Menachos 47

Today's is we are at the second wide line on today's stuff's being learned as a mirror and so we're moving along here in the fourth per of dealing with related to the kayat. So as we saw in the previous daffin onus in the bas mikdash there was a special cocktail of carbon that was brought. It was made up of an aasim and a thea itself was made up of 10 animals. The katas was one goat. The schlamim were two sheep and the min was the it was made up of two breads each one weighing in of silus. We also saw that there was a special connection between the known as the and specifically it was the madeshim. It was also the was. So we know that all hectish if you're going to eat it needs something to be mate the m of the was the of the additionally we saw that the and the were of each other. Now exactly what that means was a point of contention amongst the brought between according to according to the there was some special some special connection between the and between number one that they have this connection. Additionally, it was only the that had this connection as opposed to the they did not have this special connection. Either way, today's daf is going to continue on this general theme discussing the the unique relationship that the and the kipseras had and really it begins with the bry. just to set up the BR. So we just mentioned there's a between and bananas regarding the and the what was what according to the was of the was not of the accus it's the other way around the was of the is of what does that mean you can't bring the those two unless you're bringing But the is not of the which means you could bring the even if you're not bringing the our Bryce is going to address what would be in the event of you could bring the without bringing the so right now the is being brought on its own. What's the implication of that? Meaning do we treat this the way we would always treat the as if it was being brought together with the or do we say that being that right now the are being brought on their own maybe the is going to be different. So the truth is what was the status of the when it was being brought in a perfect world together with the so number one you would do with the you would take the you would take the and the says you would do additionally the would eat the so essentially the question is number one are you going to do with the when it's being brought on its own without the number two are you going to eat the when it's being brought on its own without the now as it relates to eating it there's an additional here because as we mentioned what was it was the so to the extent that it's being brought without the you would think you don't have the m and as a result maybe you wouldn't be able to eat it or maybe not maybe when it's brought together with then the is what's but when it's being brought without the maybe not either way uh obvious question that needs to be pondered and that is how do we treat the when they're being brought without the obviously this question is only a question in the world of who holds that can be brought without the because according to Benan the so to the extent you don't have the you're not bringing the which means we're not having this conversation anyways but in the world of where you could bring the outs or How do we treat the is it the same as always? Is it different? That is the topic of this very short stating that the Gmorra is going to have a whole discussion that's going to take us literally to the last word of discussing this and really this if they're being brought on their own meaning without the gift. So the first thing the B says is the tufa with its then they would have to wait for the of the to go bad for it to somewhat decay decompose and then finally when that happens you treat it as if it's and you take it out to the so what's the very straightforward every one also has to however whereas every has a doesn't have a it has to go but before it goes to the first thing you need is to you have to wait for it to somewhat decompose says the I don't understand the of the to me it seems to be somewhat contradictory why because if the of is that you should be able to eat it like every was eaten then eat it. Why would the Bes say if the is that when it's brought with the gift is eaten but when it's brought by itself it's not eaten but rather it goes to the well if that's the case then just go and take it to the B and burn it why is that you first have to make it have burn it even without the in other words is I don't understand That's where the is the has nothing to do with the part of the it's the latter to means you can't eat it. If you can't eat it, then you should not eat it and take it to even without the kash is that if it's something that could be eaten, eat it. But if it's something that can't be eaten, then it shouldn't need to. So just explain this a little bit better. We know that kachen that was burnt sometimes required, sometimes didn't require ibsur. The general rule of thumb is that if there's something physically wrong with the kachum, which is the reason why you're not allowed to eat it, so then it doesn't need iortsurah. If there's nothing wrong physically with the kach, but there's something external that's causing us not to be able to eat it, so then it would require. The Gmorra holds that to the extent that the is should fall under the category of that has something inherently wrong with it where it shouldn't require and the reason is says Rashi five words because if the is you can't eat that means the den of this is bring it and then burn If that's the