Menachos 88

Today's daf is Menachos daf peh, we are at the Mishnah on the bottom of daf peh zayin on midbase. So yesterday we began the 10th perek of Maseches Menachos perek sh'te midos which began with a machlokes Reb Meir and the chachamim in how many midos sh'al yovesh hoyu b'Mikdash. The chachamim said there were two midos, two measuring kelim that were used to measure dry things in the Beis Hamikdash. One measured in a se'ah, the other measured a chatzi se'ah. Reb Meir said there were three, two that measured in a se'ah, one in a se'ah machok, the other in a se'ah godol, and the third one measured a chatzi se'ah. The Mishnah is now going to discuss the midos that mentioned not things that were dry, but rather d'varim sh'al lach, things that were liquids. So the Mishnah shivah midos sh'al lach hoyu b'Mikdash, there were seven kelim that measured liquids in the Beis Hamikdash. One measured a hin, the other a chatzi hin, shlishis a hin, u'revi'is a hin, log, v'chatzi log, u'revi'is log. Plus Reb Tzaddok Hagadol, sh'nos hoyu b'hin. They didn't have to have so many that measured a hin or a chelek of a hin. Meaning the Tanna Kamma said there was a hin, a chatzi hin, a shlishis a hin, and a revi'is a hin. Reb Tzaddok said what do you need that for? Rather what they did was is they had one that went up to a hin and there were little markers on it. Like in your measuring cups that you have in your kitchen. Ad kan l'par, ad kan l'ayil, ad kan l'keves. We'll see more about that in the next Mishnah. But the point is that there were some korbanos that required n'sachim that was going to measure a chatzi hin, a shlishis a hin, or a revi'is a hin. So on the one midah that went up to a hin, there were little markers. So depending on what beheima you were bringing, how much n'sachim needed to be brought, you knew up until where to fill it up. But why do you need a whole keli that measures a shlishis a hin and a revi'is a hin and a chatzi hin? That wasn't necessary. Reb Shimon Reb Shimon says lo hoyu shivah hin, there was no hin at all. So Reb Shimon agrees with the other six of the Tanna Kamma. The Tanna Kamma had shivah midos sh'al lach, one of which was a hin. Reb Shimon says I agree with six, I don't agree with the hin. And the reason is because ironically v'chi mah hoyu hin m'shamesh? He says if you go through the entire Torah, you don't find ever that it was necessary to bring a hin of n'sachim. You find a half a hin, a third of a hin, and a quarter of a hin. But you never find a hin itself. Thus it wasn't necessary to have a hin. Stating there Reb Shimon says I agree there were seven, but whereas you the chachamim have as one of the seven the hin, I remove the hin, I replace it with a log and a half. What was the purpose of the log It was used for the Minchas Chavitin that the Kohen Gadol used to bring every day. Together it was three logim, but in the morning when he brought half the Minchas Chavitin, the Kohen Gadol used the log machatz, in the evening he also used the log machatz. Thus it was necessary to have a midah that measured up to a log machatz because it was used for the Minchas Chavitin. So the Gemara brought a braisa that elaborates on some of what the Mishnah said. Shivah midos sh'al lach hoyu b'Mikdash, there were seven midos of lach in the Beis Hamikdash. Revi'is log, v'chatzi log, v'log, u'revi'is a hin, u'shlishis a hin, v'chatzi hin, v'hin. Divrei Rebbi Yehudah. Reb Meir and Reb Meir says hin, v'chatzi hin, v'shlishis a hin, u'revi'is a hin, v'log, v'chatzi log, u'revi'is log. Now if you go through these a little bit slower, you'll see that Rebbi Yehudah that Reb Meir said the exact same thing. It's the same exact list of seven, it's the list of seven that we have in our Mishnah. The difference between what Rebbi Yehudah is saying and Reb Meir is saying is the order. Rebbi Yehudah is going from lowest to highest, whereas Reb Meir is going from highest to lowest. The log was smaller than the hin. The hin was bigger than the log. So if you go through Rebbi Yehudah a little bit slower, he started with a quarter of a log, a half a log, a log, a quarter of a hin which is the bigger measurement, a third of a hin, a half a hin, and a hin. So he's starting with the revi'is a log and he's ending with the hin. He's going from lowest to highest. Reb Meir has it in reverse. Reb Meir starts with the hin. Hin, chatzi hin, shlishis a hin, revi'is a hin. He's going lower and lower. Then he comes to the log, the chatzi log, the revi'is log. So Reb Meir started with the hin and he ended with the revi'is a log. The Gemara is going to ask my beinayim, what's the difference? The order is the difference? There must be some nafka minah l'halacha. Reb Shimon Reb Shimon says what he said in our Mishnah, lo hoyu shivah hin, there was no hin at all. V'chi mah hoyu hin m'shamesh? Because there was no purpose for it. But Reb Shimon says I agree to the seven. The Gemara is going to ask later, why does Reb Shimon have to agree to seven? But apparently Reb Shimon agreed with the premise that there were seven midos. He removed the hin. What did he insert instead? There was a midah that measured a log and a half. Sh'b'hoyu maydim l'chavitay Kohen Gadol, it was used for the Minchas Chavitin that the Kohen Gadol brought every day. Log machatz b'voker, log machatz bein arbayim. On the way the chachamim told Reb Shimon, so this already we didn't have in the Mishnah. Chatzi log hoyu shivah, Reb Shimon, why do you need a midah that measures one and a half logim? I understand that it's for the Minchas Chavitin that were brought every morning and every evening, and with the Mincha in the morning you needed a log and a half, and with the Mincha in the evening you needed a log and a half. However, they tell Reb Shimon Reb Shimon, the absolute shivah chatzi log. Why can't you use the midah of a chatzi log and from there measure the log machatz? Just take three half a logs. Three half a logs will get you a log and a half. Amalei he answers Reb Shimon told the chachamim, I hear, but let's be honest. After the revi'is according to you, chatzi log, v'log lo yasa. Why do you need a measurement that measured a half a log? And what do you need a measurement that measured a full log? Revi'is