Menachos 13

Today's daf is minachos daf yud gimmel and we are about 20 lines from the top of daf yud beis amud beis. Hodar Omar Rav. Today's daf is being learned l'iluy nishmas Toba Rivka Esther bas Yisrael Yehoshua. So, we're in the middle of a sugia. In the middle of a little bit of an intense sugia. The Gemara on daf yud beis amud aleph discussed shirayim shechaseru bein kemitzah le haktores. Al libei derabbi Yochanan that holds makdir kemitzah leyan. However, oisen shirayim asurim ba'achilah. Which means that the haktores hakemitz on the one hand is a proper haktores hakemitz, but on the other hand it's somewhat deficient. It's a proper haktores hakemitz the song reitzoi. That's what makdir kemitzah leyan means. It's deficient because ordinarily haktores hakemitz is makdir shirayim ba'achilah, but oisen shirayim asurim ba'achilah. The question is, what about with regards to other halachos, other powers that haktores hakemitz has? Do we say that being that makdir kemitzah leyan, so this haktores hakemitz has the ability to effectuate whatever those other halachos are? Or do we say being that oisen shirayim asurim ba'achilah, it's a deficient haktores hakemitz, so maybe not. Specifically, the Gemara discussed whether or not such a haktores hakemitz could be koiveia pigul or whether or not it could be moitzi the mincha midei me'ilah. We mentioned that there's two very distinct approaches in the Rishonim head on Rosh Hashanah in this Gemara. We went with the Maharam of the Shita of the Ra'avad says, which according to Maran Agriz is also the Shita of the Ran the Lo Keishita of Rashi and that is that the shailos of the Gemara were that we know that in order for a carbon to be pigul, we are it's going to be liable in all of carus, you would need card sauce, kosher card sauce possible. Yesterday is right, we mentioned that at first glance in the Bryson Swagman of base, it seems like there's actually two sources to this halacha. Number one, lawyer rotzeh, number two, lawyer chosheh, ein chop. But the bottom line is that there's an idea that in order to have a carbon that's pigul, we are if somebody ate from it, he would be liable carus, you would need at the very least that the four critical avodas of the mincha were done. Here's the question. Is this aktaras koimes considered enough aktaras koimes to say that the four critical avodas were done to say it's artzos posul, so that in the event that in one of the avodas it was a machshava of chutzos money, if somebody would eat now from the mincha, he would be liable carus. The other shaila is we know that aktaras koimes is motzi the mincha meiday me'ilah. The question is such aktaras koimes, which is so much deficient, can it be motzi meiday me'ilah? Or could it not be motzi meiday me'ilah? The bottom line is the Gemara said it was a machlokes, it was a machlokes Rav Huna and Rava. Rav Huna said no, Rava said yeah. Rav Huna says this aktaras koimes is deficient, thus it can't be kaveh pigul, it can't be motzi meiday me'ilah. Rava says yes, this aktaras koimes, a gam it's deficient, could be kaveh pigul, and it could be motzi meiday me'ilah. But Rav Huna and Rava didn't just state their positions, they doubled down. Rav Huna said that I hold such aktaras koimes cannot be kaveh pigul. It can't be motzi meiday me'ilah. But I want you to know that a feel of the Rabbi Akiva, even according to Rabbi Akiva who holds Rika Mayeles L'Yotzei, even according to him, I'm going to state my position. Who's this Rabbi Akiva? What does means Rika Mayeles L'Yotzei? There's machlokes Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yasa that's discussed throughout Seder Kodshim, whether or not if you have a chiddush of a carbon that right now is outside of the chomas of the Azara, which is a bad thing. And then you go and you do as Rica. Is the Zuriko my LS to be mighty that that was your with the yellow? Or is it not? Ruby Akiva said Zuriko my LS Leo say and Ruby Azar said ain't Zuriko my LS Leo say. Says Ruby I want you to know what I say that Aktares Akoymes can't be mighty the Mincha Kasera. Mede me yellow it's true even according to Ruby Akiva who holds Zuriko my LS Leo say to be mighty at Mede me yellow. Meaning there could have been a thought that if Ruby Akiva holds that when it comes to something that's Leo say a Zuriko could still be mighty at Mede me yellow. Means it's not so complicated to remove an Isme yellow even though right now there's something imperfect. Who are they? She rhymes with Ben Kmitzer should be the same and that Ruby said that I'm so confident with my position that this Mincha Kasera you can't be mighty with Mede me yellow and for that matter you can't be with the yellow that I feel that Ruby Akiva who holds that Zuriko my LS Leo say it's not going to be okay. And what's the difference? Said Ruby I'll tell you why because when carbon is Leo say the carbon itself is good. What's wrong with it? We said three things. Location location location but the good for carbon is the same there. When you have a carbon means that he saw it is in the good for carbon means that is in the good for carbon. Over here I hold for sure it's not going to be okay. Ruby did exactly what Ruby did. Ruby also double down in the same exact way and tied in the same exact Ruby said Ruby well I'm going to tell you what I think. I said I hold even a coin to Ruby that holds ain't Zuriko my LS Leo say. Meaning if you have a good for carbon that's Leo say you do a Zuriko would not be able to be mighty with Mede me yellow but when it comes to Ben Kmitzer this Akoymes would be able to be mighty with Mede me yellow and if that's the case it would be able to be as well because I hold that this is much less of a problem than Leo say is. How so? Because Leo say at the end of the day, this cheilek that you're trying to be motzi me'eivo is chutz la'aretz, it's no shaychis, it's in the wrong machna, right? And as a result, the according to Rabi Eliezer, can't be me'eiles. But as it relates to the mincha chaser, where we're trying to remove the issur me'eivo from the cheilek that we have, which is right here in the right machna, I think this would actually be better and in this case it would be okay. So, the bottom line is two points and they're both critical as we segue into the last leg of this gemara. It's a machlokes Rav Huna and Rava halacha l'maaseh regarding the original lebiya, whether she ramsha chosam kimitzel l'haktara, whether machshava kimitzel lebiya, whether she ramsha chosam me'achila, whether it's kaveya pigul or whether it's motzi me'eivo. According to Rav Huna, the answer is no. According to Rava, the answer is yes. But additionally, Rav Huna and Rava doubled down. Rav Huna said the answer is no even al libi Rabi Akiva that holds shrei kim'eiles Yoidzei, and Rava said the answer is yes al libi Rabi Eliezer that holds that ein shrei kim'eiles Yoidzei. The first part of the avodah of the machlokes Rav Huna and Rava was Rava