it shouldn't require I sur you need where the of this is not to burn it in fact there's nothing even inherently wrong or flawed with it there's some external issue hovering it needs before you bring the if however there's something physically wrong or if the is to burn it there's not even a then for sure you shouldn't need hence the says there's a and if there's Why do you need now is going to bring two distinct we're going to see it's two that are really three two or if you prefer three approaches to try to make sense of this price. The first is says this price is as follows even you're allowed to eat. Why then does the Bri say it's a we were concerned because maybe in the following year there will be the being brought together with but maybe in the following year the would be there. You would expect for it to be there. Now if you're going to go ahead and you're going to eat this year when there's no next year you might do the same thing. You know what people are going to say next year? Last year we ate the breads without the let's do the same thing now next year might not remember the that the year before there were no as a result itself now it's only that have the ability to be ming that there's a concern that if you're going to eat without you may end beating the before you bring the even when there are it's for that reason said but here's the point the says of it's not for it to be therefore even though the but it's not if it's not so for sure it would require before you're going to go ahead and burn it and that's the price so the price is that it should really The only reason it's not is because of being that it's only because of it's for that reason it requires now continued talking what's my mar to this idea my explanation of the now just appreciate this better we're going to see in a minute that's famous his nemesis in is going to learn differently than him so is saying a little bit ofish is really and he felt he needed to back it up. Just explain this a drop better. What's the grace of what is saying it's posit because if the requires the is to be so now that you don't have the being he's saying a very big that when this again rais saying it to explain a difficult but being that he's concluding something that really is aesh he felt he needed to support it and back it up. Hence the next part of again what I'm saying it's a Mishna that this Mishna is in the first it's a Mishna that comes up a lot in circles specifically we learned this Mishna together a few weeks ago if you look at the it was mentioned was made. So this is that any that gives is not sinning. The background to what held was is that really the not obligated to give them. Therefore, you would have thought that if he gives him he's doing something wrong told who was saying this over in the name of Ben it's just the opposite. You're telling me that a doesn't have to give but if he does he's not doing anything wrong. I the has to as a matter of fact the that doesn't give he's being stating that he said I do know as a historical fact that the were very lax when it came to and the reason was because they made up their own to somehow wiggle out of it. What was the Joshua? The says that if a ever brings a like whatever it's like the carbon it's you now eat it it goes 100%. So the kahan made the following. They said that the went to buyers included in the were included in the were the and so they said if we're going to be to the so it's going to come out we're gonna have ownership. We're gonna have a we're gonna own shears in these three. Well, if that's the case, hey, how would they be able to be eaten? There's going to be a of this that's and the is so came up with a whole right. They had this loophole in the system. Obviously, we can't give because we're going to go ahead and give we're going to mess up the because now there's and is but what's the bottom line? It says, you know what I'm taking out of this? I'm taking out of this that is a that's a why because when he said his famous piece that the he said they were regarding the which is a they were regarding which they also were regarding a he said I don't understand this 100% is it talking about like in traditional settings when it's brought together with the specifically the areate that part and parcel of it. Well, if that's the case, I think you have to view the as being part and parcel of the similar to the way you view the carbon which was a topic of yesterday's and if that's the case I want to ask you a question rabbon it comes with you can tell me those are not eaten of course they're eaten and how do I know that they're eaten the reason I know that they're eaten is because I've never heard to the contrary are technically the carbon. We actually view them as being a proper carbon. And if you view them as being a proper carbon, a proper carbon is not included in therefore they could eat. Well, if that's the case, then I think the same should be true with regards to the even though technically I guess you can say it falls under the umbrella of actually calls it but even though you can put it under the the definition of with the its denim should be determined and dictated based on the meaning that the regular carbon there's no I think the same would be true with regards to the so what would the talking about when we can't be to mess up messing up the any more than you would mess up a carbon you know you could carbon because it's a carbon and the That's something that's an carbon. It's not a it's same to be regarding said must be it must be that they were talking about that's probably what they were