Menachos 9

Today's stuff is Menachot daf tes. And we are seven lines from the bottom of daf ches amud beis gufa. Today's daf is being learned as a zechus refuah shleimah for Yitzchak ben Shifra Merel, Chava Miriam bas Malkah Freda, and [ __ ] ben Chaya Leah. Today's daf is also being learned as a zechus for Sarah bas Silvia that she find a zivug hagun bekarov. So, yesterday's daf mentioned a whole bunch of different halachos related to zevachim, Menachot, lechem hapanim. Today's daf is going to begin gufa, which means we're going to revert back to one of those halachos and talk a little bit about it. It's talking about the gufa. Omrah Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yochanan said shlomim sheshachtan beheichal ksheirim. In the event that a carbon shlamim shechita was done in the heichal proper, it's going to be kosher. How do I know that? Said Rebbi Yochanan, and she named it the pasuk says, veshachatu pesach oil moed. That the makom of where the shechita of the shlamim supposed to be is by the entranceway of the oil moed. Says Rebbi Yochanan, it sounds like from the pasuk that you have to do the shechita of a shlamim in a makom kodesh. What's a makom kodesh? If you're pesach oil moed. So, you're in the presence, you're facing, you're in the direction of the oil moed. That establishes this place as a proper place to do something so holy as the shechita of a carbon shlamim. Well, said Rebbi Yochanan that if pesach oil moed is enough to be able to do the shechita of an oil moed, certainly the oil moed itself the pesach oil moed is taful to the ikar, which is the oil moed itself. In other words, it's like a kal vachomer. If pesach oil moed is kosher for the shechita of a carbon shlamim, certainly the oil moed itself will be kosher as well. Facing the mar kasha, meiseve Rebbi Yehudah ben Besalel Rebbi Yehudah ben Besalel said, "Minayin how do we know that if the would circle the Azara would be allowed to enter the eat the things that have to be eaten in the Azara. Said Rabbi Huda ben Besaira, we know it because it says in the possuk "Bikodesh Hakodashim tochelenu." This possuk is in Parshas Korach which is where there are many psukim related to Matnos Kehuna tucked away. Right? The Parsha Matnos Kehuna was said as a result of the whole fight between Korach Moshe and Aharon. But in that Parsha it says that Kodshei Kodashim and Shiyarei Menachos are meant to be eaten "Bikodesh Hakodashim." Okay, so how do you know that means that if you want to eat it in the Heichal you can eat it in the Heichal. So Rashi explains because really there's another possuk and this is a Sefer Vayikra in Parshas Kohanim by the Ikur Parsha of the Korbanos that says that Kodshei Kodashim was eaten "Bachatzar Ohel Moed." Now you have a possuk that says Kodshei Kodashim. It sounds like the Makom of Kodshei Kodashim is more than the Makom of Chatzar Ohel Moed and it's coming to teach us that in the event that it was "Hikeefu Ohel Moed Azara" the Kohanim are let to enter the Heichal and they're allowed to eat Kodshei Kodashim. What's the Gemara's Kashya? "Velo leekra" according to Rabbi Yochanan's logic of "Lo Yehei Tofel Cholem Min Ha'ikur" why do I need an extra possuk "Bikodesh Hakodashim tochelenu" to teach you that you're allowed to eat Kodshei Kodashim in the Heichal? "Vayimo" we should argue it says "Bachatzar Ohel Moed" that the Ikur possuk that describes the place of Achilas Kodshei Kodashim is in the courtyard of the Ohel Moed. And what does it sound like? The reason you can eat it here is because you're in a place that's Shayach to the Ohel Moed or be it in the courtyard. Well, if the courtyard is enough of a place, then certainly the oil mire should be enough of a place. Meaning oil you hate tofful common oil girds. It's a free to Gamora Bamba Kasha. It said shalom to shalom to oil shalom. Why? Cuz it says you could do the shalom to oil mire. Calvo the oil mire it's a place to tofful common oil girds. I have a raya from a tana that didn't hold of this logic. Who's the tana? Rebi Yona ben Sayah. What Rebi Yona ben Sayah say? He said that in the event that it was Kifu over the oil mire and the oil mire entered the oil and the oil eat kosher and shalom to oil. How did he know it? Because he had a possuk. And it sounds like had he not had a possuk, he wouldn't have known it. If Rebi Yona's logic is correct, he shouldn't have needed a possuk. Lo mikra logical. Why? Because the possuk that talks about the oil mire of oil kosher and shalom says Baha to oil mire and oil tofful common oil girds. Certainly the oil mire itself. But the Gamora says there's a hillic between shalom to oil and oil kosher. How so? Avoida as relates to an avoida. The oil avoida to oil Rebi that it's befitting. Not only befitting, it's appropriate for oil avoida to serve his master in his presence. Oil Rebi over there makes sense to say tofful common oil but oil avoida as relates to oil avoida to oil Rebi where it's actually unbefitting for an avoida to eat in the presence of his Rebi. So there you can't say the slaughter of shalom to oil common oil and it's time to cross of oil. The only reason you would know that you're allowed to eat kosher to oil is because we have a possuk. The kosher to oil oil cross of oil. But if we didn't have a possuk, oil tofful common oil Rebi, we would never suggest that slaughter. Says the Gamora, there's a fundamental difference between shalom to oil and oil kosher. Shalom to oil is an avoida. By the way, even though shalom to oil avoida he, we'll talk about this a little bit in the raid, but at the same time we know on some level of course it's an avoideh. At the very least, when the kohein is doing the shchita, he's not doing something to benefit himself, he's not doing something to indulge in some pleasure, he's serving Hashem. Yeah, din avoideh, nothing avoideh, yakshireh b'zara, does require a klishares, but the bottom line is he's not doing something for himself, he's serving Hakodosh Boruchu. As opposed to achilas kodshim, that's a personal Indian. And as a result, there's mokem to say that avoideh for sure you could do in a place that's so so close to Hakodosh Boruchu, but achila maybe you can't do in a place that's so close. So that it could be that as it relates to avoideh, where there's no svara to suggest why shouldn't I be able to do it mamish in the presence of Hashem. So if it's okay to do it Pesach oilamite, it's certainly going to be okay to do it in the oilamite itself. But achila, where there's a counterintuitive svara, where there's actually a svara l'hefcha to say that maybe I can't eat so close, so there we can tighten when the posuk said b'chatzar oilamite yochlu that yeah, you have to be b'chatzar oilamite, can't eat it chutz l'azara, but at the same time you can't get too close either, because too close is also unbecoming. Fakir, the Torah wants you to be in that in between place where I'm not completely distanced from the oilamite, but I'm also not too close. Bottom line is, you have this svara l'hefcha to say when it comes to shchita, you don't have it when it comes to achila. That's why when it comes to achila, Rebbi Yehuda ben Besaira needed a posuk b'kodesh hakodashim yochlu, and he couldn't simply learn it from the posuk that already says b'chatzar oilamite yochlu. This concludes the very very very first part of today's daf, which is something we will b'ezras Hashem return to in the raid. Zochrei l'voracha itmar. B'lila chutz l'chatzar oilamite. What would be if the b'lila of the carbon mincha was done outside of the walls of the azar, right? Rabbi Yochanan bar Nappacha says Reish Lakish said kosher. Now, one of the ancillary avoidas that were done with the carbon mincha was the avoida of balila. So, carbon mincha, or at least most minchas, were made up of solas and shemen. There were some that had no shemen, we saw them in yesterday's daf. Most had although there were some that didn't have either. As it relates to shemen, so the mishnayis later in the mesechta go through the technical nuances, right? There's a lot of technical aspects to meseches menachos because a lot of it is taking place in a kitchen and you have to know the ingredients and how you mix it and how you bake it or what kind of pans you use and do you fry it or do you cook it? So, there's a lot going on. But, as it relates to putting the shemen together with the solas, so there were actually many shlavim of it. The mishna says that they used to take a klishores and they would pour shemen into it and then they would add solas and then they would pour a little bit of shemen and they would do the avoida bilah or balila. Then afterwards they would do yetzika, they would add a little bit of shemen even on top of that. The bottom line is we're talking specifically about balilo. We're talking about the avoida of balila. And the question is is this something that you could do outside of the azara or is this not something you could do outside of the azara? Now, to be clear, can't do kmitsa out of the azara, of course not. That would be done in the mizbeach. So, we know that the real avoidas are for sure not being done outside of the azara. But, this is balila, this is already prior to the kmitsa, right? So, the question is could I do that out of the azara or not? So, the