himself talking me'not me'not what's my makor. He brought a raya from a very subtle diyuk in Rabi Akiva's braisa, which essentially mirrored our mishna. Abaya was doichech and now we're up to the last part of the gemara that says hada amar Rava, where Rava is going to be choizer. Says the gemara, hada amar Rava, after Rava said what he said, which was what? That she ramsha chosam kimitzel l'haktara, that haktara sakaimis could be kaveya pigul and it could be motzi me'eivo. And al libi Rabi Eliezer that holds ein shrei kim'eiles Yoidzei, Rava went and Rava did an about face. He went 180°. He said lav milsei d'amri, it's not correct what I said at the time because we learned in the braisa it says regarding the lechem haponim kodesh kodashim hu. So, the emphasis on the word hu. We learn from the word hu she'ein nifsal achas me'ehen chaloyseha, kulam bisula. Said if one of the youth base halas of the lechem upon him would be chaser, right? It would crack, it would break, it would crumble, so you don't have 100% of it anymore. All of them would be possible. What's the dick? Who is singular? Youth base halas is plural. From the fact that we refer to the youth base halas as one unit, that means if one of the halas is nifrasa, the whole thing is going to be out. What does this mean? This means that what was matter the lechem upon him it was the chaser of the shnayim l'voinim. So that the time that you do the chaser of the shnayim l'voinim one of the youth base halas is a little bit deficient, cool on the soul of it, everything is going to be out. Said Rava, I want to make a little bit of a dick over here. It sounds like if it was nifraso one of the halas, that's when we're going to have a problem. Hoyos says, let's say one of the halas would not be nifraso, but it would be yotzas. It would be outside of the azara right now. It sounds like how did the gavin chaser? The ones that are inside would be kosher. The one that's outside would be possible yotzas. But at the very least the ones that are inside would be kosher. That's a little bit of a chiddish to me Rava said. Why? Because that would mean, you have to have cup here, that the chaser of the shnayim l'voinim are poel they talk to, so to speak, even though one chala that's outside of the azara. Why? Because if it can't talk to that chala, if it can't see that chala in its radar system, well that means that the lechem upon him are chaser. And if it's chaser, the price already said, it's not going to be okay. Bal korchach, you have to say that even though it's yotzas, it still sees it. Now it doesn't see enough to make it okay to eat because it's nifraso the yotzas. But hamila it sees it, it reckons with it. It's chala on it on some level. You know what that means? It means chala on the yotzas. That's what it means. It means that despite the fact that it's in the wrong I feel hockey the which is the I'm going to work so let's do a little bit of math. Who must the time of this price to me? Meaning who is the time that holds right? It's and what does it say in this price? It says clearly that in the event that it was in the event that part of it became at that point you would not be able to go and eat the so I say what do you see from here that if you hold say still as it relates to a it's going to be a problem. Who said this? This is exactly what what's the that talk to us is not a good and to be and he said I feel rather than just the opposite he said it could even if you hold like how do I see was right? He was 100% right. He was right number one that if it's and he was also right that even if you hold because I have a deal in this price that suggests at the time of this price hold you can what's the deal because the price is saying that if it's it's a problem but it's not it's not going to be a problem. Oh must be the talk to the able to talk to what it means who I did in the you can be able to be well if that's the case you see there's a certain of closer even if you hold that is the the truth is if you miss buying in this tomorrow a minute it's a little bit of a palatal gigamaru. Just push up shot even in the spirit of we do what we do. Even without digging deeper, it's a little bit of a palatal gigamaru. And the reason is because this brice that talks about that if the lechem ha panim is chaser the halacha is kulam psulois. What essentially it's saying is that when you do the hakdara of the shnei bazichin l'voinah, being that there's a chaser over here, you're not going to be allowed to go now and eat the the lechem ha panim. Right? That's not the psul chaser that Rava and Rabbah were discussing in Amud Aleph. They were discussing in Amud Aleph a situation where you have shirayim shel chaser where the halacha is makdir kodesh v'chulin. Nor was oisin shirayim asurim l'achilah. But at the very least, it's not a real psul chaser. It's like an in-between psul chaser because makdir kodesh v'chulin on the one hand, but at the same time oisin shirayim asurim l'achilah. What was the shailah? The shailah was what about with regard to some of the details, some of the nuances of what the hakdaras kodesh is able to do. It's kavaya d'pigul, it's meisa d'mei ilah. Would it be able to do that or would it not be able to do that? That's what we're dining. When the brice is discussing the halacha of kodesh kodashim hu and telling me that if there's a psul chaser, so the whole lechem ha panim is pasul. So you're telling me basically that if there's a psul chaser, you can't be makdir kodesh v'chulin, right? You can't go ahead and be makdir the shnei bazichin l'voinah. The reason is because the ganza maiseh is pasul. Okay, that's a real, real issue. That's a real psul that knocks out this inyan 100%. Maybe that's already a different inyan, right? It's not mamash the same exact case. But at the end of the day, what we're stumbling to is is that this psul chaser that you have over here is true even if you hold that zrikas mailos l'yotzei, which sounds like shitas Rabbah and Rabbah in Amud Aleph. And if that's the case, it's a kasha on Rava and Rabbah and Abaya. But Abaya told Rava, so it's interesting. Abaya always argues with rubber, right? Always hear you would think a buyer wouldn't argue with rubber cuz this is a hot dog my rubber where rubber saying that you know I buy I'm coming around to you but no if rubber said it a buyer is maybe going to see it another ways. I buy you told rubber he says I don't know why you're being hot dog on my rubber says meek hiya says don't say anything about me I say in this bracer, right? What is the bracer say cuz I'm pushing this bracer, right? What is the bracer say cuz I'm pushing this bracer, I would have made a dick that I know what going to make I say cuz if I was in the I say why didn't you mention I say? Says I buy you it don't say anything about it, right? Now you tell me have a dick. What's the dick cuz why you talking about hustler? Talk about something softer or must be that other