talking about. If it's not coming with so it doesn't have any for it to be. If that's the case it's but what's the punch line? But what did they say that if we're going to be in now we're messing it up? What do you see? You see that it's meant from this that was therefore I have feel like I have the places to be that's one if it has a it shouldn't require the it's only because of being that it's only because of that's why it requires I'm saying a very why is it because number one it's but number two because doesn't it require the to be true but that's only true when it's not but when it comes by itself like said it's m itself bottom line is Rabba has his support from this so the garra says that who was rabb heard what Rabbi And Abaya asked on so to be clear is not asking a head on the ra but the second said that I have a problem as it relates to your that if it's then it's no different than You see where I'll tell you there was talking about where was from the and its bread brings a carbon as far as we know when he eats the no it's different you don't find anywhere that the was called you do find that was called the says being that you find that refers to could be even where it's not we treat it like a for that reason said but the point is that it could be there was talking about oh they were talking about Well, obviously if that's the case, it's not to our but either way, that's the first shot in the it's holds. It's only because of and that's why it's really what you're supposed to do. If that's the so right if the is it shouldn't require the reason you don't just burn it right away is it's a whole different reason says you're not understanding the you don't need the problem is when is the brought it's if it's and you're going to burn it it means you'd be burning a so you have to wait until after that's what's going on over here I heard Rab said and like he always does he said I don't understand what you're saying when is there a is not to burn it is with it right now I'm burning it because something happened it became possible so there but over here when you're telling me so for sure you should burn it and by the way said there's a precedent for the fact that within you burn You find it regarding the paripper which was right the was one of the paranim and the also had it in and they stood on they did it on the certainly the teres that here it's so it's very different what said he said it can't be that it's for the reason you need iburas because you just have to wait until after yont can't be because there would be no problem to burn the is not it's like the said it's a different reason it was he was just concerned that maybe they'll find at some point meaning right now it's early in the morning and you're bringing the you do the with it and yeah you're going to go ahead and burn it when you're supposed to eat it no but we don't have the but what happens if you end up getting the he wants you to wait until the end of the day because maybe at some point you're going to get the which will allow you to do a proper tanufa number one together with the gives additionally allow you to eat it. So we don't want to go ahead and seal the fate of the so early in the day. So that's why we're waiting until later and it's for that reason he said again ibur is not because there's something cushure about it. It's then is not. Therefore, you need to surah before you do this. The ra but ibur is just weight. It's just stalling tactics. It's not ibsur in the traditional conventional sense. But had a problem with this as well. He said because that would explain why you would wait until the end of the day calls manak as long as you'd be able to be mak the entire day. says up until the right because once you bring the it's too late. till the end of the day I it would explain why you're waiting but at the very least once the day ends you bring the sun sets right at that point you can't do anymore so you shall burn it then says the told him the way I understand the price said it's what it means I don't mean and I don't even mean you have to wait until the next morning you technically be able to burn it at night I just mean that the of the animal has to change a little bit or some say the surah of that the nature of that has to be different meaning you can't just go ahead and burn it requires some delay not a delay until the next morning that's not what I meant that's what usually means but that's not what this means what this means is just wait until the night the reason you don't need a proper is because the dinner is the reason however you want to wait until the night is because you want to wait until you know for sure you're not going to be able to bring the kay but the bottom line is learned 180 degrees from the way learned that the really of that and the only reason why there's a oh and by the way doesn't mean what it means doesn't even mean what it usually means said learned the same way learned he learned that the is And that's why it's because of the RA learned exactly that. Not only that, he learned the same exact. Okay. So what is Raba deviating? Why is Raba another? The reason he's another is because we mentioned earlier that Rabba needed a bryer. He needed a a he needed a source. It's actually a Mishna in order to back up his position because without a a Mishna without a you can't just say that you're allowed to eat because ordinarily it needs the to be mid. So how could it be in this situation? It wouldn't need the kids what was rais the which he understood as you see that was but was there so because of that raba feels he needs to add