gemara says it was a machlokes Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yochanan said pasul, Reish Lakish said kashair. Reish Lakish amar kashaira. Reish Lakish said it's kosher. I'll tell you why. This is because the pasuk says the 100 and afterwards the Torah says so the Torah says "Do the right put the and everything prior to that as well." Bring it to the and the first thing the says the is going to do is the he's going to do and we learn from here we don't need a to engage in the until you're ready to do the we learn this teaches me I'll that as it relates to the that were done prior to the should not be possible. By the way this is a very similar to the you have throughout and that is if they were they teach means and we learn is when you need a and from there we know is that's the but the bottom line is you have it by the as well that it's and the what what came prior to the the and we learn from here that these things are it's back of the envelope they were there. If you don't need a then I don't think you should need why don't you need a because it's no so if it's I don't see why it should have to be inside the either that is the that who holds is but I don't know but it's possible. Why? So I'll explain to you because even though you don't need a but given that being that you do need a right the had to be done in a so we need the right by means by for the fact that you see you need a that's a that it is a something that requires if if the has to be and the where the where the is going to be done has to be as well. In other words there's two ways to look at the of on the one hand just based on precedent you find that we treat it a little bit as a on the other hand you see you find that we treat it like a you You find that we treat it a little bit as a davar shel kodash cuz you don't need a kohen. We find that we treat it a little bit as a davar shel kodash because it requires a klish aris. Reish Lakish said that I'm focusing on the kol aspect. Mit kol ha layl bayom. So, az aray nam layl bayom. Reish Lakish says, I think just the opposite. Rabi Yochanan said that from the fact that they need a klish aris, so that means the makom where the klish aris, then this quote-unquote avodah is going to take place. So, that has to be the makom kodash. Either way, it's a classic machlokes Rabi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. So, how do we resolve it? With a braisa that supports Rabi Yochanan. A braisa that supports the opinion of Rabi Yochanan. Bal ha zar achaylo. If a zar would do balala, that's kosher. That was never a debate. That's based on a pasuk that says they via obnay Aharon ha kohanim v'komas. It's only b'kmitzay layla. Chutz l'chaimas ha azarah. If however the balala was done outside the azarah, pasula, which is shitas Rabi Yochanan. The Gemara doesn't say it, but the Gemara could have said shitas the Reish Lakish shitas. Either way, this is a a big machlokes between Rabi Yochanan and Reish Lakish with regards to the asiyas ha mincha. Specifically balala chutz l'chaimas ha azarah. Is it going to be kosher or is it going to be pasul? Reish Lakish had a kasha d'Oraisa. He said kosher. If you only kano, I don't think you need makom kodash either. Rabi Yochanan said pasul. You need klish aris. You need klish aris. I think you have to do it in a makom kodash. And Tanya Kavasin d'Rabi Yochanan. Another machlokes between Rabi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding a mincha. It mar mincha she chasra koydim kmitz. So, what would be if a kohen is preparing the korban mincha and far the kmitza a little bit of the mincha became chasra. So, you don't have all of the original sightless that had been prepared. Rabi Yochanan amar, Rabi Yochanan says, Yovi mitach bay sayvi y'malayna. Rabi Yochanan says that all is not lost. What you could do is you can go, bring the little bit of whatever was lost and replace it and now you're going to be okay. Meaning you don't have to start from scratch. There's no You can take what you have. You have 94% of the original so just be matched from the 6% and you're going to be good to go. Rashi says that that's not an option that once you're it's not okay. There's nothing you can do to go ahead and it. Right? You can't fix it. Rashi says you can go ahead and bring and complete it. And the reason is cuz it holds He holds that the is what's the See what that means in a second. Rashi says that's not an option cuz Rashi holds it's the that's I think it's to read Rashi the school. So Rashi So Rashi Rashi holds What does that mean? Because until the does the it's a big lie. It's not even considered a Okay. So And as a result there's no right now that's even to be talked about in this simply because it's not a meaning there's an idea of a as as we'll very much say. But that of that's a problem. It says The first thing you need in order to be considered a is to be a Rashi holds meaning So if it's not a So there's no there's no there's no there's no as a result this is not going to be a problem. Then Rashi continues and Rashi says he feels the He says whenever you find this word feels cover law in the context of a mincha, Kol Yisrael, what does it mean? It's a Kol Yisrael cuz the meaning is not the literal definition of the word." Zok Zelo Zeh, it means that they all need each other. The inner to Yochid Leshanes Ketzas Mimenu, and you can't deviate even a little bit from the original content lay the achas tachas to go ahead and replace it Lifnei She'or Kufriachas because they were already hooked through their work together. Either you take all of us or you take none of us. So, there's a concept by a mincha that you can't just replace a limb. You can't replace a piece. Can't replace a part. Either you take all of me or you take none of me. There's no mayda bemiktzas over here. That's a idea that you find by a mincha. And the way Chazal describe that idea, they talked about the kfiyus of the mincha, the kabbalah. Okay. Rebbe Yochanan holds that what's the kabbalah of the mincha? It's the kemitzah. If it's the kemitzah that's kabbalah of the mincha, so at the kemitzah, there's no zika between one chelek of the mincha and the other chelek of the mincha. So, if it's chaser and you want to go ahead and replace it, you can go ahead and you can replace it. What does Reish Lakish hold? Reish Lakish holds kedushas kli kabbalah. That it's not the kemitzah that's kabbalah, it's the kedushas kli. And once you have the kedushas kli, it's already called a mincha. And once you have the kedushas kli, because it's called a mincha, now there's the kabbalah. And as a result, at that point, if it's going to be chaser, there's no way to fix it. And therefore, you're going to have a problem fixing Okay, Rebbe Yochanan Reish Lakish has a kasha. Yes, the kasha from the parsha of the metzora. So, one of the things that the metzora did for part of his tahara is he had to bring like the like shamen shel metzora. Chaser halaik, what would be if the like shamen was put into a keli and before they had a chance to do the avodah with it, it became chaser. In actually yotzek, if it happened before the yetzika, Rashi says that one of the things that was done with the like shamen shel metzora is a kohen would pour it mitzra reches couple of small ones of the left hand of a different kind. But the point is if it was before that first was done, you know no worries. You can go ahead and fill it up. What's the word? The word is because what gives it a sham like sham in there where it's cover a lot so to speak where at that point if it's I've no ability to replace. I have to do some sort of a way to do it but until I do even that at that point I've nothing. It's in the cave. The carrots is we don't say that the cave is cover a lot. Say isn't that a riot to me? Now the truth is this is not a perfect because I'm talking about and he's bringing a riot from but at the same time held that really they should be and it's for that reason here the does say it. This is a duration this is another regarding a with a was a straw. Everybody agrees that a that's there's nothing to do with it. The question is could you go ahead and replace what was or could you not replace what was do we say that this is one of the cover a lot like explains and as a result you can't even replace a little part of it or not maybe you could place a little part of it. I said you have to say well you have to but again everybody else that if it's it's right if there was a fire that there's no way you could do the part and this whole has major issues with it. Stating that the is there a way to fix it? Do I have to replace it? How can I fix it? That's more now is going to bring another between the so if you keeping score this is already the third of the and this is the previous two it's also the game in like the previous one. So really really this is my case that we're going to bring right now is a little bit the Ham shock to the previous my case. Not that it's the same my case and not that they're totally in the same things and in the same numbers. But at the same time they're both discussing the show of a of a minute if to say if you went to and you asked them how long is related to the he would tell you the previous after mentioned and he would probably tell you and he