thing with taco be okay. I buy you says even if you want to work with your methodology that there's a dick to be had but do me you know what the dick is not what this but maybe the dick is mass traders that in the event that one of the became tell me that's where it's going to be kosher and there's a real to say that time of the dick cuz we know the dick was to me and but as relates to if it was maybe lie it wouldn't be okay and the reason is cuz he maybe the going to be holds in my and that's why it's not going to be okay. Now if it's in my says I buy you so why didn't you mention right? Forget the dick so why don't you mention why you talking about hustler? If really also will be doing violate the yummy says I buy you really the the time of the bracer coulda woulda shoulda talked about you the you say the you say the you say even we are technically wasn't you we are still the same see so that is not going to be okay I would have been but I buy you told rubber but I going to be I would have been could be maybe even it was would be so what did what did a bio tell rather about it told rather I don't know why you're coming around now I'm happy to see the world differently than you why you being over here I don't understand why you being you think that you have a right in this price so that the price is because of the after the song like the song like the song and because it's for that reason there's a song but if you would hold that that could be there be no song either. Just need to speak out one critical point in positive of one of the Gamora. Today's began over the course of what he said yesterday. I buy it was the hazard. Even after I buy it is hazards we're going to see in one second when we do this in this still a mirror right it's just in the level of mirror. What did rather start off the by saying I said yesterday that even if you hold in the but this actor could be bigger and it could be how do I know even if you hold is STILL THIS CAN'T BE might be able. 180 degrees the two things rather said is rather said that that told us that works now he's saying it doesn't work rather said it works even if you hold that that now we're saying it doesn't work even if you hold essentially what he's saying is is she does not all about it told rather was where do you see in this price that we're going according to be a kid that's because you are dead maybe the not so maybe really why do we mention because of the but maybe we're going okay. But you still see there's a song here right? You still see there's a psukha zar. Abaye knows that, but Abaye is telling Rava that even though you see there's a psukha zar and you want to shtel back tzu to the sugaya yesterday, but at the same time you only see it now according to the man de amar that holds ein zrika me'eiles le'eitza. But if you hold zrika me'eiles le'eitza, then there wouldn't be a problem. In other words, Rava, your halakha could still shtel. You don't have to be choizer from your halakha. You have to be choizer from maybe you're doubling down, but you don't have to be choizer from your halakha. You have to be choizer from your doubling down because you see that if you hold ein zrika me'eiles le'eitza, then there's going to be a psul psul of chaser, which you said yesterday is not the case. You said even if you hold ein zrika me'eiles le'eitza, so there's not going to be a psul chaser. But at the end of the day, if you hold that zrika is me'eiles le'eitza, which is not the ta'ana of this braisa, so leil meimra your halakha that you said on amud aleph is going to be true. In other words, Rava's knak, where Rava said that the halakha of chaser is going to be okay even if you hold ein zrika me'eiles le'eitza, that's contradicted from this braisa. So it says there's for sure a braisa that seems to say that there's going to be a problem of shirayim shechaser mikum to tahara with regards to being kavaya ba pigul and with regards to being me'eiles le'eitza. That braisa is the lechem upon the braisa, which by the way, again, the acharonim much very much to understand the two styles. Iyan sha, very much iyan sha. But the bottom line is that's a very acharonishus but regardless, one decides the gemara is telling to these two things. So based on that, there would be a hadran al Rava. What's coming out of the maskana, ironically Abaye is the one that's been mechadesh this ta'ana, is that Rava doesn't have to be choizer 100% because that braisa could be going ein zrika me'eiles le'eitza. And if ein zrika me'eiles le'eitza, that's why there's going to be a psul chaser. But if you hold zrika me'eiles le'eitza, then there's not problem. chaser. rubber still has to be a bias not telling rubber you're rubber is 100% incorrect because the second of rubber for sure he has to be when rubber says that there's no problem even if you hold that's what you see for sure not that way because this either holds in the best case scenario is a problem. He just doesn't have to be 100%. He doesn't have to say that even if you hold still it's going to be an issue. Why is this such a big deal? First of all it's but also because who do you think we like? We also have to say that we have to say that we have to say that we always have to say that we have to say that we have to say that we have to say is good. You don't have to be 100%. THIS CONCLUDES THE FIRST PART OF TODAY'S which is really the last part OF YESTERDAY'S MOVING ALONG. So we're talking about where a coin did one of the dollar of this he did it with a lot of money. What's the difference between the two of them? In order for the to be a you would have to have a mind to do some sort of a how much so the mission was pretty much it wasn't but the mission was pretty much it had to be a mission says the mission what would be if he had a mind to eat a mission of the mission and then to be a mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be a mission in the mission of the mission is going to be >> A half-zayis of the coiners. The halacha is kosher. It's going to be kosher in a mistaref cuz achila and haktara are not mistaref. So, really, this mishna, this very, very short mishna, is a continuation of the previous mishna, which was a very long mishna. At the very end of the previous mishna, we discussed something very similar. The mishna said, "K'chatzi zayis l'mochar, k'chatzi zayis b'chotz, k'chatzi zayis b'chotz, k'chatzi zayis l'mochar, the halacha is pasul in both cases." The mishna mentioned that a machshava of a chatzi zayis of chotz l'zmanai and a machshava of a chatzi zayis of chotz l'kormai are mistaref, that it's going to be pasul. Now, you're not going to be chayav kores. The reason you're not going to be chayav kores is because you don't have a zayis of chotz l'zmanai. That's easy. But, homeier, it's going to be mistaref to say that I have a bad machshava. Could have thought chotz l'zmanai chotz l'kormai is not shiyachus. Right? Would have chatzi zayis, so to speak, of