something so again is learning like but he feels that needs a car also felt he needed a mar that was the second of Abaya knocked out the which means according to Raa we don't have a mar so that's where needs to contribute now he needs to again that really And if that's the case really it shouldn't be why is of and it's because of usually when you think of you think of right this is not that of but either way it's the he said earlier what's the next year they're going to say last year okay stating that but the mar to this is not rais said that I have a a what's this what is it says referring to and the refers to as so said in that word in that analogy just could also be hence were eaten by the could be eaten as well either way just to make a on the first part of today's we're going that holds that the is of the but is not of So the could be brought on its own. What do you do with it? So the price said you do and then you wait for it to have and you burn it. And the said I don't understand why you would need before you burn it. If the is then you shouldn't be burning it. And if the isful then you shouldn't require and what emerged is really two fundamental and how to learn the rabb and the respectively. The rabbi said that the sheet of the is that really you're allowed to eat being that you're allowed to eat it if you're going to burn it. You're going to have to burn it with an why do you have to burn it in the first place? It's source of what calls pun intended. It's based on the fact that we're worried that if you're going to go and eat when there's no he may eat once even when there is and that's something that unequivocally you're not allowed to do that's completely off limits for that reason because of this what the second approach is approach he went just the opposite of if Why do you need surah that was the cash? You don't really need you don't need the surah of the conventional definition of it. What you need is to wait until the end of the day. The reason wait until the end of the day is because until the sun sets or until you bring the you don't know that you're not going to be able to bring the as long as you might be able to bring the we should hold out for what is the the way of doing the mitzvah. It's for that reason the iss coming to say another within the right we felt that it's why ordinarily you need the to then why would it be different if was the had a problem with that and so that reason ra came up with another macar he learned it from a drussa no less and that is that we compare So either way, we now turn our attention to we turn our attention to part two of today's. Okay. So the Gar now is going to bring another bryer. So part one started with a a bryer a oneline bryera and had a long uh amoic discussion of this bryer. Part two begins with a Bryce as well. It's not one line. It's more like seven lines but again same sign. We're going to have a bryo and there's going to be a discussion amongst in terms of understanding in this. Now the background of this bryo is really the theme of these daffin that we're learning now and that is the special connection that the kipsy has with the specifically what we need to understand this was not the was also mikadesh it gave kadusha to the how so Now the as soon was soon as it was designated as being part of the the carbonos of it got a kadusha but the kadusha that it got is what we know as kadusha's do it didn't get kadusha didn't become intrinsically kadesh until the were brought so the status is very much contingent upon the katsaris to avoid of the of the iso and it also gives it the kadusha it upgrades it from being simply to now being here's the question what would be if the were brought with how exactly if in any way would that impact so to the extent that the abroad would that impact or would that not impact? Now the truth is as follows. The truth is the is we know the first of but the point is that is included in right it's not excluded even though there's multiple in the first none of them exclude. So a for sure that's is going to be it's but it is and what does kasha mean? Kasha means you could do this. Kasha means you could eat the kasha means you could be eat the right. It's kasha. So at first glance you would almost feel like this question should be a little bit dead on arrival because you would think that being that is so why shouldn't it be why shouldn't it give it its proper now to be clear it's so maybe you got to bring but that's not The nid of this price the of this price is could I eat right does it have which means I can be but again I would think that the even if it was being that is that it's be that it's going to have on the should be this what should possibly be the problem so brings a terrorist Rashi says that really the issue over here is is based on a that it says regarding the carbon by the you find that if the was brought that the don't become so if that's the case there's now to say that if as it relates to the relationship between the if it's done so it makes sense then maybe the would be true as it relates as it relates to the as that's going to feature very very prominently in the very very last leg of today's is going to be that in the it's going to be that could be the reason why the doesn't have the ability to be even though uh is a and it's because maybe is and it's all the things that are part and parcel of the actual carb. But being that is external to the kips, right? It's just couple of loaves of bread, some carbs, it's not part of the actual animal. So it could be that would not have the ability to go ahead and be on it