to make sure that he didn't do the Aveira B'shogeg. He did it B'sod Hamayim he was leaning on. Or maybe you go B'sod Hamayim and at the end of the day he didn't do anything wrong. So this is where Ravina asked Ravashi, "Am L'eiser Ravashi D'Ravina Lav Hainu D'Rabba D'Ravina?" Isn't this Mamlash Rabba and Ravina? It matters. What's Rabba and what's Ravina? Shamma Sh'tova Tinok B'yam. So somebody heard that a child was drowning at sea. U'paras M'tzuda, you can't even read this line Gemara with a straight face. So there was a person there and he says, "Oh really, there's a child drowning?" And he took out his M'tzuda, his net, L'halois Dogin, and he decided to go fishing. So he heard that a Tinok is drowning and he decided to go fishing. The hell with Dogin. And he caught a fish. It was his lucky day. Chayev D'halacha he's Chayev for the Melacha of Tzad. Sounds like he did something amazing. And as a result, there's no question he's Chayev. What would be if Shamma Sh'tova Tinok B'yam U'paras M'tzuda L'halois Dogin D'vi Meloi Dogin? Okay, again, this is all the Mishigas you know. O've V'helo Dogin V'tinok. L'maisa he ended up catching fish, but he also saved this child. M'goglin Chusai D'zaka. This person somehow saved this child. So Rabba Omar Chayev. Rabba says that this person is going to be Chayev for catching Dogin. Why? Because he had in mind to catch Dogin, he caught Dogin, he's a Mechalel Shabbos. Rav Omar Patur. Rabba says that no, Rabba says you're going to be Patur. So we have a Machlokes Rabba and Ravina in this situation where the person's intent was to be Mechalel Shabbos, but at the end of the day ended up saving a child's life. Is he Mechayev or is he to be potter? Rava says Rava says potter. Now the Gemara adds one connect before we tie it into our Sugiva can. Rava says potter even Rava who said potter only said potter even the shama I'm mean and they take Nami at being that he had heard that the tinic was drowning as much as this person is a maturist it's impossible that in his mind on some level couldn't be thinking you know hopefully maybe I'm going to catch this child. On some level it must have been a but let's say you would not have heard that a tinic was drowning life. It sounds like even Rava would agree that he would be what's the bottom line? What do you see from here? You see that when you have a situation where if you look at the of the person that should be one way but if you look at the mice of the person it should be another way you go boss in the mice of the person. In this case the person is to go fishing. The mice is solace in the vices. So is he a fisherman or is he a solace man? Who just saved somebody's life. Rava says you go boss in the mice of the person. If his mice was to go fishing you are fishing on shabbos. Rava says he saved somebody's life. So solace person is for what he does. When even when he does it on shabbos. So it's for that reason forget but the Gemara is saying that even Rava that said potter it's only because we assume subconsciously he had a stick of mice of the to do the right thing. But if for sure the mice of the person was even if the mice of the person was you go boss in the mice of the person. So that means Rava and again one of the things of today's daf is like two stalls. But the bottom line is is that have a little bit of you want to go boss in the mice of the person you go boss in the mice of the person. I think I have a right of and that was what he told them. The Rava I think this is literally what it is and the Gemara is not talking about the two stalls. The Gemara lies with it. However the Gemara has another version of it. Some say I'm a lady where actually told Rava was not the Rava but rather the Rava Plukta Yu De Rava Verava. Hainu De Rava Verava, in a more nuanced way, means that I think Rava and Rava both agree that you go Basar Machshava. Either arguing, they're only arguing because Rava holds that the Machshava really was Atina Gosa. In the second Lishna, we don't have that second step, but rather it's Hainu Plukta Yu De Rava Verava. I think it's Mamesh the Machlokes Rava and Rava. It Mar, the same exact case. Shomash Atina Ba Yom Basar Machshava. Suda, La Halveis Dogin, Vehelo Dogin Chayev. Right? You're Chayev because you went fishing. La Halveis Dogin, Vehelo Tinok, Ve Dogin, Rava Amar Patur, Rava Amar Chayev. Same Machlokes. Rava Amar Patur. Not just the same Machlokes, it's just the repeat of the words. Rava says Patur Zil Basar Ma'aseh. Rava Amar Chayev Zil Basar Machshava. According to this Lishna, the Shaila is literally this Machlokes. So either way, we're being Poychet the Shaila from this Rava and Rava. The question is, is it Rava and