would probably tell you you know my greatest my case and he would tell you this one as well. So these are really two my cases and with regards to a minute again the first one was with a minute was before the everybody agrees a minute is a problem. The question is could I replenish it or do I have to get rid of it and start all over again. So another what would be if the minute was between the and the now if you did the already so the is out of the picture right or I'm sorry. You did the you did the you didn't do the and now part of the was so the question is how do we treat this says that if you want to be the you could be just because the was doesn't mean you can't do the of the says that the says that once the a little bit at that point you cannot be the so two things. Number one as we've seen in the this of being the where the says and says in it's talking about where it was meaning you have some of the left you just don't have the original share and the question is the fact that I'm missing some of it does that now disallow me from continuing resuming the of the mincha or does that have no impact on my ability to be able to resume with the avoida of the mincha? But it's talking about where I have some of it. I just don't have all of it. Okay. The second thing is the gemara now is going to a machlokes that permeates and the other masectas and katzem as well. And that is machlokes between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yeshua. That machlokes was stated regarding and it was stated regarding mincha. These are the mishnayis, the braisos. It's an idea that always comes up and that is do we say in ain basar ain dam or do we not say in ain basar ain dam? Rabbi Yeshua has a chiddush that just like the rule is in ain dam ain basar, so too the rule is in ain basar ain dam. If there's no dam, meaning the kohen can't do the zrika, ain basar, you can't eat the basar. You can't be makdir the emurim. And the reason is because achilas basar and aktaras emurim required a heter and what was matter was the zrikas. So if you have no dam, there's no heter. Rabbi Yeshua says in the same vein there's a an identical halacha that says in ain basar ain dam. If there's no basar l'achila or there's no emurim l'aktara, at that point ain dam, you cannot go ahead and do a zrika. Rabbi Eliezer Rabbi Eliezer says it's true in ain dam ain basar because you need the zrika to be master all the basar. But at the same time there's no halacha of ain basar ain dam. And just because I don't have the basar, I'm going to have dam. Rabbi Yeshua and Rabbi Eliezer learned their shitas respectively from psukim but the bottom line is again this is a machlokes that we're familiar with. The gemara now is going to bring 10 lines of this machlokes and then tie it back in to the machlokes between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish again. Right. Let's hold them where we are. And now, some of this shiyurim were chaser. According to Rabi Yochanan, just because you're missing some shiyurim, who cares? Makdir Kometz doesn't mean you can't do the avodah. You could do the avodah Rish Lakish says you're missing some of the shiyurim? Absolutely not. In Makdir Kometz, so the Gemara says it was Rabi Eliezer. According to Rabi Eliezer, that holds what? We just mentioned Rabi Eliezer's shita, that there's no halacha of ein basar ein dam. Now, how does that translate to menachos? So, to buy a mincha, there's no halacha that if there's no shiyurei mincha, I can't be makdir the kometz. Meaning, Rabi Eliezer, just like he holds that I could do zrika without basar, he also holds I could be makdir the kometz of a mincha without any shiyurei menachos. If that's the case, according to Rabi Eliezer, you would never have to have any shiyurei menacha in order for me able to be makdir a kometz. So, if that's the case, then for sure there's going to be no machlokes Rabi Yochanan and Rish Lakish. Cuz what's the case Rabi Yochanan and Rish Lakish are arguing? They're arguing where it was chaser the shiyurei mincha, but I have a little bit of something. And the shaila is, does the chisarun that I don't have bother me? Like Rabi Eliezer, I don't have to have nothing, it's going to be okay. So, al liba de Rabi Eliezer, like pliki, right? If you want to see Rashi inside. The maheicha of the shiyurim, ein nistara from madich if I don't have the shiyurim at all, or if the shiyurim were burnt, maksh Rabi Eliezer to come al achas toya'os. Dude, it's okay to go ahead and be makdir the kometz. It's okay chaser. Surely if it was only chaser, the ikar shiyur bemiktzaso, we have a little bit, something. Keep playing. What then was the machlokes Rabi Yochanan and Rish Lakish? Al liba de Rabi Yeshua, it was in the world of Rabi Yeshua. Where Rabi Yeshua holds that there's an idea by zvachim of ein basar ein dam. And that translates to menachos, that ein shiyurei menachos ein kometz. The question is, what would be if I have a little something? Does that only mean if I have nothing, but if I have a a bit of something, it's going to be okay? Or does that mean even if there's a little bit of chos? What is the background to this machlokes of Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Yehoshua? So, here the Gemara is going to bring the whole example of nisterfu shiyarei. And this mishna, by the way, is in Menachos. It's talking about Menachos. In the event that the shiyarei Menachos became tamei, or the shiyarei Menachos were burnt, and not here, or of the shiyarei, they just got lost as in the elements here, so right? K'meidas Rebbe Eliezer, according to shitas Rebbe Eliezer, it's going to be kosher. K'meidas Rebbe Yehoshua, according to shitas Rebbe Yehoshua, it's going to be pasul. Either way, says the Gemara, man d'pasul k'Rebbe Yehoshua. The one that says pasul, who's the one that said pasul? Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish is the one that said that in the event that the shiyarei Menachos k'meidas Rebbe Akiva in Machter K'meidas Rebbe Eliezer, he's going to tell you, why is it pasul? Because that's shitas Rebbe Yehoshua. Rebbe Yehoshua said nismu shiyarei, nisterfu shiyarei, avdu shiyarei, it's going to be a problem. Man d'machshir, the one that says kosher, who's that? Rebbe Yochanan. Rebbe Yochanan said, just because it's chaser, doesn't mean you can't be makdir. Ad kan Rebbe Yehoshua chaser. What's he going to say? Doesn't Rebbe Yehoshua hold that it's a problem? No, because when did Rebbe Yehoshua say it's a problem? Avdu l'ish tayar. That's only true if everything was lost. Aval heicha d'ishtayar, but if there's a little bit of shiyarei, a feel Rebbe Yehoshua modeh l'ei. Even Rebbe Yehoshua is going to be modeh. How do we know that? It's a tanya. It's a braisa. Shiyarei Rebbe Yehoshua said kol ha'Torah. Rebbe Yehoshua said it regarding zivchin. He said all zivchin in the Torah sh'ein shiyarei me'hem k'zayis basar k'zayis chelev. As long as you have a k'zayis of basar or k'zayis of chelev, zoreik dam. You're allowed to do this zrika. Meaning, even though I, Rebbe Yehoshua, hold that you have to have basar, but as long as you have a k'zayis, that's going to be okay. K'zayis of basar or k'zayis of chelev. K'zayis basar was eaten, the k'zayis of chelev went on the mizbei'ach. As long as it's a k'zayis, it's going to be okay. K'chatzi k'zayis basar, k'chatzi k'zayis chelev. What would be if you have a half k'zayis of basar and a half k'zayis of chelev, ein zoreik dam. You can't be zoreik. And the The is because the half k'zayis of basar and the half is I is chelev are not mitztaref. The reason they're not mitztaref is because the half is I is bossar was eaten, the half is I is chelev was burnt. You can't be mitztaref uh achila and a hakdara. Uba oila, however, when it comes to the carbon oila, afilu chatzi zayis bossar uchatzi zayis chelev zorik asada. Here, if you have a half a zayis of the bossar and half a zayis of the chelev, it is mitztaref. And the reason is when they say oila kulahu, because the oila, even the half a zayis bossar was burnt, it went on the mizbeach. So, kum toyis, there's haktara being done with the half a zayis of bossar. Is haktara being done with the half a zayis of chelev? There, the half a zayis bossar and the half a zayis chelev would be mitztaref. Uba mincha, as we should continue in the braisa, when it comes to a mincha, af al pisha kulahu kayames, even if you have the entire mincha, why is zrika don't do zrika? So, the gemara does a double take. Mincha? Maya videta, you don't do zrikas by menachos. Amra Papa said, let me explain to you what Rabbi Shimon meant. He meant minchas nesachim. He meant to say, what would do if you're bringing an oila? An oila, let's say, that has a minchas nesachim along with it. And there's no bossar, and there's no chelev. But you have the mincha. In Rabbi Shimon's world, when you have to have some shtick flesh, is the mincha going to qualify as a shtick flesh or not? Says Rabbi Papa, that's what Rabbi Yeshua was bavarning. That's what he meant when he said mincha af al pisha kulahu kayames. Even if I have the entire mincha, it's not even chaser a little bit, still you can't do a zrika. So, good I the chidush is cuz I would have thought being that comes together with the zevach guf of the zevach dami, it's like part