in the same way. as much as it's true and is a but it could be that's only with regards to it being m things that are part and parcel of it but if you want to be m something external even though there's a zik between those two things but if it's something external it's a degree removed and it could be then already it won't be able to do it either way this idea of and what does or doesn't have on is the topic of the next part of today's as relates to they don't have the ability to be unless you do a so it's says the price of that was in the event that was end this week was the would not get shocked What would be if the was this week it was says and not kadesh very cryptic indeed we'll see a whole discussion tomorrow what this means but it is and it is notes you have to do and you have to do but if you can do only the notma I don't agree with that it's says it's not going to be kesh period either way. So the price said three things. If the wasma and this was If the was and was if the was but this was one says so nobody holds it right even who holds it's nothing now just to be clear even though we mentioned this in the introduction to the but let's just this when we talk about is it is it wakes up when it's the question is is it right that's the over here does it have that level of kadusha or does it not have that level of kadusha for sure it has kadush but does it also have kadusha that is what's going on over here in this if the and the were both kadesh if the and the were both is not kadesh where the wasma But this was according to it's not going to be first things first. What is the between and now you could have argued first things first is let's understand the twoas right but the actually says no we'll understand it in a minute a couple of but for now what is this so my time the rebi what's that holds that if was even if this was not it's also but what's that holds it because the says also says it says clearly that what part of the is connected to the salamatus what part of it is going to make the salamus it's the you see from here that is now the truth is this is not talking about right what's the dead giveaway it says alham Right. Theims of the were not an they were not one. So this is actually talking about the aisle that the Nazer used to bring. But as we saw already in yesterday's the schlum of the Nazer is similar to the which we saw is also similar to the in that there's a carbon and breads and that there's a zika between the carbon and the breads. But the bottom line is that's rabbi that you see regarding this uh is of theim that it's the of the connected to the so you see from oh if that's true with regards to the carbon it's going to be true with regards to as says it's true it says always means but it says and you know what means it means you have to do all the so until you do all the is not going to be true according to reb doesn't it says it does but head it says I would agree with you and on top of that you need to make sure everything else is good as well but now that it says first and second so the way I touch it is it's like a proper what does it mean but really the only thing that matters is says why the ter mention meaning once it says means so why you even singling out. The reason the said is bas everybody agrees that the has to be around at the time of the meaning the needs to be in existence at the time of the you could have thought that as long as the time of this week that would be okay that at the time of the you already have to make sure you have the but bottom line that if the was it's going to be in a kadesh It's because it says I care about this because it says means that all have to be okay. Okay. So that addresses the to this. The next thing we need to figure out is what is the and specifically what is because she is pretty straightforward. Shim said that okay pretty clear but the question is what is Rabbi said it seems very cryptic. So the garra says like this. What does it mean? Said it's but the kadesh is not complete which by the way still leaves us uh needing more information right tell me more and the in a minute will explain better. So again this is already the second crack at it and we still don't know what it means. So said it means is a little more clear that what it means is that it's 100% it's as we'll see in a minute you won't be able to be played right when this goofy can't be played you won't be able to be played in this so what does it mean it's not going to be so if the was what you end up having is like in terms of the service is going to have its ability to Yeah, it's going to give it kadusha's ability to m that it won't be able to do because for that already you need says the what's the between and by the way that's just the way of saying I don't understand I understand what saying right it's not that said it's so it is and it's notes I just don't know what that means and again not I don't understand what it means I have a I just don't know how to touch it. What does it mean? So the Garra says I'll tell you and by me telling you you'll understand what is to be meaning could you be or could you not be poed? Now Rashi has a whole over here in terms of what the right gears here is and what the wrong gears here is. Rashi very emphatically if you take a look at Rashi's liness he's pretty shar that the gears that we have in Argamar is the wrong gear. So we're going to read it the gears that Rashi was 100% sure is the right gear and that is toughest pino according to it has kadusha but the kadusha that it has is only a kadushim. So it's kadesh it has kadushim but at the same