Rava together both saying Zil Basar Machshava? Or is it really Machlokes Rava and Rava whether we go Basar Machshava or whether we go Basar Ma'aseh. Another Gemara. This next Gemara is also a classic. And by the way, for those that have learned the first Perek of Maseches Gittin Be'ein in Yeshiva, so this Gemara will sound a little bit familiar. Amar Rava. Rava said, Shita Mekubetzes has the gears. Amar Rava, Choleh She'omdu Le Gregas Achas, Acholah that the doctors assess needs a Gregas. So there was a Choleh and there's a doctor there and the doctor says, bring a Gregas. And all of a sudden Yei Dainu Loish. Everybody started running to get a Gregas. Asara Bnei Adam, 10 people ran. Veheviu Asara Gregas. And all of a sudden he has 10 Gregas. Bevas Achas, if they all brought it at the same time, they're going to be Patur. A feelu Bevas Achas that not just that, even if they came Bevas Achas, so one person brought a Gregas and then the next guy, you know, an hour later, the last guy comes up, he found his Gregas. That guy's also going to be Patur. Every person's going to be potted. I feel called out the Hebrew barista. And even if by the time one of the later guys brought the gregus, the first person had brought it and the already was in a strap up. And he managed to really have the issue of the fears. But at the same time, every person went in his mind thinking he's saving somebody's life. Has that is how he is a mishuba, right? And he's doing the right thing and it's for that reason every single person is going to be potted. Good. By the rabba, so that rabba said as a matter of fact, but rabba said this is a matter of fact. What would be if you have a gregus? What would be if you have a with a doctor said not one gregus, but we need two gregus. The two gregus are staying and there's two gregus on two gregus. So, a gregus grows on a tree and the tree has an as like a branch. So, you can go ahead and you can take one gregus of this branch, one gregus of that branch. Or there's another option. You know what I mean? Right? You have another choice and that is the challenge bucket There's three gregus on the other side. How do you know my son? So, rabba wanted to know which one should you bring? What's the style of my son? Should you cut off the two gregus to bring the two gregus? The that's all he needs. If you're going to go ahead, you're going to cut the one that has three, you're going to cut one more than you actually need. I don't know the challenge my son. It's better to cut the one to bring the three. The common matter cuz end of the day there's going to be a little bit less here. So, which one should you do? You hear the challenge? So, challenge is you have a He needs two gregus. I can cut two branches to get two gregus or I can cut one branch to get three. Should I cut the two branches to get the two that's what he needs? Or maybe cut the one branch then get the three. What are the two of them? On the one hand, if I cut the two I'm doing two of them. On the other hand, if I cut the one, I'm going to end up getting three when I only need two. Now, I think if you ask the man on the street who never learned this matter and by the way never learned the first part of is after either in the Shiva, he would say what in the world is the shala? I don't need to start them. Of course, you go ahead and you cut the wire. I it's going to yield three, who cares? I don't care how many pairs it yields. What I care about is the mice of the Malachi Shabbas. That's one mice exterior. This is two mice exterior. What's the carrots? There's a lot of it in the Shabbas called Reba Bashira. It's a good Allah, but there's such Allah. And that is that when we factor in the Shabbas, we don't only look at the mice of the action that was done. We look at the output. We look at the Allah that came about of it. And believe it or not, if one person cooks a little bit and the other person cooks a lot, even though they both turned on the stove, it was the same mice. But you have three eggs in your frying pan and you only have two, you did more Malachi Shabbas than you did. There's something called Reba Bashira and that's the basis of the question. On the one hand, cutting two oxen is two series. But the guy who's going to do one series and yield three is doing a Reba Bashira. So what's more covered? Is the Reba Bashira more covered or is the cutting more Now truth is the huge Malachi is we shine them where the Reba Bashira is a day riser or is a day boneless. Malachi is the run and toys for second. This is very much a issue with the Sugya. The run holds that Reba Bashira is a day riser. He said that's your in the Reba Bashira. I will suck the run. I'll