of the zevach. So, I have part of the zevach. Meaning, what's Rabbi Shimon's debate? You have to have something in addition to the dam. Okay, so I have. What do I have? I have the minchas nesachim. Kamashmalan that that's not enough. You have to have at least bossar. You have to have at least aimur. But the bottom line is, says the gemara, we have a machlokes Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. She rhymes shachazal and kintal achtarah. Rabbi Yochanan says maktara lay. Reish Lakish says aim aktara lay. there. this machlokes has so much to do with the machlokes of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yeshua that we're all quite acquainted with. Where do we say by a zevach in may boser ain dam or not? And that translates to a mincha mefurasha mishnah in maseches menachos. Do we say a main shiyur in mincha in haktores hakoinas, right? Same exact shaila. At first glance, the two would seem to be very mukasheh. And the gemara says they are. Let's drill it down on it a little bit better. Al libi d'Rabbi Eliezer kol ya'amod v'lo yiflog. Meaning, if Rebbi Yochanan Resh Lakish held like Rabbi Eliezer, they wouldn't be having this conversation. Because according to Rabbi Eliezer, you don't have to have any shiyur in mincha. Kal v'chomer if it's only chaser the shiyur in mincha, it's going to be kosher. They weren't halacha al libi Rabbi Eliezer, which makes perfect sense because we know Rabbi Eliezer shammuti, so we never pasken like Rabbi Eliezer anyways. So, why would we be halacha al libi Rabbi Eliezer? So, obviously they were not discussing al libi Rabbi Eliezer. What were they discussing? Al libi d'hilchasa. What's d'halacha Rabbi Yeshua? Rabbi Yeshua says that you have to have the shiyur in mincha. Okay, so what's the shaila? The shaila is do you have to have all of it or is it enough that you have some of it? Resh Lakish said that Rabbi Yeshua holds in may boser ain dam, in main shiyur in mincha in haktores hakoinas. If that's the case, shiyur ain mincha tzalem kimtzo l'hakatoro, ain maktesh kimtzo l'tzelam. Rabbi Yochanan said, "One second. Don't you know there's a braisa? There's a mefurasha braisa. Rabbi Yeshua explained himself. Rabbi Yeshua said you don't have to have all the boser. You don't have to have all the emurim. All you have to have is a k'zayis. Right? As a matter of fact, Rabbi Yeshua even said by an oila, you can have a chatzi k'zayis of boser, a chatzi k'zayis of emurim. As a matter of fact, Rabbi Yeshua even had a hava mina that maybe if I had the mincha t'zochen, that would be enough. But the bottom line is, I don't have to have all of it. So, over here, just because the shiyur ain was chaser? As long as I have something, I have a shiyur that in and of itself would be enough. It sounds like who's getting the better end of this shakta v'tarya? Sounds like Rabbi Yochanan. Right? Rabbi Yochanan seems to be winning. Because Rabbi Yochanan isn't just saying a svara in Rabbi Yeshua. Yochanan's quoting a a braisa of Rabbi Yeshua. Right? Okay. Now, to give the price of the rubbish quoted was a price of his walking and be sure call us walking should be tired right because I suppose because I say more than because I'm excited and more than I clearly talking about walking but the assumption for sure is that in the event in the event that when it comes to his walking as long as you have a a boss or because I say more than that would be enough you would think when it comes to that would be enough as well stating that talk to you tomorrow I'll tell you what it is response is going to be which lucky response is going to be that when it comes to his walking over the year is a lot of them in Boston in town says that if you have a that in of itself is going to be enough but when it comes to over here it's going to be different or Monday possible according to the man who says possible 8 minutes will be a doctor that it's going to be possible according to the case of the back if there was a between the even a little bit of he's going to tell you by the different because the says ask her also the heat and we learn from here that when the coin is going to do the it has to be the same that he started with the heat is ask her also and we know from here and why you act unless you have the entire at the time of you have no right to go ahead and to do the meaning and if you know me I know you said that the of and only to have a but when it comes to there's a different show when it comes to men that he men have men and then you have to have the men in order to be able to do that what is going to say to that doesn't it sound like you have to have the entire men in order to do that The mincha mincha mincha to say that Now there is an idea of mincha mincha at some point you have to have the entire mincha. You know when you have to have the entire mincha right? For sure we had a what happens if you replace it or not but look coolly alma you have to make sure mincha mincha that it's going to be complete right? By the way this was the mincha mincha the rashi quoted in the beginning of the mincha mincha this is the that there's a issue in the event that it's going to be not is whether this of mincha mincha is true even post mincha or whether it's not going to be true post mincha. What's the bottom line? Bottom line is we have a between us between regarding mincha mincha being mincha mincha according to on the according to mincha in mincha mincha and the mincha at the end of the day suggests that what is the in the mincha mincha it's totally in how to read the that says mincha it's mincha there's some kind of mincha mincha you have to have a mincha according to mincha it's mincha mincha even mincha and according to mincha mincha mincha mincha that in and of itself is going to be okay. Why don't we run into an issue over here of mincha mincha and we know mincha translates itself to as well. So for that you just have to know mincha mincha said you don't have to have all the you just have to have a mincha so as long as you have that's going to be okay. So as long as you have some of the mincha that's going to be fine. And by the way I said I never told you that if the are gone if they were if they were never it's going to be okay. Of course it's not going to be okay because then you're going to stop your toe in a issue that's going to be a whole another set of problems. I'm just saying that we said the sul the sul is only at the but at that point there's not going to be a problem. Again, I just want to make this point clear. The Rebbe and the is not in Rebbe and Rebbe it's not in that in it. That's not what's going on over here. The is that it says in the Torah and from those words we learn that is a the question is what's the point at which we say that if the it's going to be possible. According to Rebbe it's up until the up until the there's something called a post post there's no such thing as a now there is another consideration. The Rebbe who holds it may which translates into a and that says if there's no there's no but for that as long as you have a little bit of something it's going to be okay. There's no here there's a the whole thing is gone if it's literally a bus we have zero from the Rebbe is that the of the that we learn from the is literally up until the and if it's going to be at any point we should know if it's we should know if it's at that point it's going to be a problem. This is an idea that transcends Rebbe this is a whole another it's a special that you don't have and for that reason Rebbe if it's a few between the and the in at that point you're not going to be able to be there so what is the Rebbe not the one that just the words so we could segue into the next part of the according to Rebbe if you have a that was between the and the it's okay they could be according to Rebbe you cannot be the with else going to be a shiver. That you cannot is going to ask he's going to fire away. He's firing away from a bracer a bracer that hopefully will sound familiar because it was a bracer that we saw in yesterday's ill is so ask the question So we discussed yesterday in somewhat detail that the was treated as a right it's considered a subcategory of minox. It's a matter of fact that we are saying that we don't have that mirror that we don't have specifically when the would remove the from the that was the equivalent thereof of the and when he would take the it would be that was the equivalent thereof of the says the bracer pure nifraslakma What would be if before the removed the from the from the some of the bread was right some of it got lost it crumbled by definition you lost some of it so the would be possible all of us have again And the would not be able to be why because it's like a now we know a little more about the laws of and it's true for as well so if it's it's can't go ahead and be if pure not to the what would be if after the already removed the then a little bit of the crumbled so possible that is that the is going to be possible however all of us have but if the wants to be he can be from member of yesterday it's not really totally and did he do the pure cannot to the pure guy when she gives a lot as long as it was this man already to do it pure guy it's going to be the same. Rashi speaks out is a very important