time it doesn't have kadusha sag being that it doesn't have kadusha sag. So it's for that reason if you want to be poed you can be po whereas according to it's 100% it's right it's 100% and therefore that's the right you have to add the word you won't be able to be so according to it's but it's notes you could be according to it's means it which means he can't be. So what's the means? It means it's not going to be motor. But the continues according to I understand between according to let's get this clear. It's you can't be according it's notes which means that if you want to be you could be and by the way that it's not right you for sure can't eat it. The question is what? The question is could you be ped could you not be and that is between it's therefore you can't be it's not if you want to be could be what is between that even it's called so what does that mean that means if you want to be you could be And according to if you want to be you can be paid because it's not at all. So what's the what is the between meaning says it's what does that mean? It's just it's not what hold it's only if you do a proper now does hold it's not if you didn't do a proper of course not which is exactly so what is and by the way it's according to it's not going to be but it's also according to it's not going to be right just according to understanding inbi it's not certainly understanding of it's not so that it's not that it's only which means you could be so you want to know what is whether or not It's if it would be in that situation where the was would it become if you have to treat it like or would it not be according to it's means that it has a level of and that it would be according to it's nothing all it is is good old fashioned and as a result it's not according to what's the between the is in again just to be clear. So we have a in the third case of the where was this week was according to what exactly are these two let's go backwards according to is that it's not 100% just means it's So that according to it's you can't be according to it's going to be it's just not according to it's nothing if it's nothing it's not only it's not going to be certainly it's not going to be according to even holds that means it's not 100% meaning it's not in the sense that if you want to be you will now be able to be because It's only it's not what does it means that it's going to be it's going to be if that's the case what's the between this is nothing in the sense that all it is is so if you want to be you can be it's not going to be and if you want to eat it you won't be able to eat it according to rebi you won't be able to eat it. If you want to be paid, you'll be able to be paid. So, he checks off two of those boxes or checks off. But it's the third box according to it's something that is going to be either way the third and final part of today's d. So really this next part of today's dav is no longer specifically discussing the but it's an and a discussion that the had that's very much predicated on the as we will see literally as we begin the following question. Right? So the case sounds familiar with this was done regarding could you eat it or could you not eat it? So this is literally category three of the previous but he's zoning in on something very specific. He wants could you eat or could you not eat? So the who is this question posed according to meaning we have a in terms of what is regarding where the was done and this was done. So the first thing says is that who asked this question who did he ask this question according to meaning be more specific you're asking asking says if he was asking to was very clear he said so unless you do you have nothing so it's not going to be right we never even entertained it there's no in the world see the first half of the um everyone agrees it's going to be nothing. It's probably the rabbi but yeah the rebi says the gar if the question was the bio it's for sure not meaning said that means said even kadesh doesn't mean but for sure so what's this asks wants to know where was but this week was done would it now be would it not be what kind of funny sh is that it has no bless and it's dead on arrival and even it's not dead on arrival but we had two and an emerg in both that is that even though according to there's some kadush over here so the says you have to say that question was it was going according to the following now the gmorra is going to spend the next 10 or lines. Not the easiest 10 lines in shas, but the Gar is going to spend the next 10 or so lines introducing exactly who this Tana is. We'll see it's the Tana who's mentioned and that was quoted by the father of that's the Tana. So, we're going to have to first develop the Tana and then we'll understand why asked the question he asked him that maybe this is a good question. What would be the regarding where the of the was done but this week it was on I should be able to eat the so again according to the two tan that we had in the on the top of this is not a it's 100% dead on arrival but there's another t right not the only two tan to have a live there is another tan we're going to introduce that other t now into the medish and after seeing the sheet of that t again what's question was will come to All right. So the gar says who is this? So the father of had the following. So he's not the one talking in the ber he's the t he's the one who's teaching the ber he's fing the b. So the price says this is that was between the and so again we're talking about but we're not talking about we're talking about where themselves the two breads were in