prove to you it's a day riser cuz if it's not a day riser, there's no way to make sense of this game. This game has no have on in the world cuz the only way you can learn the game even that you may take is with an understanding of a principle called Reba Bashira. But if Reba Bashira is a day boneless, then you can't learn it because then what's the two star them? Here you're doing an extra Malachi Shabbas and over here you're being over and it's a day boneless called Reba Bashira. It's a day run. This game is a right to get over to the concept that Reba Bashira is a day riser. Either way, as much as it is a shala and it's based on Reba Bashira. And according to the run, it's a right to Reba Bashira is a day riser. At the end of the day, the game says still not such a shala. She told shala is my sin on. It's possible you would bring three. And the Gemara says it would be a whole cheshbon and this is where the sugia comes full circle. The end. Kind of like come Rabi Shmuel also. Cuz even Rabi Shmuel in our Mishnah who said that during the week five so'in on Shabbos three so'in, he said it come in myid ktzira. What did he say? He said that go ahead and do a little bit less on Shabbos, right? Even though you can yield less so'in and have three so'in as opposed to five. But why yield less so'in? It's because I want you to do less ktzira. I want you to do less of all the melachos. So it's for that reason he's telling you to be mema'it b'achila. Aval halacha over here, the key come in myid b'achila. Well, if you're going to be mema'it b'achila, you're going to say I want two versus three come av shiktzira. I'm doing more ktzira. Aval shalah ish my sinan, why are you going to do three? Meaning, what was the hava mina to Shmuel to Rabi Shmuel? Again, the disclaimer before the last 15 lines was you need for say that for all these Gemaras. Not as much as like five for say the Gemara say. But the tzushtel of the Gemara posuk shaar is that the Gemara has a hava mina that just like Rabi Shmuel says in our Mishnah, just like Rabi Shmuel says in our Mishnah, that on Shabbos you try to be mema'it b'achila. Don't have five so'in, have three so'in. So maybe here too, don't have three gragras, only have two gragras. Right? You see from the Gemara's pshitos, a little insight into what the shaila was. The shaila was ribba b'shiura, tzayda. But you see another dimension to it. And that is the Gemara thinks that shitas Rabi Shmuel is a little bit of a makor that maybe you should cut two as opposed to cutting one. Because in Rabi Shmuel you see we want less output. Where do you see it? Three so'in as opposed to five. The Gemara says what shaikh is. Over here it's not the three so'in, it's the three ktziras. It were it's the less ktzira. It's being mema'it big zero as opposed to over here where in order to have less output you'd have to be mouth so big zero there's no way in the world that would be the shman either way moving along we have another Gamora to do but the good news is it's actually a very very light on it so you don't get a lot of like this in the minnows so the midst of the carbon number was to take from the iron that was closest to Jerusalem so you're supposed to take from the closest light bigger let's say what was close to Jerusalem had not yet ripened so let's become you can bring from anywhere else even though there's a mild to bring it from what's close but it's not active there was a story in the one time the came from a place called so the midst of the carbon number was to take from the iron that was closest to Jerusalem so you're supposed to take from the closest light bigger let's say what was close to Jerusalem had not yet ripened so let's become you can bring from anywhere else even though there's a mild to bring it from what's close but it's not active there was a story in the one time the came that it says in the regarding the Omer Garis caramel so caramel is just a way of describing the kernels right they should be kernels but we got in the word caramel as if it said rock Molly that you want it to be soft we're focusing on the word rock and if you're going to bring it from far says the wind is going to cause it to harden at some point and as a result it's not going to be caramel so the closer it comes from the more caramel it's going to be you buy the same machine the space you have a so you have to take it from whatever is closest than whatever is most readily available by the way this is another in your native another cuz what's the in your native right it's learned out midst but I'll cook But you could bring it from anywhere. In fact, there was once a story that it came from Gagas three fin and the stay like him