chotz l'zmanai and a chatzi zayis of shloish l'zmanai. There's no shiyachus l'shloish l'zmanai, but just l'sabra is oizen. Would they be mistaref? No, cuz it's two completely different things. So, the mishna is saying chiddush that chotz l'zmanai chotz l'kormai is me'inyan l'inyan b'oiser inyan. Right? They're both under the umbrella of piggul. And as a result, in the event that somebody would have a a machshava of a half-zayis in this and a half-zayis in that, it would be mistaref. So, b'hemshech to that, even though a chatzi zayis of chotz l'zmanai and a chatzi zayis of chotz l'kormai are mistaref, but heavier today, a chatzi zayis of achila and a chatzi zayis of haktara in chotz l'zmanai gufo are not going to be mistaref. That's actually going to be kosher. So again, let's read the words in the mishna cuz the Gemara is going to very much be medayek the words in the mishna. "L'echol k'chatzi zayis u'l'hakter k'chatzi zayis, kosher she'ein achila v'haktara mistaref." Let's visualize the case. A cohen is bringing a mincha right now, and he has in mind, he looks at the shiyarei mincha, and he says that I'm going to take a half as I of this Sharia mincha and I'm going to eat a then he looks at the and he says that I'm going to take a a half as I of this and I'm going to let's say you want to take this component of it, right? The equivalent thereof where a doing a and he says he looks at the I'm going to eat a half as I of this in 3 days from now. And then he looks at the and he says I'm going to eat a I'm going to be a half as I of these in a week from now. Right, so these two are not something about a time of the It sounds like the reason this is kosher meaning the reason it's not a proper which is a good thing which means the carbon is kosher that's because he was being and right? He thought a little bit of he thought of a little bit of and essentially what the mission is saying is that not but what would be if he thought and but one of the of was to eat a in it sounds like meaning the is super subtle. What would be if you took that's why we visualized it before. The two things that this person is visualizing and instead of saying I'm going to eat this and be that I'm going to eat this and I'm going to eat that it sounds like it would be okay. There's nothing wrong with the what's wrong is with the that he's thinking he's going to do with the so if he says I'm going to eat this I eat that I eat that I eat that I eat that that already is going to be okay. What's the problem the previous long mission one of the things that it said was after then it's a big old what is it in it ain't there's an that says that if someone has a to eat a such as the cuz that's not or the that's It's that you like over there wouldn't be so The time is the matter. It sounds like if you take these two chefs and you have them on a that's when it's not to take the same two chefs and have them on a how does that stand with the previous mission that says that if you have a to eat a double chin it's not going to be okay. It's very nice you have a and a but you're trying to be a double chin in the double chin that's a problem. Not me that you're but me the fact that you can't have a to eat a double chin in the double chin that's my everything is lie. Don't get so excited about this deal because I could always tell you Montana on my I'm sorry it's on the previous double chin in the double chin and for the Montana who is the tunnel of our mission on my I'm sorry I mean I said I believe it's the tunnel of the other but he has a lot of shout outs in the to Omar who says to me I kill us all the miss bear or me I kill us miss bear the other but he has a has such a unique fetish. He says that you can have a to eat something that's supposed to go on the miss bear and it'll be a proper over or you can have a to be something that you're supposed to eat it would be a proper what's the matter with the we learned in our mission and this mission is coming up in a few days and I don't know if somebody can meet the double chin in the double chin kosher for a person that says it's possible there is a for a person that disagrees what we said you see in the previous mission there's a for a person that holds that there's no such a that the has to be in the double chin in the double chin our mission where the is making a deal that it would seem to suggest you could have a even on the double chin in the double chin money is yesterday's mission is the today's mission is this the first of the that's the second of the by I said I feel you don't have to say that our mission is going to be as a so it's like the same mission really we have it in the broken up but right the calls it a and this we had a 50 line mission and then we have a one line mission This is the head to the previous mission And by the way, even if it was two different mission eyes, it's still dark. So, the bottom line is says Abaya, I want you to know, even if you want to say that our mission is going according to Abana, and it's not fair. You know why? Because let's be honest, you're making a dick. The dick that you're making is a very, very, very subtle dick. What's the dick? The dick is I had a mind to eat this half a kazaya of shurya I mean it's mana, and I had a mind to be makdir this khazi zayis of koymits khuts l'mana. It's not okay cuz akhila and aktora is not mitztaref. So, the missioner. You're telling me that if I take those same two things and I would have a mind to eat both of them, then it would. I The koymits is a dovar shein darka l'kho. No, no, says Abaya, lo yitayma, don't make that dick. Don't say halakha v'halakha dovar shein darka l'kho. Ela eima halakha v'halakha dovar shein darka l'kho. Say that 50 times backwards. But, rather what you should say is halakha v'halakha dovar shein darka l'kho. That That already is going to be considered a machshava. In other words, what the missioner is saying is that akhila and aktora are not mitztaref. That's what the missioner is saying. Is there a dick to be had? Yeah, there is a dick to be had. What's the dick to be had? That akhila and akhila are mitztaref. Is there even more of a dick to be had? Says Abaya, I mean if you want to make more of a dick, then you would say that two things that are dvarim shein darka l'kho, then maybe there would have been a hava mina ben beno shein hava mina should have been mitztaref. Maybe they could be mitztaref. And Rashi says, by the way, you know what that would be? A khazi zayis of khuts and a khazi zayis of l'makha. Those are two things that are darka l'kho, and being that it's akhila and akhila, good. You want to tell me a little bit of a dick is supposed to be had here, and as a result of daf zayin amud alef in Pesachim, that's what the dick would be. That's what the khidush is. But, to go ahead and say that if I would take those two things and I would have a mind both akhila and akhila, one is any way akhila and akhila. definitely not something