between the and then the that was doing the did it he did it with he had says pickle that the doesn't become said no it is going to be explained he said these two respectively they hold like that holds that it's the itself that's and the B on top held that it's but said that and this are of the opinion like that that really it's not the it's the itself. Okay. So what's the sh again the case is where the between this weekend was what exactly are they arguing about who holds my has a throughout we know that is not being that holds that is not so can't be on the as a result says says he holds and being that he that's so that was and as a result there's going to be on the what's the real again this is the we know already that tonight we learn if you have the that So we know that are subject to only after it's not subject to. So what would be if there's no additionally in the event there would be no piggle on the or no nicer either by the way or no to either with regards to that and the reason is because rebel holds the reason is because rebel holds that is not says there would and it would be and the reason is why the reason is because so said you want to know the beer in the whether or not if now did and now somebody would eat from the right is the you want to know what the husband of and you want to know Rebel says no says yeah it's rebel who has a that what that is not oh so it's not that's so it's that according to him it's going to be okay and according to him it's going to be I think at first glance if you hear what says it's posit as a matter of fact for those holding in the we could have even he could have said right away this is that we've seen several times I'd say or I'd say but really there's a little bit of here and it's from that pondered his question and presented it to the great and that is as follows mock to that even though holds that but it could be for in that's already maybe a little bit of aesh and the reason that this is already a little bit of aesh is because the is not really part and parcel of the kips and as much as the fate of the andes are somewhat that's something that uh we clearly know but at the same time there is mockim to say that if I have a a that's a a point maybe a would not be able to have a hashbah on so just to say it's a little bit for to hold on theim of the carbon being that the immades but to say when you're dealing with which is not really part and parcel of the carbon that's a big because there I could say that the whole connection between and the carbon in this case the ish so maybe where I have a proper zer. So there there's the connection. But to the extent that I don't have the proper zer, I think I could very validly and legitimately argue that maybe maybe it would be different. Now from the fact that said that regarding is going to hold the same thing with regards to the so what do you see from here? You see from here that even apostle is and by the way this is apostle right. So you see from here that even should have the ability to maybe go ahead and be on the in the same exact way that it's on its own. Right. If that's the case then told that I want to say that maybe it should emerge that in the case where the was done but the was done that the should be that maybe you'd be able to eat the and I know and both came out not that way but I think in's it should come out yet and you know why and this is going to take us full circle it's because really when you bring the gifts it's right but really and as we said that I think if we were handling the of the actual we would say it's of course it be that's the first that's the first why is there a over here why is it not so brings the but we said it's the reason is it's based on the fact that is really foreign to the it's not the same thing and even though there's a zik and they're bound together all these that we're learning but at the same time it's not the same and being that it's not the same the would be that you need a in order to go ahead and to for it to be for it to be but if I don't have a then it wouldn't be okay holds that even a not can be with regards to so I see even a week. If even a puzzle is well then there's a very to say that even would be able to and it'd be able to be and that's where the Shiloh was. So again knew that as quoted in the that category three his on arrival. He knew there's no that it's going to be stating that he still had a he still had a sha because maybe the way explained that there's an idea that even well for sure it owner and so Why would it not be say because it's two different things but I see is not espec from that. WHERE DO I SEE it in explain who holds with the and that it's to the case with what do you mean it's not aim is part and parcel of the as opposed to the is not part and parcel it doesn't matter. So if it doesn't matter with regards to it shouldn't matter with regards to either and if it's I don't see why it shouldn't be able to be either either way we just spoke out what the Gar is going to say in the next few lines. Let's see it inside my again. is where we pick up the and if you take a look at Rashi says even had his flow so well my the question was what was the sh do we say do we say that just like you find that piggle is piggle on the when it was as if it was the bus mean as if it was There's no if the was or if the of the animal itself was either way it's the same exact thing. Well, if that's the case, then you should argue and you should say that just like it's because it's maybe it should be. So again even though says I know that it's not going to be true but maybe as