Rashi. If you don't see this Rashi inside your Duff might take a lot longer than it needs to. So I'm going to tell you the Rashi is this has no to the yesterday's Duff was a whole I'm going to tell you that was the whole but over here we're just bringing in parenthetically. What's the bottom line? The bottom line is I'm going to tell you that because you see from here that in the event that the upon him was between the pure guy of the and the of the what is the the is that you can go and you can be as now the upon him being between the pure guy and the is the equivalent there of to the being between the and the and if you see that you can be but it would mean also that you can go ahead and be the and others what do you see from this price you see from this price that even though there's a right the whole price here is talking about but the of as it relates to the is until the pure guy once you do the pure guy that's the way I learned of the as it relates to the but here I mean it means until the but as it relates to the at that point the only consideration is but as it relates to at that point that's not going to be a problem either way so fire away at I'm going to tell him that he said that's not a but I could always tell you that that uh is going a little bit I've been that it's going a little bit that's why there's no problem. The reason there's no problem is because I'll leave it to Rabbi Eliezer, there's never an issue of khashara. I mean that there's never an issue of khashara. So, it's for that reason that it's it's going to be okay. So, he told him back, "That's how you answer this kasha." Not me in the khamish I'm telling you the stam mishna. The b'nei Adam Rabbi Eliezer and you're telling me Rabbi Eliezer, what's wrong with that? Because if Rabbi Eliezer if it's going to be the Rabbi Eliezer, my ear nifras. Why did he say nifras? I feel so sorry for Adam Nami. Even if it's sort of avod, still it's going to be a problem. Meaning it's much smaller a little bit that only if it's nifras it's going to be an issue. If however it was sort of only if it's nifras it's going to be okay. If however it was sort of avod, at that point it would be an issue. Now, if we're going to leave it to Rabbi Eliezer, then even if it's sort of avod it should be okay. So, the mishna says [ __ ] heard this, he had nothing to respond at that had nothing to respond to. At that point he was stuck. [ __ ] said, "I have no answer. At this point I don't know what to say." At this point he said, "I have no answer." Why was he quiet? Why did he have to be You know what he should have told him? Sibu shaini. Why didn't he say that maybe there's a between the Yochin and the Tzipor. Maybe as it relates to a Yochin, as it relates to a Yochin, so over there there's going to be a khakha that if it's khaser between the Tzipor and the Tora it's going to be a problem. If however we're dealing with a Minchas Tzipor, so maybe over there if it was khaser between the Tzipor and the Tora or proverbially speaking as it relates to over there it's going to be kasha. What's the point of Adam? Even though we treat it like a but it's a and being that it's a maybe a is different. Now, what's the that there should be a between the and the Tzipor? So, the mishna says I'll tell you why. It's because all of told me history because we see already when it comes to a carbon there's a special lineage when it comes to to so maybe just like there's a special lineage when it comes to so to this should be a special lineage when it comes to why was Rish Lakish checkmated from this kasha? Why didn't he say there's a between the Rish Lakish said THE RISH LAKISH THE FUNNY IT WAS clearly a and it makes a lot of sense that in the world of maybe there's enough coming in between the version and the version. What's the precedent for that? The precedent for that. So, so said So, you say I think from the fact that Rish Lakish didn't answer this, you know what you can prove? That about that a is viewed like a so as much as you find when it comes to but not by a right about we saw the possible yesterday first one is a so there's no way in the world that is going to allow you to take an animal that's about to put it on the even by a carbon a like a there's no to create any cooler whatsoever as it relates to a and it's for that reason if I have a that a at between removing the and the would not create an issue of that when it comes to a the same should be true. So, that's what the so sat down and he over the last part of this my from Rish Lakish if by it's Rish Lakish from Lakish on him Rish Lakish was he didn't have anything to say and and and amora'im that why couldn't he be machli between carbon yachid and a carbon tzibur? Also, I say meres achisaren k'bal mum dami. Is that what Rava is saying over the entire sh'tukel Torah? And one of the chabura that were listening to him was Rabi Yosi bar Shmaya. So, amalei Rabi Yosi bar Shmaya, you don't see Rabi Yosi bar Shmaya every day in shas. So, he told Rava Papa, "Mila yoskina." He says, "I don't even understand how the amora'im came out. If I was there, I would have seen this a little bit differently." He said, "Under yachid and under sh'loshah b'nei So, am I making the tzibur a play? How do you know Rabi Yosi bar Shmaya and Rabi Shimon are not talking about a minchas tzibur? So, Meche Teisi, they're talking about a minchas yachid. Maybe they were also talking about a minchas tzibur. She rhymes sh'shas Meche Teisi like Torah. You know for sure he's talking about a minchas yachid. Yeah, there were some korbanos mincha that were minchas yachid. There were some that were minchas tzibur, right? We spoke about this Menachos daf beis. One of the first One of the first things we said in the introduction to the Beis HaMikdash is just like by z'vachim, you can have a carbon yachid and a carbon tzibur and a carbon nedavah and a carbon chovah. When it comes to mincha, it's the same thing. So, I don't know. Meche Teisi, he's not talking about a minchas tzibur. And afilu ochi, he says that if it's chos it's going to be possible. Even though we know there are leniencies when it comes to a tzibur such as by tumah. Afilu ochi, he said it's possible. What are you going to tell me? LACHMEI HAPANIM IS DIFFERENT cuz lachmei HaPanim is a tzibur. Meche Teisi, this is not talking about a tzibur either way. So, Rabi Yosi bar Shmaya told Rava Papa, "I don't understand. Meche Teisi, this is even a hora'ah. You're going to prove zois meres achisaren k'bal mum dami? You have no right to prove that. Maybe chisaren is not k'bal mum dami. And the reason he couldn't be machli between yachid and tzibur is because he himself said his halacha not only by a yachid, but he said it by a tzibur as well. A little bit more Gemara. Amar Rabi Malkiya, Rabi Malkiya said, "Tana chada, we learned in a braisa, it says misalta she'im chasra kol shehu, pasula. Mishamna, she'im chasra kol shehu, pasul. So, this is a bracha that starts in the pasuk in parshas Vayikra that talks about the carbon mincha. This is Vayikra perek bais pasuk bais. It says el benei Aharon al kol the hector askarosa on his baiko so the Torah says that the baal mincha would bring his mincha to the kohein. The komatz mishama mishamna right from the shams then the best mishalto mishamna that's what he would go ahead and he would do. Says the bracha mishalto little dramatic specially with the mapik hey Simcha kocho we learn from here that if a little bit of the is it's going to be possible. Mishamna we learn from there Simcha possible that if a little bit of the shamen is going to be it's going to be possible. That's one bracha we learn that in another bracha it says the mincha mincha kocho may we learn from here that it's possible that this is coming to teach me you have to have the mincha and if the mincha is if it's a kocho or the is kocho we shall hit the void no sir club or if part of it the void was in hooker it's going to be a problem as well. So we have a a second pasuk that also teaches me a kocho as it relates to a mincha. So again what are the two mishalto Simcha kocho mishamna Simcha kocho possible. The second bracha says the prattle mincha kocho he the kocho and if you are not the void. Now what does it mean kocho he right kocho we know what that means middle of the we know what that means. What is kocho said says kocho he means the mincha obviously by definition so it doesn't mean the that's what it means is the mincha taken tomorrow straight why do I need to as it relates to the explains that the of the is from the part of the first price me that's how like if any part of the is missing the going to be like this from the like this from the any part of the missing is and then I have when I probably so why do I need to come What does he mean that as it relates to the part of the first price so that you can ask straight because the second of that doesn't say a word about so I for sure we need the to teach me that there's a comes to the there's even such a but me that also and when I the straight I think the straight because Islamically says love Isn't the reason that we have two maybe to tell me that there's two stages in the where there's going to be a closer one is if the was closer than the other one is if the was closer between the year between the