hoyu shivah. Once you have the quarter of the log, so anytime you need a half a log, take the revi'is a log and multiply it by two. Anytime you need a full log, take the revi'is a log and multiply it by four. Reb Shimon told the chachamim, you must agree that there was a rule in the Beis Hamikdash that we don't do that. You don't use the revi'is a log to figure out the half a log and the log. So in the same vein, I'm not going to use the chatzi log to figure out the log machatz. That's where Reb Shimon had a special midah, the log u'machatz. So the Gemara brought a braisa that mentioned the same shivah midos that were mentioned in the Mishnah. Stating that the braisa presents it as a machlokes Rebbi Yehudah Reb Meir. And we said if you go through the list a little bit slower, it seems that they're really not arguing. They're mentioning the same exact seven midos. The only difference is in the order. Rebbi Yehudah is going from lowest to highest. He starts with the revi'is a log and he ends with the hin. Reb Meir goes from highest to lowest. He starts with the hin and he ends with the revi'is a log. So says the Gemara, my beinayim eika bein Reb Meir and Rebbi Yehudah? And Rebbi Yochanan Rebbi Yochanan said, b'rutzah midos eika beinayim. The nafka minah is the foam or the fizz. So if you pour a liquid, sometimes it's going to foam up a little bit on top. And if you fill a cup up for example all the way to the very top, then the foam is going to go beyond the borders of the cup. And the question is, number one, does that have kedushah? Number two, is that part of the shiur? So if you're supposed to fill up a cup, does that mean that it's understood that there's going to be a little bit of foam on top and that's included in the definition of the full cup? Or no, you have to wait until the fizz comes down, there can't be anything on top. And from a Mincha perspective, the shailah is, it doesn't have kedushah? Can it go on the base on the mizbei'ach? Is it allowed to go on the mizbei'ach? Or maybe it doesn't have kedushah, maybe it's not allowed to go on the mizbei'ach, maybe it doesn't have to go on the mizbei'ach. The bottom line is Rebbi Yochanan said that this machlokes Reb Meir Rebbi Yehudah is not just the way they're presenting it, lowest to highest, highest to lowest. There's a very important machlokes in halacha and that is these b'rutzah midos, this foam, is a part of the Mincha or not part of the Mincha? Miman d'mei m'matoh l'ma'alah, miman d'mei m'ma'alah l'matoh. Miman d'mei m'ma'alah l'matoh which was Rebbi Yehudah, k'savar he holds b'rutzah midos niska'ach. He holds the foam was niska'ach. V'revi'is yovdei Rachmana l'Moshe. And Rebbi Yochanan said something interesting, that Rebbi Yehudah understood that Kodesh Boruch Hu gave Moshe b'Har Sinai a midah. He gave him a becher. And the becher measured a revi'is. V'amalei and he told Moshe sh'a'er that I want you to use this becher, this revi'is, and from there figure out all the other measurements. There's going to be shivah midos in the Mishkan, shivah midos in the Beis Hamikdash. Take this and run with it. So from the revi'is a log, I want you to take something now that's twice as big, that's going to be a chatzi log. And then take something that's going to be twice as big as that, and that's going to be a log. Essentially what Moshe Rabbeinu was going to have to do then was he was going to make a keli and he was going to have to measure that that keli should be twice as big as the keli that was given to my Moshe. The keli that was given that was given to Hakodesh Boruch Hu The keli that was given to Hakodesh Boruch Hu was a revi'is. So how's he going to make sure that that one's twice the size? He's going to fill up the revi'is that he got from Hashem and he's going to have to pour two of them into this bigger keli. When you pour from a smaller keli into a bigger keli, the foam gets into the bigger keli. If you pour from a bigger keli to a smaller keli, then the foam is going to get lost on the side. But if you go from a smaller to a bigger, the foam is going to be there. And being that Rebbi Yehudah holds that Kodesh Boruch Hu gave Moshe the revi'is and it was from there that Moshe Rabbeinu figured out what the chatzi log was and what the log was, etc. etc. etc. So he was pouring from smaller cups to bigger cups, that's how he was figuring it out. And when you small from pour from a smaller to a bigger, you end up getting the foam. You get the b'rutzah midos. So it makes sense then that the b'rutzah midos should have the kedushah. L'man d'mei m'ma'alah l'matoh, miman d'mei that says you you go from ma'alah l'matoh, Reb Meir, k'savar b'rutzah midos lo niska'ach. The hin yovdei Rachmana l'Moshe. And Hakodesh Boruch Hu gave Moshe a hin. He him the bigger one. And he told him, "Sha'er, go from the bigger one and figure out what the smaller ones are going to be." If you pour from the bigger to the smaller, you're going to lose the Beirutzim. Thus, there's a very important nafka mina between a mayor and Rabbi Yehuda plays itself out in hashtag rest of the story. Exactly how would these shiurim be given over to Moshe Rabbeinu? Hashem gave Moshe a hint. Interesting. But from a halachic standpoint, the nafka mina is if Moshe Rabbeinu was pouring from smaller to bigger, then the Beirutzim were being saved. He wasn't losing it. So it would make sense then to argue that the Beirutzim was part of the shiur. If Moshe Rabbeinu was pouring from bigger to smaller, then he would have lost the Beirutzim. Thus, it makes sense to say the Beirutzim were not part of the shiur. Abaye says no. The kulya of the Beirutzim is ikla meima dischasha. Ikla meima lo dischasha. I don't believe that the machlokes between Rav Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is whether Beirutzim midos had kedusha or not. What then do Rav Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold as it relates to Beirutzim midos? I don't know, says Abaye. Ikla meima, maybe they hold the dischasha. Ikla meima lo dischasha. It has nothing to do with this machlokes right here. What then is the machlokes? Why did Rabbi Yehuda go lowest to highest? Why did Rav Meir go highest to lowest? So ironically, Abaye says a very similar pshat. Abaye