that's like came up and as a result that's not okay. But the Gamorah says if that's the case, who might come Ashkolon? So what then really is the hidden dish of the Mishnah Al Liba D'Avaya? How about hidden dish meaning you tell me the hidden dish is this diak? That what? Two are mixed up and you'll tell me okay I'll tell you even a bigger hidden dish. Two are mixed up even if one was and the other one was and we know that from the previous Mishnah. What did the Mishnah say? Let us try and learn more. Because I am because I am we need the next part. Possible right? You see clearly it's possible. So that's already before so what then is the hidden dish? Now these next four five lines of Gamorah you see these like little and parentheses all over the place it's because you know to learn the Gamorah in is a little bit tricky here. So we'll try and then we'll speak out the finish by the way explains the Gamorah. So who's the Gamorah? According to Abaya, what then is the hidden dish of this Mishnah? You double check in dark come Ashkolon the mixed up right? Is the hidden dish over here that if you want to be mixed up two are mixed up with one of them is a double check in dark may raise your hand if you know. I know already from the ratio that what? That it's not okay, right? Now this the Gamorah doesn't speak out here but go ahead and check what the Gamorah said about it. If the hidden dish is the other diak, the other diak that what? Let the double check double check dark and let's say it's my that's also the ratio then it is okay, right? So the two possible diak that you could have in this Mishnah both are not okay because both are the hidden dish in the previous Mishnah. One is the hidden dish in the Mishnah that it doesn't work. The other is the hidden dish in the Mishnah that it does work, right? So again let's try Let's try to get this. The Gemara is working now in Abaya and trying to figure out what is the Hadasha of the Mishnah. There's two possible that you can make from this Mishnah. One is Another is That's it. Time is the Gemara both of these are superfluous. I know them both from the previous Mishnah. I don't need this line of uh uh I know it from the previous Mishnah. I know that to be doesn't work from the previous Mishnah. And I know that to be without the whole even it does work from the the previous Mishnah. So, what's the point of the Mishnah? Now, somebody would ask you this question, what's the point of the Mishnah? You would say, why are you assuming the point of the Mishnah The point of the Mishnah is what the Mishnah is saying. Like, the point of the Mishnah is the Maybe the Hadasha That seems to be the most plausible answer. You tell me there's two to be had, both of which I knew from the previous Mishnah. Okay. I I It's nice to be a London and to always be in the diet, sometimes Listen to what the person is telling you and maybe that's really what he means. But the Gemara addresses that, This is the punchline of this. Maybe you'll tell me the Hadasha according to Abaya is the Mishnah Gufa. It's the Mishnah that because that wasn't mentioned in the previous Mishnah, right? It was definitely not before in the previous Mishnah. So, if that's the case, maybe that's what's going on. But the Gemara that's can't be the Hadasha. You know why? Because even though it wasn't before in the previous Mishnah, I've been you can tell me now. There was a to be had in the previous Mishnah. Why? I'll tell you. Because the what we see in the previous Mishnah Now, look, if you have two of a Mishnah, one is a double story the other is A DOUBLE STORY AND YOU HAVE IN MIND to eat both of them both are it's not certainly if you take the same two and you have in mind one thing and one THING TO BE WHEN NOW there's another reason why there shouldn't be it's because you're not even thinking the same you're not even thinking the same so if that's the case there's no question in the world so the words of the mission can't even be the because the words of the mission I know the mission says no in you want to know the mission of this mission the mission of the mission is what the mission says and that is that you can't be what's the the if the same two you can't be you can't be no this far is just the opposite so I mean I would have thought over there who the like you when you have in mind to be a should I have there so in you're not having in mind the right thing what you're thinking is like maybe that's why it's not okay over here the over here the two have that you're having a good normal have a and having in mind to eat what I'm supposed to eat and to burn what I'm supposed to burn not the other way around so maybe it should be and by the way we know that I was also called in the it's called the cause of the so so in a way it is being of but the bottom line is I would have thought being that each is an maybe it should be okay that is the that's what the mission wanted to say in a the mission in other words this last mission said let us see this the question is what is the question the question is what is the question of this mission what's the question of this mission first glance doesn't seem to be a a greater the words of the Mishnah like that is conscious and I feel like it feels I know that already from the from the previous Mishnah. Why? Because if the lack of dark matter so the lack of dark matter in dark matter we having a mind a killer and a killer can't be in the dark matter then certainly lack of dark matter dark matter in lack of dark matter dark matter in dark matter we number one one is dark matter the other one is not dark matter and one is a killer the other one is dark matter certainly that would be so what then is the so really if you do the this to my heart to be a real man and a buyer real man and said there's a huge deep to be had over here that in the event that you would be my lack of dark matter dark matter lack of dark matter the lack of dark matter in dark matter it actually would be in the dark matter according to this Mishnah it's dark matter lack of dark matter lack of dark matter that's not in the dark matter but take the same exact and think lack of lack of either previous Mishnah said before it's not the way previous Mishnah was the and this Mishnah is going to be a buyer said no a buyer said that really this Mishnah is also going according to the and and really the Mishnah over here is what the Mishnah is saying why is that a because as much as I know from the previous Mishnah that lack of dark matter dark matter lack of dark matter dark matter in dark matter lack of dark matter is not in the dark matter but it could be lack of dark matter dark matter lack of dark matter dark matter dark matter lack of dark matter or just this poetic symmetry lack of dark matter dark matter in dark matter lack of dark matter could be over there would be in the dark matter I would you mean it's even more removed it is more removed that is rather true