and the and if that's the case the fits your the picture of the the double the what's the double the the more obvious one is obvious right this last of is discussing the [ __ ] the event that you have shirim and taros. You tell me what he's talking about between the taros. That's what I think about. The suggesting that this is a tooth on the edge of the from today's stuff. Or the edge of the I was talking about which was really the second today's stuff. The in the event that the mincha was before the where said that there's an option to go ahead and to replenish it. says once it's the is creates the between all the different and at that point you're not going to be okay. The holds that when we learn from the that a mincha that's going to is and if it's you can't even be by going ahead and replenishing it. And if that's the case, I have a on the second one and I on the first as well. Again, the first one that said that if it was before I could be here it's possible. Possible means possible. There's no way to fix it. And the second that says that if there's a between the and it's okay. That's not an issue. The whole only starts or I should say ends by the but once the happens right at that point it's not going to be an issue. You have a to that as well but the says why? There's no at all because I can always tell you The first one is coming to teach me regarding the that was what it's coming to teach me is that it's a problem unless it's a problem unless I go ahead and I fill it up. The in in above the meaning it's true. For sure it's talking about with the was the but do you see that if the is there's no way to go ahead and fix it? No, it's possible. You know when it's possible? If you don't fix it but if you it would be okay. The heart and the other one is one it's like coming to teach me but you know what it's coming to teach me? Not that it's going to be possible. Not that you can't be mocked to the cuz but it's coming to teach me is the even though you could be mocked to the about as it relates to the as soon as which of course we know this already from yesterday's top cuz the nation fact discussed this before they were coming to mock to the according to my that's right between the queens and that would go ahead and be mocked to the who is the one that holds the ocean I as it relates to the could you eat it could you not eat it and said so he he said the says the it says the but I mean the so you're allowed to eat the you can't eat the from the right? So we've all heard of what about in the said the the what does that mean? That means if you have only some of the because some of it became that even when you mock to the you're not going to be able to eat the cuz now it's from the again it's from the but it's also from the cuz some of the is not doing anymore. had a different he said it says and we from the so I take a look at the second one with the second I prefer is that the only time that I mean if the is intact the way it was after the but if between the some of it got lost now it's not the at that point you won't be able to eat the but the bottom line is you see the there's an idea that you would not be able to eat the right, I am a mincha was hostile to feel a little bit of that's what this second dress show was. In other words, we had these two dresses that seem to be very have this issue. As it relates to a mincha that's and for sure is talking about 5 after the straight cry so obviously one is far and the other one is after. The thought this is like going to knock out the whole sheet of paper and I am going to make when it comes to a mincha that was in with and say you have to say that if it's just fill it up. I have a first surprise that it says it's a problem. I am going to make when it comes to she runs and what was the school? Oh, you can even be the climate. I have a surprise that says a problem. So you might show me but doesn't mean there's no something going to be here is a that but at the same time there are still certain things. Mincha that was in as much as you could be a base of you have a base of the puzzle and that's what that puzzle is coming to tell me. Mincha that's in the you could be there it that's true but at the same time despite the fact you could be you can that's what that is coming to tell me that there is something wrong with this character it's not perfect. That's not something you would be able to do. The bottom line is we are going to sit down now and we are going to do a sequel of the latter part of the book. Really what we had was three in between and all regarding the the first is of the of the the second two is the very of the as it relates to the of the could you do the or could you not? says you cannot just like you need a you have to do it in the which said you could just like you don't need a I could to it as it relates to the Mincha Shechatzra, we have two major machlokes. There's an idea Minna Mincha, which by the way, you know, when you do a Mincha on the Dof, we have a whole bunch of drashos, seemingly psukim, you have to put them all in their right buckets that teach me the concept of a Mincha Shechatzra. But there's a Halacha that a Mincha Shechatzra is definitely something that's going to be an issue. Two major machlokes in terms of understanding the application of this Halacha of a Mincha Shechatzra. The first is what would be if it was chaser before the Kometz. Before the Kometz even did the Kometz, it's chaser. So if you leave it as is, possel, possel, possel. There's no shiva in the world. The question is, can I replace what's chaser? Could I not replace what's chaser? Rebbe Yochanan says I could replace what's chaser. Reish Lakish says I can't. What's the shiva tallin? Major wonders. Rebbe Yochanan holds that the Kometz is kavala, the sham Mincha. The zika between all the different grains of soiles don't go into effect until you do the actual Kometz. Therefore, the chaser is only going to be an issue me Kometz available. Now, not to say that I can have it chaser mamesh, but at the very least, if you want to go ahead and replace it, we don't say that one second, I can't replace part of it, I have to replace all of it. No. The kavala that would require you to replace the entire Mincha, that's something that happens in Mincha. Mincha Kometz. According to Reish Lakish, that it's the kali itself that's kavala. And as a result, if there's going to be a problem even before the Kometz, it's an issue already. At that point, you would have to replace the entire thing. So again, Rebbe Yochanan is make Reish Lakish is machner. Rebbe Yochanan, you don't have to replace the entire Mincha, you could just be mashlim what's missing. And according to Reish Lakish, you would have to replace the entire Mincha. Second shiva was, what would be if the shirim was chaser between Kometz and Aktara? What would be if in between the Kometz and Aktara, that's when the chisaron and place. According to Rabbi Yochanan, it would be okay. According to Reish Lakish, it would not be okay. Rabbi Yochanan said it's going to be okay. What happened to shittas Rabbi Yeshua? Isn't there a halacha of an ain b'sarin dam? And we know it's a mishnah in Sukkah and we know it translates to the shaar hamitzvos as well. Rabbi Yochanan says, "Yeah, I never said that. You can get away with having nothing. We know Rabbi Yochanan holds that when it comes to shaar hamitzvos, all you need is a k'zayis. So, here too, you'll have the requisite shiur, whatever that shiur is. And as long as you're going to have that, that in and of itself is going to be okay. I'm just saying that mitzvah of psul chaserin. The psul chaserin is something that's only up until the kometz. But once you do the kometz, as long as I satisfy and check off the Rabbi Yeshua box, that in and of itself is going to be okay. Reish Lakish says, "No. Reish Lakish says that I have a drasha that says that the psul chaserin goes all the way until the aktara. And if it's chaser until the aktara, it's going to be a problem." Meaning it had nothing to do with Rabbi Yeshua. Rabbi Yeshua, yeah, that's the works when all you're trying to satisfy is the criteria of ain b'sarin dam. But over here, there's a new din. There's a halacha of chaser. And over here, if it's going to be chaser up until the z'man of aktara, it's going to be a problem. The Gemara says that even though Rabbi Yochanan holds that if it was chaser between kometz and aktara, you could be makti the kometz, but at the same time, Rabbi Yochanan is going to hold that you cannot go ahead and eat the shiurim mincha. The shiurim mincha, that already not. So, there is a din or halacha that is nogaya on mincha that was chasra between the kometz and the aktara excel. So, just to end with one hora'ah, going back to the very, very first part of the daf. And that is only Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan said shlomim sheshachtam b'heichal k'sheirim. A korban shlamim with a shchita took place in the heichal is kosher. She nemar because the pasuk says v'shachatu pesach al oil moed. Says you should shlacht the shlamim pesach al oil moed. V'lo yehei tafel chomer min ha'ikar. Doesn't make sense that the pesach of the oil moed should be better than the oil moed itself. Meaning, if you could shlacht the shlamim pesach al oil