said "Malayam kamiflagai. They were arguing head on the stand the word the korbanos that the nasiim brought. The korban karas kesef achas shloshim uma'ah mishkal kesef shivim shekel beshekel hakodesh shnayim malayam solas belula bashemen. So this mizrak was malayam. It was moleh. It was filled up with solas belula bashemen. Now solas belula bashemen is considered a liquid. The mande went from highest to lowest. Abaye holds malayam means shelo yechsar v'shelo yoser. It has to be perfectly moleh. Can't be a little bit less than moleh. It can't be a little bit more than moleh. So the way you're supposed to fill up a k'li shares is you're supposed to fill it up until the very top. Not almost to the very top and not a little bit more than the very top. Now, not up until the very top. You understand what that means. What would it mean more than the very top? Again, the phone. It's the same Beirutzim midos. So the mande that said "Mil malemata", he holds that the way you're supposed to pour from k'li shares to k'li sharede, shares it's from a bigger one to a smaller one. If you pour from a bigger one to a smaller one, the way Rashi explains it you can control it in a way that will be perfectly up to the top. You can control that it shouldn't be too little. You can also control that it shouldn't be too much. Mande malemata mande malemata had it me malemata. He holds that's the way you're supposed to pour. And if that's the way you're supposed to pour it, it's going to be very difficult to make it precisely up until the way to top. Just practically. Thus, malayam must mean shelo yechsar. It shouldn't be less than moleh. Af al yoser. But if it's more, that's okay. Malayam karina bei, it's still going to be considered malayam. The bottom line is it's not just a shaila between Rav Meir and Rabbi Yehuda how they presented the shiurim, but there's actually a nafka mina l'halacha. The first pshat in the Gemara, the nafka mina l'halacha Rav Yehuda says Beirutzim midos the foam does it have kedusha does it not have kedusha. In other words, it's it's an important nafka mina because what was when you say there was a mida that was a revi'is. Is it the revi'is that can have in it the Beirutzim midos or is it revi'is that doesn't have in it the Beirutzim midos. According to Abaye, the nafka mina was not the Beirutzim midos, but rather when we say malayam, does it mean it has to be mamash up until the very top shelo yechsar v'shelo yoser or does malayam just mean shelo yechsar but it doesn't necessarily mean shelo yoser. Amar Rav Shimon bar Rebbi Shimon says lo shanim. Rav Meir argued regarding the the seven midos and whereas the chachamim had a hin as one of the seven, Rav Shimon said there was no mida that measured a hin. Rather, instead of the hin, there was one that measured a log umachtza. And what was Rav Shimon's argument? His argument was there was no mida in the Beis Hamikdash that was a hin. Vehi malchei mishamesh, says the Gemara. Shavu kamahu Rav Shimon bar Rebbi Nachman. Good kasha. Why do you need according to the chachamim a hin? Rabbeinu mishkan. There was a Moshe Rabbeinu mishkan. The shiur was a hin. The shiur was a hin. D'ksiv as the pasuk says in its entirety, "V'chido chamesh me'os beshekel hakodesh v'shemen zayis hin." Amar Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak lo hayu tzarichim besha'ahu have the hin. nice. Moshe Rabbeinu needed a mida that was a hin, but l'doros you don't need it. L'doros it was hidden. V'eidoch and the chachamim given a hava hava. No, once they had this mida, they kept this mida. Meaning everybody's in agreement that it wasn't used l'doros. The question was being that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't need it. He needed it to measure the shiv'a mishkan. Was that a reason to always have it or no? Being that it wasn't necessary l'doros, it was amar amar. The atzmi aviv tachav. So the Gemara said that Rav Shimon, you don't have the hin. So what are you going to replace? What's your seven? So the Gemara says sagy l'mayo. Who says has to have a seven? Why is this such a big deal? Why does everybody have to agree that there was seven midos? So the Gemara says k'dei Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak b'sefer Hasibur. Ravina said that there was a mesora. There was a halacha l'Moshe miSinai that the only two times that smicha was done with a korban tzibur. Not our sugya, but hacha nami, we just want the principle. Gemiri there was a halacha l'Moshe miSinai shiv'a midos l'halacha l'mikdash. There was a mesora. There was a halacha l'Moshe miSinai that there were seven midos. So everybody agreed with this halacha l'Moshe miSinai. Apparently, there was no wiggle room to argue with halacha l'Moshe miSinai. The question only was what the seventh was. Stating that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and bar Yitzchak argue in the mishna. said shnosai shiv'a hin. You didn't have the revi'is hin and the shlishis hin and the chatzi hin and the hin. No, there was one that measured a hin and there were little markers. This is with the third is is with a quarters is with a half is. So the Gemara says "V'les lei shiv'a midos." We just said that Rav Shimon and the chachamim, everybody agrees gemiri there was a mesora. There's a halacha l'Moshe miSinai shiv'a midos. And then in the same breath, Rav Nachman Rav Shimon Rav Nachman says that there wasn't seven. So the Gemara says I hear "V'les lei." You have to say that he doesn't he doesn't agree with this halacha l'Moshe miSinai. He argued with him. Eima yeish amar shiv'a midos shiv'a medidos. According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the halacha l'Moshe miSinai wasn't shiv'a midos, but rather the halacha l'Moshe miSinai was shiv'a medidos. So if you have one that measures a hin with these markers, each marker represents not an independent k'li. Thus, it's not a it's a mida, but it's a medida. If the halacha l'Moshe miSinai was medidos, so Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's halacha could be consistent with the halacha l'Moshe miSinai excel. So before we go further, it's interesting that we have a machlokes between Rav Shimon and the chachamim on the one hand, bar Yitzchak on the other hand. Al be it