once came from the pick of inside of turn it up so much of this Hashmonaim when the family of the Hashmonaim were fighting and literally killing each other. So the rest of the story is actually things that we've spoken about over the years and really if you learn safety or see fun Flavius Josephus, he talks about this miser in very great detail. The short version is there were two brothers both descendants from the mouth of Hashmonaim. One's name was Hurcanus, the other one's name was Aristobulus and they were trying to kill each other. The bottom line is so what happened was so Hurcanus was outside of Jerusalem and Aristobulus and Aristobulus was inside right Jerusalem has a it was a fortified city and Hurcanus was on the outside and Aristobulus was inside. Now being that Aristobulus was inside so he had control over the base of the base of the bring carbonis. The problem is they couldn't really import things from outside Jerusalem because there was a siege that was being laid by Hurcanus. So they one of things they had to import was the animals for the carbon tiger. So the price is says every day they would take they would take money and they would uh put it in a cooper and they had this whole primitive fashion of they would lower it all the way down the wall down the and they would get the dinarim and they would take the tournament and they would bring it back in. There was an old person who knew meaning he knew how to communicate with the that were on the other side. It was one of these secret languages. He knew how to communicate. We spoke about how is also it's a a royal language, right? It's the Russian that that could spoke with to talk to the Naveen with. Like royals used to have their own language. That's why lotion is a big deal in in Yahadus. It's because it represents uh it's not just a way of of talking. It it's a double shawl Hashiva. So, the Yevanim Khakhmas Yevanis, specifically the royals amongst the Yevanim, they used to speak a certain language and there was a Zaken Echad who was on the Horkinus on the Aristobulus side who knew how to communicate with the Khazars on the other side. So, he was Lo Khakhmas Yevanis. I'm going to tell you what he told him. Khaz Manchas was talking about voida. He says, "You don't realize. You're literally feeding your enemy. Because as long as this korban is being brought inside Yerushalayim, Einam Sanbe'atchem, you're never going to be able to conquer Yerushalayim. If you want to conquer them, what you need to do is you have to stop giving them animals." The Macha, the next day, Shulchan Aruch Magen Avraham Kupa. So, Aristobulus' guys sent the money, the Khaz Lechem, and instead of Horkinus giving them in return the Khaz Lechem, which is what they used to do every day, on this day they were Khaz Lechem Khazir, a pig. Kim Shiga Lechatzi Khoyma, as soon as the Khazir came halfway up the wall, Notzi Par Nechayma, it stuck its nails into the wall of Yerushalayim. Finis Da Ze'eretz Yisrael Avameis Parso Avameis Parso, that this Khayas Meya should do this, it caused the whole Eretz Yisrael to shake. There was an earthquake. But Osa Sha'an that time, Amru the Khakhamim said, "Arishiya Gadol Khazir, you can't have a Khazir anywhere in Eretz Yisrael. For Arishiya Lo Amru the Khakhamim Yevanis." And also stay away from Khakhamim Yevanis. Because these were the two ingredients that caused this terrible Khurban. Either way, but Osa Sha'an was regarding that time, that time when Horkinus and his army had laid siege on Yerushalayim, and they destroyed everything in the surrounding area, that Shoninu, we learned that Ma'aseh, there was a story which is about Imrei Megadim Shreifim Ishte Alechem Bigasei Insechya. If this is the background, what happened was, why couldn't they find grain right outside Yerushalayim? Because everything had destroyed. Why was it destroyed? It was because of the siege of Horkinus. Now, the Gamara goes now and tells us the rest of the story. When it came time to bring the carbon they have a yard they did not have to bring the carbon there was no grain there was nothing to bring from. Akrizus they made this big Akrizus they said if anyone knows where there's some grain so we can bring the carbon please let us know. Asa who Harsha. So there was a Harsha that came. Now this Harsha was Shmaya the Harsha. He was able to hear he just couldn't talk. Asa who Harsha Yada Igro. He put one hand on the roof for Harsha Yada Igro the other one on a hut. And he's you know he was trying to like communicate in this way and tell the Harsha whatever he was trying to tell them. So I'm going to mark him. Mark him was there. And Mark him said me he could talk to the Shmak Gaga