moed, certainly you should be able to shlacht the schlamm him in the oil might as well. What's the beer in the drasha? It sounds like the schlamm him schita needs to be in a holy place. And as long as I have some nexus to the oil might, I'm connected to it. I'm Pesach oil might. So that means I'm in a makan kodesh where right now this is a place that I can go ahead and do the schita. WELL, IF PESACH oil might satisfies that, certainly the oil might itself would satisfy that as well. The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah kuf pei dalid makes a beautiful dik in the words of Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan said schlamm him sheshachtan baheichal tzei'an. It sounds a little bit like it's only b'di'eved that if the schlamm him schita took place in the heichal, it's going to be kosher. But l'chatchila, if a kohen wanted to go to the heichal and he wanted to chef the korban schlamm him over there, in that instance, it's not something would that would be okay. And the Minchas Chinuch is matmia. He says, "I don't understand. Based on the makor of Rabbi Yochanan, which is lo yahei tofel komer min ha'ikar, why is it b'di'eved? If the Torah says v'shachtu Pesach oil might, and that's l'chatchila, so why should the oil might itself not be l'chatchila as well?" So the Minchas Chinuch says, "A dover mishaneh." I think it's just kidai but I think he so did to be makdim the teretz of the Minchas Chinuch. And that is The pasuk says in Parshas Acharei Mos, I mean the beginning of the parsha, right at the onset of the Torah introducing the seder avodah of Yom Kippur. Vayidaber Hashem el Moshe acharei mos Shneinei Aharon b'korvasam lifnei Hashem vayimusu. Imrei Hashem el Moshe, this is the second pasuk in Parshas Acharei Mos. So Hashem tells Moshe, "Daber el Aharon achicha." Go speak to Aharon your brother. Tell him the following. V'al yavo b'chol eis el hakodesh mibeis laparoiches. He can't just enter the kodesh. He can't just enter the holy place whenever he wants. Where is that holy place? Me base la paroches. On the other side of the curtain, on the other side of the paroches. Where is that? El pene ha kaporis. Where the kaporis is asher al ha aron, which is on top of the aron, v'lo yamus, and expect not to die. Can't just go b'chol es la kodesh and think v'lo yamus. And the reason is ki b'anon er'a la kaporis. Because there's such an intense level of shchinah that's residing on top of the kaporis that you can't just walk in there whenever you want to walk in there. So, Hashem tells Moshe, go tell Aharon, you can't just enter what we know as the kodesh ha kodashim any time v'lo yamus. Rather, b'chiszei Aharon el ha kodesh, in the event that Aharon is going to want to enter the kodesh ha kodashim, this is the way he has to do it. And then the Torah goes and delineates the entire seder avodah of Yom Kippur, because that was the one day that the kohen gadol, of course, was was allowed to enter the kodesh ha kodashim. By the way, when you read the psukim, the Vilna Gaon's chiddush jumps off the page, right? That it wasn't even that on Yom Kippur the kohen gadol was allowed to enter the kodesh ha kodashim. It's b'chiszei Aharon el ha kodesh with this seder avodah. But the bottom line is, Hashem tells Moshe, go tell Aharon that al yavo b'chol es el ha kodesh me base la paroches el pene ha kaporis asher al ha aron v'lo yamus ki b'anon er'a And this pasuk is the makor to something every little child knows. And that is that the kodesh ha kodashim was off limits. The only person that was allowed to go into the kodesh ha kodashim was the kohen gadol, and the only time that he was allowed to go into the kodesh ha kodashim was on the holiest day of the year, and that is on Yom Kippur. If you take a look at the Toras Kohanim on this pasuk, Toras Kohanim says as follows. It says, al yavo b'chol es el ha kodesh base la paroches. Me base la paroches. A funny lotion, right? What's me base la paroches? So we say that's on the other side of the paroches. Trying to describe the Kodesh Hakodashim. What does the word me base la paroches? Okay, so a bias is an abode. People live inside a house. So me base means in a vanek, right? True. Says the Perush Kayin. What does it mean me base la paroches la chazar al kol ha bias? This possuk is coming to give an azhara that really that really really the Kohen Gadol Aaron Akicha or or any Kohen for that matter was not allowed to enter the entire bias, the entire heichal becholes. Yochal al kol ha bias bemissa says the Perush Kayin. You would think that if a Kohen or the Kohen Gadol would enter the entire bias, not just the Kodesh Hakodashim, but the heichal, he would be chayav missa. Tam lo d'vay emar. It says al pnei ha paroches asher al ha oron v'lo yamut. Where does it say v'lo yamut? Not after the words me base la paroches, but after the next words al pnei ha paroches asher al ha oron v'lo yamut. Ha keitzad? How do you reconcile this possuk? Al pnei ha paroches bemissa. If a Kohen or Kohen Gadol would enter the Kodesh Hakodashim becholes, he would be chayav missa. V'al shear kol ha bias ba azhara. But if he would enter the rest of the bias becholes, just frivolously because he decided that he wants to do it, even though he would not be chayav missa because v'lo yamut is going after the words al pnei ha paroches asher al ha oron, that's for sure talking about the Kodesh Hakodashim, but at the same time an azhara he would have. So the Perush Kayin says that as much as this possuk v'yavo becholes al ha kodesh, everybody knows is the azhara they not allowed to enter the Kodesh Hakodashim, but what not everybody knows is that really this possuk is an azhara also for a Kohen or even the Kohen Gadol to just go ahead and enter the heichal. The Ramban in Hilchos Beis Hamikdash in the beginning of perek beis he brings this Tiyrus Kaynim. In Kayin Godol nichnas l'Kodesh Hakodashim el Yom Hakippurim l'Yom Hakippurim. From Yom Kippur to Yom Kippur that was the only time that the Kayin Godol was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. The Kayin Hedyot nichnas b'chol yom l'avodah. As it relates to the Kayin Hedyot every day he was allowed to enter the Kodesh, right? The heykal for avodah. For who zar u'kol hakayanim says the Rambam. All kayanim are prohibited shelo yakonso l'Kodesh o u'l'Kodesh Hakodashim shleishah avodos. That they're not allowed to enter the Kodesh or the Kodesh Hakodashim shleishah avodos she ne'emar. How do I know that? Because it says al yavo b'chol eis el hakodesh. And you know what those words mean Dr. Rambam? It's Hakodesh Hakodashim. And then it says mi'beis ach l'paroches. You know what those words mean? L'hazer al kol habayis. It's coming to say al kol habayis Dr. Rambam, right? The Kayin nichnas l'Kodesh Hakodashim b'shnayim u'shlishah avodos. Hakayin that enters the Kodesh Hakodashim b'shnayim u'shlishah avodos b'Yom Kippur bein Kayin Hedyot bein Kayin Godol o Kayin Godol she nichnas l'Yom Hakippurim shleishah avodos. The only way that the Kayin Godol would enter on Yom Kippur but not while he was doing the avodah chayav misah b'dei Shamayim she ne'emar v'lo yamus b'chulu v'chulu. V'ein nichnas l'Kodesh says the Rambam. In the event that a Kayin would enter the Kodesh chutz l'Kodesh Hakodashim not in the Kodesh Hakodashim shelo lavoida o l'hishtachavoyah not to do an avodah or to bow down. Interesting. Bein Hedyot bein Godol it doesn't matter if he's the Kayin Hedyot or he's the Kayin Godol likely would get Malkus the ein chayav misah b'dei Shamayim chayav misah she ne'emar al pnei hakapores v'lo yamus al Kodesh Hakodashim b'misas al shaar habayis v'lo v'lo yikrav. Lashon ya'azov shel Rambam perek beis Hilchos Beis Hamikdash halachos alef beis gimmel u'dalet. The makor of course is the Tiyrus Kaynim right in the beginning of parshas Acharei Mos. So al yavo b'chol eis el hakodesh is an azharah that the Kayin Godol or nobody was allowed to enter the Kodesh Hakodashim only on Yom Kippur. B'sais Yavo Aharon el hakodesh. But really that's a mistake. The or the coin head yet was not allowed to enter even the coin dish. The head coin was off limit. You couldn't walk into the head coin to observe, right? You couldn't do that. It's coin dish. It's coin dish. Can't just enter to what? Take a picture? What are you doing? You can't do that. You can GO BUT OTHER THAN GOING you're not allowed to do. In fact, there's a lot in the of the whole ace of the coin dish means base means base MEANS THE COUNCIL. NOW, THERE'S NO THAT'S ONLY TRUE FOR THE COIN DISH. SO, the coin dish means remain on a higher level. It's going to be considered more common even after this rate. But, the bottom line is as it relates to the coin dish and base of the coin dish. This is sir for a coin to enter the head coin and do what you the is what's known in the vernacular as doing a beer coin dish. So, he's entering. He's walking in. He's violating the and he's doing a beer coin dish. He's not doing anything. He's not accomplishing any void. It's a lot in the Torah. It is learned out from this passage value of the of the coin dish. What did you all say? It sounds a little bit to me like it's only a bit of the It sounds like it's a lot in the of the of the head coin dish. Why is it a bit of the you should be able to do a lot of the