according to the first of the Gemara's two terutzim, whether there was a halacha l'Moshe miSinai that shiv'a midos shalach hoyu b'mikdash or there was no halacha l'Moshe miSinai that shiv'a midos shalach hoyu b'mikdash. This morning's daf began with a mishna. We're learning perek sh'tei midos. That's referring to the sh'tei midos shalach yavesh. Now we're holding on the second mishna, which is the shiv'a midos. It's the shiv'a midos shalach. And at the very end of the Gemara, right before we start the third mishna, the Gemara told us what's the makor to the shiv'a midos. It was a halacha l'Moshe miSinai. Gemiri there was a mesora of shiv'a midos and that's why Rav Shimon, who argued with the chachamim whether there was a mida shalach hin, had to find another mida that he was going to replace. If there's no hin, it has to be something else. Because halacha l'Moshe miSinai. How are you going to argue with halacha l'Moshe miSinai? But stating that, the Gemara said there was a time that argued halacha l'Moshe miSinai. It was Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. So the Gemara two terutzim. One terutz the Gemara said he really didn't argue with halacha l'Moshe miSinai. He held the halacha wasn't shiv'a midos. It was shiv'a medidos. But in the first terutz of the Gemara, Gemara said "V'les lei." He did not hold of the halacha l'Moshe miSinai. But that's a little bit of a problem. Is it possible for there to be a machlokes regarding halacha l'Moshe miSinai? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim perek alef halacha gimmel, "Divrei kabala ein bahem machlokes l'olam." Anything that we know b'kabala, halacha l'Moshe miSinai, there is no machlokes. It's not possible. It's something that was universally accepted by all the chachmei hadoros. "V'chol davar she'timotzei b'machlokes be'adua she'ein kabala miMoshe Rabbeinu." And if that's the case, how could there be a machlokes in halacha l'Moshe miSinai? The Rambam said "Eidus. Divrei kabala ein bahem machlokes l'olam. V'chol davar she'timotzei b'machlokes be'adua she'ein kabala miMoshe Rabbeinu." Here we have a machlokes. We have Rav Shimon and the chachamim on the one hand. We have bar Yitzchak on the other hand. They're arguing whether there was seven midos or there were no seven midos. So by definition, it's a davar she'timotzei b'machlokes. If that's the case, be'adua she'ein kabala miMoshe Rabbeinu. How could that be? The truth is the Brisker Rav in his sefer Kedushei Mordechai Gries Avivi on Maseches Yoma, it's on daf pei. The sugyas of shiurim which we're going to get to on the latter part of the daf. So the Brisker Rav over there asks this kasha. He doesn't mention Menachos daf pei but he mentions different places in Shas where you find a machlokes and it's something that's related to a halacha l'Moshe miSinai. One of the examples he gives is the Gemara in Maseches Bava Kamma. Right in the beginning of perek eizehu nezek machlokes Sumchus and the chachamim. Tzeroros. Chatzi nezek tzeroros. So the halacha is it's halacha l'Moshe miSinai. So if an animal would be mazik, it would kick a rock and then the rock would be mazik. It's what we know as tzeroros. And there's a machlokes whether tzeroros, even though it's regel, it's not meshuna, but at the same time, because it's tzeroros, it was indirect. So there's a a klal chatzi nezek tzeroros halacha l'Moshe miSinai. Stating that, Sumchus argues. Sumchus holds that tzeroros, you pay nezek shalem. Right to the Brisker Rav. How's this with this Rambam? I thought "Divrei kabala ein bahem machlokes l'olam. V'chol davar she'timotzei b'machlokes be'adua she'ein kabala miMoshe Rabbeinu." And the Brisker Rav says a davar nifla based on the Gemara in Maseches Temura daf tesayin amud alef. We'll just say over the abridged version of it. And that is the Gemara over there is discussing Osniel ben Kenaz. Osniel ben Kenaz is mentioned in Nach. And he married Caleb ben Yefuneh's daughter. Says the Gemara, >> mentioned in and he married Caleb and his son's daughter. Says the Gamorah, just one extra tunnel. However, there were 1700 we see now that were forgotten and we may have needed more they couldn't learn. They were very much and the caused them to forget they forgot so much 1100 Caleb and his son's daughter said don't think they were lost forever. He came was a major London. The positive talks about how he was a giver he was a mighty warrior a five star general but he was also a tremendous London and was able to be master this me type of with London China etc. etc. Said the graph so it comes out from here that there are 1700 we see now that we have right now not we have it if that's the case it opens up a window for us to be able to find the in we see now when the says and it's it if you find the be a doer she that's referring to most most we have today we have we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we have it we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we Number one, they needed a mind for the part of the very esoteric to hire a process of the involved a of how do you measure the they use this meter that was a the who brought breads together with his aisle together with his needed a of how do you measure the of you use this how do you use the for the for the that was a so they needed it to measure the the additionally you had the that was brought together with the what they use the for that's every had a I feel even if the was so big it had 60 motion was you would have to take a and a and a it's a very tedious process but one at a time you would have to add a of because a for every there was always going to be one thus you definitely needed I feel I agree every had a but it wasn't one for each but rather the needed a so if the was made up of 60 you're only going to have one we'll see more about this in the there was six for the now there are 12 in the which means that if there was six the had the that's what the was for the aisle the there were four for every aisle that was brought four is a that's what it was a the that's a for the three and a half for the each had a says the Rabbi Rabbi was sitting he's giving share and he was bothered with a he said the says everybody agrees that one of the that were in the was a the was a