but I can each one is a normal I mean that each one is a a normal that's why it's okay so that as much as I said as all of the you can that you would have from this Mishnah are either obvious not even correct also obvious but the Mishnah is what right sometimes tell them what you're going to tell them tell them and tell them what you told them. That's what's going on over here. Do you come on nice, but can't forget in me create something they put that is the of what this mission is coming to say, and on that note the flame you move fast. We already finished the first very long mission of how do you and without any introduction we go right back into it. Again, really this next mission could have been in the same peric for all intents and purposes cuz it's very much a continuation of everything that we just learned. It's a continuation. That's what we're about to say. In the event that a coin did it in the after what you call it a tomorrow meaning so he did like a lot of stuff later he was going to do that and all of that and you're going to be doing all of that. So it says the mission. How do we know that? I mean that was the previous mission. That was the mission on the bottom of the previous mission. That was the mission on the bottom of the mission in case you were wondering if even is that it's going to be now why would you think that would not be so that we have to see the next line of the mission. What would be if a coin did the on the and he had a mind not to be to the so he had a mind to be the so certain involved in addition to the and the also the what was done with the so the coin would be and it would be so what would be if while he was doing the he had in mind to do a but not a rather so he says it's a but it's not going to be but it's not just it's so he and all of and you're going to be so he So, Rabbi Yosi says, "If you were coming to something to be makhtir the soless, then it's going to be pigul. If you were coming to the mincha with the intention to be makhtir the lavonah, then it's not going to be pigul." So, the chachamim told Rabbi Yosi, "My shino zeman as a zevach? Why is this different than a zevach?" In other words, we'll see this very much in the Gemara, but the chachamim understood Rabbi Yosi that probably what Rabbi Yosi is saying is I'm doing kmitza. So, I'm doing an avodah in which part of the mincha? The soless. Right? Kmitza wasn't done with the lavonah, it was done with the soless. I'm having in mind now to be makhtir the lavonah. That's a different component of the carbon. So, I'm operating in one wing of the carbon and I'm being machshiv in another wing of the carbon, right? In the case of an oif, that's pun intended. But, the bottom line is I'm operating on one side and I'm being machshiv regarding the other side. Oh, it's two different acting of the carbon, two different parts, two different components of the carbon. That's not going to be a machshavah. If I'm operating in the kmitza and I have in mind to be makhtir the kmitza that year, right? It's probably what's going on. But, the chachamim told him, "Well, if that's the case, every zevach Right? Why every zevach kind of did the shchita kabalah with the dam and he had in mind to be makhtir the emurim. So, I'm doing avodah with the dam and I'm having in mind the emurim. So, you see clearly even though it's two different components of the carbon, so it's a machshavah of pigul." Amaleham so, Rabbi Yosi told the chachamim, "No, it's very different. Sha'zevach, when it comes to a zevach, dam u'psoless and the emurim of echa, the dam, the basar, the emurim is all one cheftza of a carbon. Lavonah in the mincha, but the lavonah is not part and parcel of the mincha. That comes from one animal, RIGHT? IT'S ALL PART of one animal. They're all vital organs of the same uh animal. As opposed to by the mincha, the kmitza is a lachud and the lavonah is a lachud and it's for that reason there it's going to be different. Either way, the Gemara now is going to do a little bit of an iyun in shitas Rabbi Yosi, the machlokes Rabbi Yosi and the chachamim. So, how did the mishnah begin? Hakometz es hamencha l'chashavah l'vatah Why did we begin this way? Because we're segueing into where we are not later, right? This we are not later. We are not later. We are not later. Not not rather being that from this possible sounds like that's like a separate part of the mission. So, over there it's not going to be a What's the question? What is the mission of the mission? Why do we need this? Why is the really adding to the end of the mission? Is there any bend the notion of having a mission to think that we are not later in this case? I mean, if that's not what's the mission, right? So, of course he has to be to that case. And that was a free to go mission. There was no mention of a mission. Now, we are coming to say the end of the mission. I'm in a slot of the mission. Possibly in my case the end of the mission. It sounds like there's a mission in the middle of the mission. There's something that would have been misleading had I not heard this in boxing. And the question is what exactly could I have possibly thought? The mission says I'll tell you I'm sure in the middle of the mission. Because the mission wanted to say the mission of the mission. Now, the mission I would have thought once I heard the mission of the If you had a mission it's not going to be a mission. I could have thought the mission of the mission. The reason holds that is because in the middle of the mission. It's in the middle of the mission. It's nothing to do with the fact that this is the mission that's the mission. It's related to the mission. And if that's the case and if that's the case and if that's the case and if that's the case wouldn't discriminate between whether the mission of the mission is the mission or the mission of the mission is the mission. We'll will this in a second. What about the mission? That's why the time of the mission wanted to make it very clear. No, he's my dad by the he only is by the this has nothing to do with the of now when you see the words right so you have a little bit of a trace of but the truth is that really the application of here in really means something very different than what it means in most of the years where it's mentioned so usually the idea of that in the event you have a let's say a carbon where this four has eyes and the right so if you would have a bigger by one of them or two of them or three of them but not by all of them since remain the would it be a bigger or not I had the while I was doing not the matter only by because part of it I got right it's only part of it I got wrong so if you the but the say it the case but the say just the case the tight definition of the words of is I can't have a bigger if I'm only being during half of the matter if I had it by the matter that would be fine that's not what's going on in the year it's a matter of fact what's going on in the