head coin dish? If you could do a lot of the head coin dish and a lot of the HEAD COIN DISH THEN a lot of the head coin dish you should be able to do a lot of the head coin a lot of the head coin dish. You know why? Because the of the head coin dish a lot of the head coin dish. And if a lot of the head coin dish if a coin would walk a lot OF THE HEAD COIN dish into the head coin dish to do a lot of the head coin DISH A LOT OF THE HEAD COIN DISH A LOT OF THE HEAD COIN dish a lot of the HEAD COIN IT'S A BEER COIN DISH. AND IF IT'S A BEER COIN DISH IT'S FOR that reason you would not be allowed to do it. Half of the fellow. It's up to him I think it's possible to me. That's what's going on over here. It's based on this idea. He said the MS is The Gamorah asked the question of Mason Minayan how do we know Tom will learn we learn it out from a possible. What do you have to learn it out from a possible? It says that country was eaten by royal might. So it was eaten by royal might. The Gamorah gave an explanation. This is avoided, this is this is appropriate to do maybe. This is inappropriate to do maybe. But what was the question of Ben Sira? Take a look at Rashi. They and the can't eat in the you know why? With my cast eyes. Cuz there's snipers. There are people that are they're throwing spears, they're throwing arrows. This is a a pretty intense visual. Right? Very dramatic Rashi. You don't see this every day. But the bottom line is is that it's in that instance Ben Sira said that the man What does it sound like? If you want to go eat in the hall that's not something that you'd be allowed to do. Now personally you could say because of the slaughter it's not so appropriate. So it's as a it's like as a rabbinic type of slaughter. Over the fear now you can't go cuz it's a beer economist. You're allowed to go to do a waiter. But if you're not going to do a waiter it's not something that would be okay. But either way this is the of the I just want to be my one on the but it ties into a read by that we've spoken about so many times for sure in the double digits. So I think it's right to just mention it again. And that is we mentioned so many times the bells casher on the Gamorah in the broaches the on the base where the Gamorah says that after was benched with a son uh Schmuel and going back to Shilo now. She said, "El hanar zeh hispalalti." And the Gemara says, "Let me tell you the rest of the story." It was Rabbah bar bar Hana's memra. He said, "Shmuel was a moreh halakhah lifnei rabbah." What happened was, Shmuel was a young boy, and he saw that the olam was looking for a kohen to do shechitah with a korban, and Shmuel says, "I don't understand. Why do you need a kohen to do shechitah? Don't you know that shechitah is kasher b'zar?" They said, "Shechitah is kasher b'zar? How do you know that?" So, he told them the drasha. "Meikhavol v'eilakh mitzvas kuna. Meikhavol shechitah is kasher b'zar." So, they said, "You know, let's bring you to Eli. Let's see what Eli has to say." So, they bring Shmuel to Eli, and they ask Eli, "Is that true that shechitah is kasher b'zar?" So, he said, "Yeah, it's very, very true." He said, "This boy is saying good. Meimar shavka aman. Me we have a problem, because he's a moreh halakhah lifnei rabbah, and a moreh halakhah lifnei rabbah is chayav misah." And they wanted to kill Shmuel, and Hannah started begging and crying, and Eli said, "Don't worry. I'll give you a bracha. You'll have another child." Until she finally uttered the epic words, "El hanar zeh hispalalti." "This is the child that I davened for. This is an oska beiten a kind. Absolutely not. I want this child. I'm not going to settle for for another child." So, Maxima Elam Shmuel brings the Kasha in the Chufah, and Malbim, and Art Sahaim, and then all the achronim talk about this, that why was Shmuel a moreh halakhah lifnei rabbah? Because he paskened shechitah shechitah kasher b'zar in the presence of Eli. Everybody knows. The Gemara says in Maseches Eruvin that the only time a talmid is a moreh halakhah lifnei rabbah is if he's not coming to be mafriash his rabbah from an issur. But if he sees his rabbah doing an aveirah, or he sees people doing an aveirah, lav frusha me'issura, you're allowed to go ahead and be mafriash, and even be a moreh halakhah lifnei rabbah. So, Maxima achronim, the olam was looking to find a kohen to do shechitah, because they were of the opinion that shechitah was pasul b'zar. If a kohen was going to do the shechitah, obviously he was going to wear the bigdei kehunah, because otherwise he would be a mechaser beged. The Rambam's shitah is that a kohen is only allowed to wear big day in the shush of but b'shas avodah, he's not allowed to wear the big day the fear of MS that if a coin's going to do the wearing the big day he is now GOING TO BE OVER THE SO BY SAYING HE'S SAVING THE world from this terrible of being over the coin at the time of shush which is love of so what's the what's the problem OF BEING THE GREATEST AS I break as I break the cash come with the shush to go ahead and to be this cash but we won't spoke out but the coin and the coin and the same coin that said the it's a double half way the fellow so something I think you'll never hear in brisk or the shush that learn coin but at the same time a plea of the that is that could be this one to say that even though is love of but at the same time that just means that if wants to do so I can do but a lot of a coin does at that point a lot of the is considered a lot of shush love of meaning shush and a lot of does the shush can't have a but if a coin goes ahead and the coin does the shush it could be the coin shush and then it's going to be considered a lot of if that's the case a lot of a coin would have done it would have been considered a lot of if it would have been considered a lot of he wouldn't need the big day if he needs a big day he's not being over the shush of a coin who wears the big day going to get because of the fact that he's wearing and as a result there's no and that's why the said in that shush was a lot of one of the or I should say to say this is the our the shush of the where it's the shush of the big >> that even though schita is bizarre, but a zar would not be allowed to do schita on shabbos. So, shabbos of course schita was huta in the base hamikdash, but it's mevoran rashi that only a cohen would be allowed to do the schita, not the zar. And in here too, everyone muches, what's the difference? If schita is schita bizarre, so why is only a cohen not a zar? So, there's different terutsam that are said to answer this kasha. A brew, the chrenim say that the feedis very big chidish, maybe there's makem to say that there's a fundamental difference between a zar schita and a cohen schita. When a cohen does schita, it's an avoda. The schita that's huta on shabbos is the schita that's an avoda. But the schita lav avoda in, that's poshit that this terut to the minchas chinuch is only going to work not lefi that rate, which is maybe a good thing. It's fine. That rate is a very big chidish. But the bottom line is, it's only going to work not lefi that rate. But if we're going to nam on this chidish again, we had to say it again cuz we mentioned it so many times. the schita, it's considered an avoda, well, that would mean for a cohen to walk into the heichal and to do a schita, that's not a beer ikonis. That's not by yom kippur hakodesh cuz he's not doing an avoda cuz schita lav avoda. He is doing an avoda. Ein schita lav avoda. That means if a zar wants to do the schita, he could. BUT IF A COHEN DOES IT, THEN it's an avoda. A yom kippur hakodesh. And if that's the case, it would be huta kusha to minchas chinuch the doctor. By the way, there's a rashi in zochin dafi dalid amud aleph that says that the reason they didn't do schita too close right to the kedusha is because you know, the animal could always be marbits klora. Right, there's always concerns of what the animal might do. So, to bring walk an animal into the heichal, right, I think we could all understand on our own why maybe that's not something that would be okay. But the minchas chinuch's teruts was a fire teruts. And that is you want to know why it's only be the average [ __ ] shishakta be heichal, it's because otherwise you'd be going over the lav of al yom kippur hakodesh. One second, there's a lav to walk into the heichal? I was always told as a kid it was a love to walk into the Kodesh Hakodashim. That's true. We were told the the most severe part of that love. WE WERE TOLD HALF THE TORAH is Kohanim. But the rest of it and the first four halakhot of perek bet of the Rambam's Hilkhot Bet Hamikdash, that for whatever reason when we were seven they didn't teach. I mean I understand why. But the bottom line is really doesn't is it to go into the heykhal also? And that is there is every Kohen, even a Kohen Gadol, unless you're doing an avodah. So the Mekhilta says shchitah lav avodah hi. Shchitah lav avodah hi. You would not be allowed to be allowed to walk into the heykhal to do the shchitah. Bediavad it's kosher. You want to know if it's a mukhan? Yeah. Lo yeheitev lekhum min ha'ikkar. Aval lekhathilah it's okay. Khilul hashem is a love in the Torah, says the Mekhilta. Which love? Lo ya'avod bakhol es el hakodesh.