a by the way is a a so everybody agrees that there was a a a his question was why did it have to be a if it was a it sounds like it was necessary for the to be its contents even what would be the said two things that this was used for it was used for the that the used and the says that it was used for the for the for the for the that came together with the with the aisle that the would bring he said if you needed for the the was brought outside now if you look at the says but if you look at the says this was done in it wasn't done in the so at first glance it seems to be a between and and when we say that this part of the was done by we mean outside of what was just mean it wasn't done in the but regardless the argument is that it didn't have to have the of a so you need a measuring stick that's very nice but you don't need a that should be one of the that you would only need if you needed if it's for the the the the that got its when you the aisle this is 101 the going on you know what it was used for it was used for the the because we said there was of that was used with the in the morning and there was a that was used in the evening so if you do the math how many were there for the in total 12 if half was brought in the morning half was brought at night so there was six in the morning six at night if the six together made up a that means each made up a is a so each one made up a thus you needed the to measure each individual so that's what told Rabbi and the says when he heard that he was very excited he told them well you came from far to enlighten us Rabbi and Rabbi both quoted where the talks about how there were three times that was at the brink of being forgotten in Israel and somebody came from and made sure that wasn't forgotten Ezra Ezra Hillel and Rabbi is one of the three and so that was that was the rest of the story of Rabbi's comment he told them thank you very much for for enlightening us from coming from this is one of the that Rabbi told everybody about what was the purpose of the it's Rabbi the what did the have to have the the said it was used for the that the used to drink the where did the my where did the come from that the drank it came from the said anyways had it was why do you need a not to be if it's for the that's the other thing the says it was used for the had a of we know the got its that's the the between the animals and the breads so the gets its from the of the not from the the of each in the needed it was three and a half in total thus three and a half divided by seven each one was going to be a a half a so Rabbi told his son you're right he called him says because he said a a regarding that's why he used that term either way if a gets extinguished or one of the gets extinguished and then the so what happens the was supposed to light a lot more about this in tomorrow's stuff what happens in the middle of the night the the extinguishes so what are you supposed to do the supposed to go and relight it the answer is yeah he's supposed to relight it the question is what's he supposed to do is he supposed to is he supposed to clean up the whether it's the that has the ashes in it the that turned into ashes it doesn't matter are you supposed to clean it out and relight from the beginning put in the full meter what you would be putting in had you been lighting in the beginning of the night meaning the should do what he did at the beginning of the night or should he just make up the difference that's the question so again Rabbi said in the name of Rabbi so you clean it up and you light it again yes it wasn't sure what that meant cuz you do you put in what you put in initially you start all over again or you or you just make up the difference so if half of it already lit during the night so now you only have to make up a half it's obvious that it's the cuz if you going to tell me you're supposed to start from you're supposed to just make up the difference how do you know what the difference is the what do you mean just measure it before you get rid of this just measure how much there is and make up the difference it's supposed to be a whatever you're going to have subtract from the whatever that difference is that's what you're going to have to include. But he said here in the MK 7 meters, not for me to say to you. Then you need meters for that. Cuz how are you going to measure it? You're going to need a something to measure it with. And we know there were 7 meters. They didn't have more than 7 meters. So if you didn't have more than 7 meters, the logic is never to be making all these different random measurements because you would need meters for that. So the says the slack positive to the hill and the end said that the end of the rush he says you have to switch the hay into a and the ration to a dollar the bottom one is it's not the it's the that would be very sharp and as a result he was to say it very honest it not me all my if the night extinguishes the and now this this ashes in the or or this ashes in the case So so what do you do? You're supposed to clean it up. You're to me to you're supposed to add and you're supposed to light it again. Excel. So the next tomorrow is really a new year. So we'll pick up with the new tomorrow morning and but for now just a little bit or a lot of bit of rain on some of what we just learned. So the task began with seven shall I call you the in there was a a review like and the second mission that we learned this morning discuss what was the purpose of each one of these measurements review my review show me the nozzle. So how big is the and the truth is the size of has implications in the as we just saw but they're also very much practical implications because just as the classic is the the classic is always the so for example if somebody drinks makes a a most times he's going to make a the only time you make a is if you drink this. If you have a making any has to be a when you have a you have to drink from the obviously you're making a how much do you drink what's the it's of a you find the concept of in areas that as well so for example not allowed to drink wine how much wine is not allowed to drink is not allowed to drink down of a is how much of a is a is the bottom line is the is the