is exactly the opposite this coin is doing the that's not a matter is doing a full right now the full is a matter he had in mind to be matter the only the that is a on some level of why because a minute that requires a the and the are considered two halves of the same it's they're both part and parcel of the matter and as a result each one of them is really a matter if in the matter our saying that would not be matter because just like that if I have the while I did not so to that if I have a to do while I'm doing a full matter that also wouldn't be my time is going to be to say that you know why possible because if you had a mind not because of something inherently wrong with the not because of some disconnected energy between the because at the end of the day is a the other half the matter and the other half the matter copy the and if that's the case maybe that's why and if that is the case if I had a mind to be the if I had a mind to be each one is the other half of the same whole and therefore I would have thought that's a problem as well for that reason the time of the mission wanted to be clear that's why the time of the mission did speak in that's why the time of the mission said that the issue IS NOT THAT MUST BE RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THESE ARE TWO different components of the same now again we mentioned that this application of the matter is a application it's actually a very application among this in the next stuff that is we will speak out a lot of related to it or should I say in the next stuff we already spoke out a lot of related to this I regardless moving along the also or stay tuned the the as it relates to the all men that's in the says possible and what do the say say pick up the now we reject this have a minute and then I shall have a minute and maybe you receive it because I have to do the mission already dressed up. By the mission I'm saying it's only true by the way that's only true by so we know that's not true. Okay, so what is and when you read the mission what does it sound like it is? Sounds like it is they're arguing that if I'm doing on one wing of the carbon and I'll be on the other wing of the carbon, do we say that's a proper or not? Sounds like you see you can't think while I'm doing according to I could think I mean I can't but in terms of it being a a is bigger yeah, it would be a even though I'm operating in the I'm thinking about the stating that is going to introduce a member that said that's going to make a little bit of a in this. used to say you meet in the street sometimes you would tell you this. Hey They should know one matter is not matter. So let's just keep this very very simple and in the next year and all that rate we'll go into this a little bit more or we went into this a little bit more. So said that used to say and matter matter. If is doing an in one matter, right? Something that's matter. And now he has a to do another thing but that thing is also a matter. The is it's not going to be a bigger. And matter is a matter. So you see the and if that's true, I'll give you a an application of this as it relates to the so there were two that were burned on the that were to each one of them is a matter as it relates to the way it matters. The same thing would be true over there. So, in the event that a coin is being marked there one of the and he has in mind to be marked the other one of the and each one is a matter and as a result it wouldn't be a pickle. So, he used to say that and matter with and you should know the same is going to be true as it relates to and what does he mean he used to say was there a context? So, actually says yeah. Actually says he would explain his sheet the right here in our mission in that way that the reason holds that it's not considered because the is a matter and the and a matter with a matter. That's a a problem in the world of pickle and it's not going to be okay and by the way I'll tell you what to that. The each one is an individual matter and matter with so it's why is that even if it's matter with and two different material. So, of course that's the way it should be. Not my I don't understand but my it's obvious. So, the says no it's not so obvious I would have thought I would have thought that maybe when is there a issue of with a matter maybe that's by the comments and the which are two separate things. Where they're the same exact thing. So, I would have thought that that's the over here that even there's a matter with and says used to explain his own position. You know in the mission that if someone does and he has in mind to be it's not going to be pickle it's because and matter with and by the way the same is going to be true for the shnay b'zicharon so what's the kasha going to be right now? Doesn't fit with our mishnah. Why doesn't it fit with our mishnah? Mishnah didn't say it's a matter of a matter. The mishnah clearly said it's because the and the are two different parts of the carbon. Mishnah gave a different reason. Let's explain the kasha the is going to ask a little bit better. And that is according to the time of the mishnah that the and the are what would be if a would have a just one of the of the for the other for the other one of the you would think that would be a based on the time of the mishnah. Because the I don't think I like the that's for sure one and the same, right? The just spoke out that far. So you would think for sure that would be AND that's why when it comes to the that's also not going to be I mean it's very nice. The problem is it doesn't sound like the of and the that is suggesting would come out from his from the cuz he's saying the very much that it wouldn't be true by so let's see it says the mean time of the let me let me see is there any way to say that is not because of the fact that the is not part and parcel of the right? It has nothing to do with that. It's and therefore it would be true even BY BUT SAYS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE clear in the he said why is the and the different than the I'm going to tell tell me cuz by the it's all part of the same but the is not part of the so he said clearly the issue is that it's not part of the so the which is all part of the same thing for sure would be okay. It has nothing to do with a new din in matter of a matter. This is related to the fact that it's not part and parcel of the same in and the matter says an unbelievable my you know what is going to tell you? When he said he didn't mean that the are two separate entities. That's not what he meant. What he meant was equal of matter. That it's not part of the equal of the matter. The matter of the matter does not require a matter of matter first to be matter of the love. It's not the matter of the matter of the matter. The matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the This the means what he's saying in the mission is it's not part of the mission it's not the