Srifin. Is there anyone here that knows of a place called Gaga Srifin? Asa Srifin Gaga is maybe it's called Srifin Gaga is. Right he he had a sense that he's probably telling him Gaga Srif. Right does anyone know of such a place? But who they did some Vashka. Who they found a place called Gaga Srifin and they found the over the last time they came to bring the over the again they didn't know what to do. And [ __ ] brought seven weeks later. It was seven weeks later they're in the same predicament. So again they made the Asa who Gaga Harsha so the same Harsha came. Asa in and he put one hand on his eye for Harsha Yada the other one Rashi says on the this is the hole in the door where they put the bolt where the goes. On my Mark him so again Mark him was there. He said to me he could talk to the Shmak in Asa in. But who for Asa they were and they found this Harsha saved the day both times. I was with regards to the carbon I was with regards to the and that's the rest of the story in the Mishna. Asa in Gaga Srifin the Harsha in me because Asa in the Gamara continues. And the Gamara says Shlosh Nashim. The Asa Shlosh Kinim. in. three women that walked into the base of Migdash each bringing kinam. So, what's a kinam? So, that's tzippor, right? Birds that are sometimes brought as korbanos. Khada amra, one woman said, "L'zeevasi, I'm bringing it because of my ziva." V'khada amra, "L'yamasi, I'm bringing it because of yamasi." V'khada amra, "L'einasi." The other one said "I'm bringing it for my ein." So, the sod of me ein, so the oilam that was there, the kohanim they assume that the one that said zeevasi is a zava. She must be a zava. A zava when she finishes her y'mei ziva has to bring korbanos. So, she probably came to bring her korbanos up. The one that said l'yamasi, it's l'yamasi mamash. Rashi says, "What is l'yamasi mamash? She fasts kayo." She must be a zava and she is pouring blood literally like the yam. And the one that said l'einasi is again, "L'einasi mamash." It's also she has her ein, right? That's a nidda dig lashon and and this must be what exactly she is doing. Right, Rashi says, "Hainu nami l'einasi korban zivasa." Yamish finish The bottom line is the the animal all there and they assume that all three of these women are all zavas and they're all coming to bring their korbanos up. Now, what's the korban of a zava? The kul khada khadas khadaiava. One is a khadas, one is an oila and that's what they were going to bring. Amru Mordechai, so this same Mordechai was there and Mordechai said, "Shema b'zoyiv zik zik zik." Now, I'm not so sure you're right. I'm not sure when she said l'zivasi, she meant she's a zava and right now she has to bring the korban that a zava has to bring. Maybe what she means was that when she was a zava, her life was in danger and as a result she was minadev to bring a korban as a thank you for the fact that she was saved and if that's the case, her korban that she brings is not a khadas and an oila cuz only oila is brought in a dava. Khadas is not brought in a dava. All she brings is a a korban oila. In fact, the one that said the one that said l'yamasi, shema b'yam zikna. Maybe she went on a voyage, she was at sea and her life was at risk or the one that said maybe something wrong with her eye. The cool way all they have to bring either way they did the and they found that exactly what had said was the case that this is what we learned in the mission of a person whose name was he was charged of all the kingdom he communicated with all the that came to bring the kingdom. And who was it it was and why was it called his name is really so why call him because he knew how to get people to to talk you need to open up something that was you need to things and he also knew all the 70 languages so he would communicate with the people that would come specifically the women that came with the kingdom because they didn't know languages so much so as a result they sometimes they spoke their unintended so they come back. And is the only one that knows how to speak to them so as a result is the one that's communicating so when we say was the one you want to know is it's really the one second one second is a member of the Sanhedrin Sanhedrin didn't all the members of the Sanhedrin know the 70 don't you have to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be have stature but you have to be older but you have to know so case there's like a case that you're dealing with you should be somewhat fluent in it you should understand it the additional you have to know the 70 and the reason that's important is like they said but they are totally men so you should be able to hear directly shouldn't have to hear