that you that you find in and it's very very practical from a standpoint to be able to know what exactly so in this morning we saw that the definition of is a how long that doesn't help us that much cuz you have to know what a is a is six a is six so if a is six that means is a a so so really if you want to work and narrow down the a little bit a is the equivalent of a now how do you take a a and convert it into a liquid a is a solid and whenever you say means the with its shell means doesn't mean you the egg and whatever comes out is a what it means is together with the shell but how do you do it so it's what's known scientifically as the displacement theory exactly so what you do is is you take a cup and this is the dumb down version of it you take a bowl of water you fill it up until the top and you drop an egg in water is obviously going to come out the amount of water that comes out that's quote unquote displaced that is considered the volume of the egg that you put inside so the way to be a is to take a or displace liquid water and the amount of water that's going to come out that's what you're going to get end up with now if you would make this science experiment in your house what you're going to find out is that the average the average large egg today in the United States is going to displace 1.87 oz of water which means that a which is a is 1.87 times 1.5 which is approximately 2.8 oz which would make a 2.8 oz and that is without question the in the in a famous famous and this is in the slack in the slack in the paragraph came and he was and really it's the a in the slack in the over there brings a different way to be what is so we figured out what the is using back of the with that we know that we know that equals six thus a which is a quarter of a is a quarter of six which is a we know how to do this displacement experiment and as a result we figured out the size of your average egg 1.87 times 1 and a half we have a number it's 2.8 oz but the gives another way to do it the said the it's I am I'll the room I am the end of the end of the he said you want to measure it you can measure it using your fingers and today whenever you use your finger to measure something but this for it's by to the end of the six to the end of the you're supposed to use your thumb and it's the width of your thumb it's by the joint that's considered the widest part of your thumb that's what you're supposed to do so said you can figure out what a is using your thumbs that's all you need is your thumbs he said it's two thumbs by two thumbs by 2.7 thumbs it comes out to 10.8 cubic thumbs and and that's your number bottom line had another way to do it and the goes on in a very complicated tomorrow I talked away that and the says that based on that you can figure out how to measure a which has to be 40 using this slash slash method because a has to be so how do you figure out what is so there's actually a relationship between and that is there's 144 to the so it's 40 times 144 but the said that based on what I just told you that the is I am I am I am so you can take this formula and you can plug it into your spreadsheet and you'll be able to figure out exactly what the supposed to be you can work it out so there's two ways to figure out what a is there's also two ways to figure out what a we're familiar with the how much do you have to have in order to be a or 43.2 how do you how do you remember that there's a very easy way to the word how is the 43 the says the 43 the at the end is the fifth so it's 43 and a fifth the the says there's another way to figure out the and the essentially worked on this had this formula with and the and the the point is is that anytime you have something that you are based on and there's another way to get to the same exact place and that's based on cuz there's a relationship between and based on the fact that a is a based on it's also 2 by 2 by 2.7 based on member the over there applies these same two ways of figuring out a and the already took care of it for us in told us there's two ways of figuring out the based on that's 43.2 and based on that's very confusing but based on whatever the exactly the is going to end up using and the writes in that when he came to Prague he sat down and he wanted to figure out exactly how much do you need in order to be and the said he knew there were two there's two ways that you can do this so he sat down and he was 43.2 like the and then he went ahead and he used the method of and lo and behold the said the two didn't match as a matter of fact if when he did it the way it came out that it was double it was literally double what it was when he had done it by being what's going on these were two that gave us that we're supposed to take you to the same these both roads are supposed to take you to the same place and one road took north the other road took south and so we have a that they both worked and was very very puzzled he was very confused he said what's the so he said that one of two things must have happened he said either people got bigger and therefore said when he was measuring with his thumbs maybe people are bigger today than they once were and as a result it came out twice the size or he said maybe the got small and the got small that's why the number was off says the I quote from the incidentally this is not in this is actually later this is in the real so he the he's talking about and then in the middle of the digresses from his digression and he says that I myself experimented so So why can you measure which glance it did not come out like the so this was a digression while he was being division of one or two things happen either people got bigger or the eggs got smaller says it's well known spiritually and physically the there's no way that people got bigger so it leaves us with only one choice this my name is my name must be that the eggs my name got smaller so it says that's the case based on my experience how much smaller are they 50 cents on the dollar they're literally half the size because the experiment did with his thumbs he felt was right and with the base and it came out the half so the eggs must have been cut in half so it says if that's the case anytime you're going to sit down and you're