equal of mission. Not that it's not the same so that's not what he's saying. What he's saying is it's not in the equal of the mission that it's not something that becomes matter of the day the matter of the matter. It itself is a matter. If I want to be matter of the matter before matter of the matter that's something I have every right to do. The bottom line is the bottom line is that time of the matter of the matter is actually not what it sounds like he said in the mission and that is because the matter of the matter are two different components but rather what it's more related to is a matter of a tremendous matter. If you had in mind the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter that's only if it's not in one cave. Once it's in one cave, it's going to be like one and there's not going to be a problem. And that is that even the other agree with the concept of they just say by that it was in one over there it's not going to be a problem. Now what would be a case of where they would agree with it? Where would they hold that the other matter? Where would that be an issue? So if you look at the parentheses, the parentheses parentheses are very helpful here. The parentheses say you look at essentially says the same thing. Rashi says it would happen after me now by the the were the two cross in the two that were brought on two separate the like if we do the with one so we there we would say that the other the other and being that it's not the other one the other one would be the other one. So the saying that the other one the other one is saying that the other one the other one the other one were very but you should know they weren't as you think they were. They don't fundamentally disagree with the principle they just don't when it comes to one but anything as it relates to maybe the over there it's going to be different. So what's the of this part of the the is that in the we had what felt like a very straight forward and when we started the other got a little bit but it's not a very straight forward. The other one says that the other one the other one the other the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one sounded like the other one the other one is cuz it's two different departments in the carbon and as a result you can't be operating in one and be on the other. The other one the other one said the other one the other one the other one the other one the other one it's not what he means but rather what the other one means is in matter of the other one the it's not what he said. You twist the words a little bit. That is what he said. And by the way, the same is going to be true by the same is going to be true by the what emerges from the is going to be other applications of this nothing that emerges from the is that it was a to think that maybe could have meant not the traditional but the more brisk together matter but he himself already addressed it that's not the case. That's why the mission gave the whole might have been a piggle in the case when you had a mind to be mocked there. One last leg of the I'm going to be honest said that's a pun like bizarre apostle in the event that a bizarre would go and he would be the from the mincha apostle it would disqualify the carbon. So one of the quote unquote avoidances that was done with the mincha was after the was put on top of the mincha so the would come and he would be the and he would separate it from the mincha. If a bizarre would do that that would be a problem. My time of why what what avoid this that right? Meaning which one of the avoidances this that somehow it's now considered an avoid it was done by a possible so it knocks out the the mincha. So the says I'll tell you why I'm it's this I thought is walking the or the to even though he's not physically walking but you could do even by not walking. What way is that I'm bringing you one step closer to the cuz I have to be in order to do the says the uh the uh bizarre meaning is and is possible bizarre so you want to know which avoid it is it's not I'm going to say I have a from my which mission of from the previous those are the four critical of void this when it comes to a you have a mind to do it it's going to be a a problem so he said like this I understand why if you have a it's a problem because I know it's the equivalent there of to the my life not as it relates to I know my life matter I know meaning you remember from the first blood and blood and blood of with the beginning of how do you know which one of the there's a problem of or there's a problem the end of the day is the four critical of void this we took for granted that this four critical of void this by that are the mirror image of the four critical of void this by the but I says I don't have all of them I have to that's the equivalent of the I have the and the that's the equivalent of the and the equal I will nice and clean my car with what is that the equivalent of tell me that's the that's what we keep on saying that better be the but me dummy it is it's very different than it happens about the sex the animal and then the dam comes gushing out over here he has to do a he has to take the and he has to physically put it into a right over here it's he physically have to put it there you have to say give me the probably the reason we treat this like a cabala is not because it's really cabala because it's critical it's necessary you can't live without it meaning the fact that it's needed and I'll cut you have to put it into a box so much for like a cabala so we back into making a cabala well I would argue the same thing over here given the being that you need to be avoid the It has to be I'll call you got to put it somewhere, you know, where you going to put it? You're going to make it a Kabbalah. What is it? So, you're going to make it into a I want to make a derive from the mission. From the fact from the fact that what? What's the right from the mission? Not from the part of the mission, from the Kabbalah part of the mission. From the fact that when you put the comments into a we treat it like Kabbalah, that means you back into giving it a title and putting it into one of the categories of I think that's what's going to have to happen with I I hear I appreciate it's not a right cuz I'll tell you the dummy the Kabbalah. You telling me that putting the comments into the is not Kabbalah must because it's so it's going to make it into and putting the comments into the is because it is Kabbalah. Oh, the Kabbalah I you dummy it's not Kabbalah. Kabbalah happens you have to do a you have to do it. You say Kabbalah is not You say it's it's after the first being what I have now into a now if I went ahead and I did a the reason that's called Kabbalah is because it really is Kabbalah. This is it I don't know if it's Kabbalah. You want to tell me yeah, yeah, you want to tell me no, no, it's totally a riot to that. That's not something you have. We are going to stop here.