from the but the bottom line is so what do you mean I thought everybody knows this. Talk to your mother. Ella the Hava bio. Listening now. He, Zachariah and Mordecai had a very unique talent. His talent was is that he knew how to go and unravel the shyness with Darshan and Darshan it. Similar to the story that we just had, right? So we had the the mice and Mordecai knew that one hand on the eye and one hand on the bolt, that's iron seeker. This was a quirk that he had. So he didn't just know languages like he knows how to speak, you know, Espanol and friends French and German and English and Yiddish. He he also had this ability to decipher some of these cryptic ways of communicating. The Hannah Mordecai answered for this reason. It says regarding Mordecai, Mordecai Bilshan. What's Bilshan? It's this lotion of bio lotion. He knew how to go ahead and unravel and to decipher these different lotions as promised on base on the 5000 was a lot easier and a lot smoother than almond olive like an hour shorter. But the bottom line is the bottom line is what was this last Kamara? The Kamara told the story really the rest of the story of my sister by the street festival and because of soccer. And it involved the Harris. A Harris that was in Madaba and it involved Mordecai. And then the Kamara digressed a little bit and talked about Mordecai. And talked about how Mordecai had the special choir with the shyness. In fact, he's Zachariah that's mentioned in the shyness. He's a lucky name because he's amazing when it comes to deciphering language. And even though every member of the Sanhedrin is, but he's national card. And the Kamara even told the story about these three servers that once came. One said the Lizzie Vossi, one said Liam Aussie, the other one said why not see and all the camera told one way Mordecai told the other way and he was right. But the bottom line is is that we had a whole discussion about Mordecai. So who is this Mordecai? So if you take a look at Rashi. Rashi dibra maskan Mordecai, Rashi says shahu b'me Achashverosh. You want to know who this Mordecai is? He is the Mordecai of Purim fame. The Mordecai of Achashverosh. Take a look at Tosfos. Tosfos dibra maskan Mordecai pirush b'kuntres, the who Mordecai shahu b'me Achashverosh. V'teima hu lo yichye am kol kach. Mordecai lived so long? How is this possible? How is it possible, right? Just to put into perspective, that Mordecai from the Purim story is around in the times of the Hashmonaim. That's fraskworthy, right? Mordecai is in the Chanukah story. Mordecai is in the Purim story, right? So, if you wanted uh, to mish the oitzos a little bit, here you have it. Here you have Mordecai in the Chanukah story. What's going on over here? So, Tosfos says v'teima hu lo yichye am kol kach. V'nireh Tosfos has a gishmak'dige teretz. Al shem Mordecai harishon hoyu nikra'im hamemunim al sh'mo. V'af isha ein m'manin ela b'ki'in ba'alei seichel umada. The original Mordecai was Mordecai Bilshan. It has to be that Mordecai. That's she's coming from. It's that Mordecai. He knows it from the Gemara. Mordecai Bilshan. Also, he's a member of the Sanhedrin. We know Mordecai is a member of the Sanhedrin, Anshei Knesses Hagdoloh. And he's p'saki that's mamuneh. There's nothing to talk about. But at the same time, at the same time, every person that got this job, and every person that was a ba'al lashon, and every person that would deal with the kingdom and these things, they took on the name, the name of Mordecai. And Mordecai became a name that had a life of its own. It's a name that's synonymous with people that are ba'alei lashon. And that's why this later Mordecai has the same stellar as the original Mordecai, but it's not the same person. Because that Mordecai is living in the times of the Purim story, and this Mordecai is living in the times of the Chanukah story. So, obviously, it can't be the same Mordecai. Bottom line is, a very interesting machlokes Rashi and Tosfos. Also, another interesting davar b'eita mat'iv, because again, we're still uh, you know, we're holding on for dear life, but we're at the end of Kodesh Adar still. And to have a Gemara that talks about Mordechai in Maseches Menachos tucked away, this is mamesh Dover Be'Ito Motzei. So, we had everything from the Korban Pesach being brought to Shma and the Matzos to Mordechai Bilshan. We're going a little tzurik tzu veg, cuz we're going a shtikel backwards, but the bottom line is in the spirit of Kodesh Adar and Shlosha Yamim Kodem LeChag, Dover Be'Ito Motzei. I know the text that hashtag great, but it got very late very early or very late very late. So, we're going to stop here and be'ezras Hashem pick it up tomorrow.