going to be anything in using base and you have to double it because although told us certain based on base and it was based on the base we're living in a world of you read this we don't have the right eggs anymore so whatever we have you have to double so for example the which is a base said that I do not a base it was a base on their base it's three base that's what it is said that I do not we know that is 43 and change base and you have to double it it's 86.4 it's not 43.2 and HE SAID THE THIS IS WHERE THIS is most important when it comes to sure is so how do you is says it's a half a base it's a half there's no base it's a full base it was a half of those bases but don't measure half of today's base cuz today's BASE IS HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT THE BASE used to be in other words said that all that are based on base need to be doubled cuz the base today is half of what the base once was in other words we said that what's the so we said it's a base or based on the fact that the six base the a quarter of six base is one and a half so we said 1.87 displacement that is the average large egg today in the United States multiply that by one and a half you're going to end up with 2.8 if you use the other isn't going to be 2.8 it's going to be double it's going to be 5.6 that's a much more that's a much larger but the bottom line is is this was the it he writes it in he says he experimented on it and he was literally with this year so what's the so you take a look at the simon says the the who cannot clip me base the sheer base the is one and a half base measuring the base together with its shell the who base the is six base back of the arithmetic is I like who base so simple once you you go through it says the the but you should know there are those that are very when it comes to the that the base nowadays are smaller than they once were literally half of what they were in the times of the but the is so it comes out the is not a base it's double that it's three the and it plays itself out not only with regards to with regards to as well cuz the past even though there's a sheet that says that is a third of a base that's where the below base you end up with these super duper big because the base on the and sign on the fact that a is not half a base it's really a third of a base but regardless the is that a is a half a base the bottom line is take a look at the we'll see it in a moment what I pass the but the bottom line is in short the writes it in his the in that what relates to which is you should be and you shouldn't have the smaller 2.8 oz rather you should have the larger I guess 5.6 oz I'll put a mirror at the very least even though you're supposed to drink I'm going to which is a says you could drink your own you don't have to have the and how much you're drinking but the itself should definitely be and it should have the larger which is a not based on a being one and a half base but based on the having three base if you take a look at the was a little bit more over there and he asks one question he says like this he says after who even though his who's who's his the even though the question was he said he sat down he did it in Prague he worked it out and the numbers didn't work and it was clear to him that he says the so question but there's a big question on the as well there's a so talks about what the is so the is a cheek full right you put liquid you fill up one cheek that's your and the says that if a person would fill up both his cheeks with liquid it would be you would end up being able to have you would end up being able to have more than a of in your mouth so how much says the can a person fit inside his mouth says the he can fit more than a says the if a is a base you could do it if you tried at home you'll be able to do it but wait the that really all the numbers have to be doubled so comes out the is not a base and a half but rather a is three base says try sticking three base worth of in your mouth at one time he says it's going to be very hard to do he says in fact the this is the talking then become a being in him says I met many being in him and I worked that with them I'm going to but all of it I being in him it was I COULDN'T GET ONE PERSON TO DO IT I couldn't get one person to do it so that I hear the question but I have a question I get the question the bottom line is the comes out here exactly what he comes out as a in the with the question the value the question the question but as it relates to anything that's says the says the mission of this is not something that you have to be regardless we know there's different is the smaller is the bigger now you know the rest of the story the smaller is based on the you you take a base using the formula that we just used and that's how you come up with the you take a half a base that's how you come up with the you held that it was based on the that you have to double that you have to double if you remember the issue has wrote a issue the wrote many many that he was right and the didn't hear he didn't hear that the that's like the not not there's a of the we're going to take out the of the when it comes to the the held very very strongly and passionately that he was right but just before we end this and maybe we pick up part two tomorrow just two anecdotes the first one is and it comes from the so the was of he was a of of the and he brings this whole piece of the it's in simon so he brings the entire and at the end he writes as follows he says I just want you to know the question says you know the one my the did his experiment so he used his own finger he used his thumbs and that's how he came up with the for who he says what not everybody knows is that the was very very tall he was HE WAS BUT HIS THUMB IT WAS TWICE THE SIZE OF ANOTHER AS IS ANYONE WHO HAD THE to know the WHO THE WHO BUT WHAT I FEEL THAT HIS EXPERIMENT WAS FLAWED CUZ THE when he made an experiment he used his thumb the width of his thumb and he came out that with his thumb it was double what it was if you go with the good old fashioned base method but said the I knew my and anyone that knew my can testify that the was not an he wasn't an in any sense of the world not even physically wasn't an he was he was he says he was so tall I believe the experiment was flawed so he said I I went and I told him what I feel and when I told it to him he laughed and the understood he understood that you know why the laughed cuz he was to what he had to say so writes the this whole that was it's in the and the and everything says the whole thing was a it was flawed because it was all based on an experiment that the night of Yehuda made and then that was based on experiment that he made and the night of Yehuda was not your average typical person. I don't think it's real. The Hazon Ish in his country brings this. Listen to this. And the night of Yehuda laughed. The inner world of the base measures. This is not something that's even worthy of being brought to a base measures, learning in a basement. The Hazon Ish the night of Yehuda said that he didn't know what the night of Yehuda said the Hazon Ish he didn't know that you have to use an Ish Bainani. The alcohol what do you have to say? The you have to say that Yehuda felt that even though he knew he was very tall but he must have been the Mashiah that his thumb was a was a an Agudah Bainani. It wasn't bigger necessarily than your average was. The Gamara had a super show of Shas Medida. Now the Turei Zahav had never said that he was there at the time that the night of Yehuda actually did the experiment. She had a Shas Medida. Oh you made maybe Rav Rabinovitch or maybe not. How does he even know that Yehuda said that he used his thumb? He didn't say that. He said he made an experiment. He oversaw the experiment. Maybe it's somebody else's thumb because he knew that his thumb was bigger than something else says. The Turei Zahav had a called Kah Kashuva. Now if it was so Kashuv Zohar the Marsha and the moving I'm not sure what this Zohar exactly is says the Hazon Ish. The night of Yehuda and the night of Yehuda was really Hazer an Indian about Erev Kabbir. Shall I recover the Sifrei Kol Yisrael? Think about it says the Hazon Ish. The night of Yehuda wrote in his Sefer Orah that was all of Kol Yisrael. Then it had a show who told and now the Turei Zahav had told him that it's a Tosefta. But you're right the Maiseh Kabbir eating the Farsh and Hazer Oseh. He should have been the Farsh of it. The night of Yehuda was Rav in Shel Kol Bain Agavah. He just said a groundbreaking a total game-changing Chiddush. Wouldn't it be necessary for the night of Yehuda felt that it wasn't true based on what the Turei Zahav had told him to say that? Fiki Hachiya Mida Legmar Hadova Beshkol. This is the way the night of Yehuda was going to walk away from all of this. This is going to be the conclusion? With a Galachta Aval Anoi Yehuda Shama Vorein Pip Tevlin Bal. Says the Hazon Ish when the night of Yehuda went to the Turei Zahav he said he realized that it was whatever it was Pip Put Balma. Valelo Faneinu Edosho Kol Agavah and that's why he dismissed it he didn't take it seriously because had he really taken it seriously and he felt that you know what maybe I made a mistake we would have more than just a laugh from the night of Yehuda. There would have been a Hazara and a there would have been a much bigger deal made of it. But the fact it wasn't that's a Raya that the night of Yehuda wasn't laughing as being Maskim to it but rather he was dismissing it. Now it's interesting the Turei Zahav was a Talmud Muvek Yehuda he knew his Rabbi very well and he clearly thought that the night of Yehuda was was accepting it and maybe he knew how to read the body language of his Rabbi and that's why he took it the way he took it. But regardless the Hazon Ish said it's impossible. You can't be then at the end he says that there's another problem with the Turei Zahav's Taina because if you take a look at the Turei Zahav Sofer the Turei Zahav Sofer brings that Rav Ephraim Zalman Margolies told him that he made the same experiment as the night of Yehuda and he came out like the night of Yehuda. And then the Turei Zahav Sofer says I too did it. He's even apologetic about it the Turei Zahav Sofer in his Turei Zahav maybe we'll speak about the Turei Zahav Sofer tomorrow because there's a lot there. But the Turei Zahav Sofer writes in his Turei Zahav that after the night of Yehuda did it Rav Ephraim Zalman Margolies said what I can't rely on them? He says all right he's going to do it also but the Maiseh he also did it he also came out the same way. So the night of Yehuda was Ma'am I love you I'll call Agavah. But Rav Ephraim Zalman Margolies and the Turei Zahav Sofer nobody ever heard that about them. So the bottom line is that's the the first anecdote. Another interesting thing and that is that you're familiar with the city of Pompeii. So Pompeii was an ancient Italian Roman city that was covered by volcanic ashes. There was a big volcano and it got covered by like 20 feet of of ashes and because of the fact that there was no air and moisture in that area amazingly the city would remain intact. That's one of the largest tourist attractions in the world today. So people go to the city of Pompeii and you can actually see a city literally the way it was 2,000 years ago. And they found a lot of artifacts in the city of Pompeii. One of the things they found was an egg and the egg is the same size of the eggs that we have right now. And it's a little bit of a horror on the night of Yehuda but really you know again no one's going to be a Shaila of this magnitude based on an egg that they found in the city of Pompeii. I think that's very obvious. It really segues into a much larger discussion and that is in general can you use archaeological finds to determine Halacha? What's ground zero for that? Pun intended right? What's ground That was good. What's ground zero for that? Can you use an archaeological find? The Sefer HaSefer Sefer Siman Mem Daled brings from Kadmonim that they found Tefillin in an archaeological dig and the Seder Parshios was like Rashi wasn't like Rabbeinu Tam. It's the Sefer HaSefer Siman Mem Daled in the Sugya of Rashi Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin. So the bottom line is just an interesting anecdote as relates to this. This is really a Hakdama to the Shaila of Shiur maybe we'll speak about part two in the next few days.