it relates to the way has explained it maybe it would be true or perhaps meaning what's the other side this first side is so compelling what's the other side the other side is that it could be the only time said that I look at the and the as being one unit regarding I'd say could be He only said it with regards to to say that it's to be maybe they're not. Either way, this was the jumped on it. What kind of sh is that? I'll leave it. You have nothing. And even according to Rebi that you have something but Sai and Sai who argued in what Rebi meant agreed on one thing and that is that it's not so what exactly is your Shiloh? The answer is the Shiloh was according to Rabaka the way that Rafishes explained Rabaka. But the Gmorra says Masla Raapa Rapa came and Rapa fired away. And really the masla raapa rapa's question that he's asking is a question on rashius's ina meaning explained that who holds that in the event that you had to say and he's not a spo from the fact that dear it's the actual are here at something else right that was understanding that was the basis for question it was on that understanding that asked he said I don't know if I agree with your whole understanding of what exactly is in fact I don't even know that is talking about where was at the time of that was done it could be to the extent that at the time of this would be everybody would agree that and just to be clear even though but over here we're dealing with the is foreign to the so to the extent that was at the time is for sure it has no everybody would agree even that is that is not and the only time said is And really the rebar is talking about where it was but then it came back in. Meaning you did the it was and then it came back in. And what is the you want to know what is I'll tell you what is rebel holds like who that gives to this day. What behold if it was and this week it was not it's right but if you remember means it's going to be possible right according to meant everything and according to it only meant regarding regarding yeah but here's the point the point is that it was being that it was so at this point even if you bring it back in and you have a this is not anymore. The reason is because it's a and being that it's a so for that reason there's going to be no to it. Whereas holds that the itself is not the was not it doesn't become possible when it leaves. If it doesn't become possible when it leaves and now when you have the of it's going to be on the just like it's being on the and it's for that reason that if you're going to go you're going to eat it it's going to be a problem. So again explain the if that's the case then you see in there's no between there's no between the even though you can argue the but maybe not oh he has no between the and the so when it comes to there should also be no between the and the baser says the that's it could be the even if it's only for the boss it's not for the if that's the case so why would the now become a problem it was so if it was the shouldn't have the ability to be mash on it the answer is it's because it was it came back in okay it was but it was once it's because that there's no after there's only after and being that this was between the and the was never it never became possible being that it never became possible there's no reason that right now this would be able to have any negative impact it's for that reason really it's now when you have the it's going to render the just to clarify one point I just think this needs a little bit of a clarification and that is right the way Rashi learns the sh over here where the was could or not. That's the that's the whole of you going to tell me if it's so then why is it ever that is going to become of when I do this so if it's it shouldn't be able to you have to say that the at that time the was part of the carbon that of is going to be mash The question is is we're before the mash pickle. Forget the mash pickle. There was another issue. So for example, it was right now. So there's a reason why fired the mash pigle this in that situation. Could it or could it not thought from you see that the was a even before you had of simply because of the fact that the the or the was and said that this is going to be myelis oh must be because it's no different than the must be that the is such a part of the carbon that even on it. Well, if that's the case by it should be the same thing. But either way this is his mask is really on the whole had this whole understanding which was the base said that I don't fully understand this question but the says I don't understand like we have to hold cup over here who holds holds that really the madesh. So I understand holds that really the was the couple of so that now the could go ahead and could be but that holds that is never right because you need and you need so pigle So how did the ever get that it should now be subject to the didn't give it to it's the problem is done with and in fact in the name of pigle can't make something for it to be right so for example if you and becomes subject to in the event that it was done with it doesn't make it that's talking about where the bus becomes after this but the bottom line is can't make it can't make not is that and that's the reason why in the case where it was between the and the is that according to it's on the because it's talking about where it came back in and it didn't have yet and as a result it was never so it's for that reason now it could be nothing to do with it's not it's a different well if that's the case then I don't understand why when you have of pigle it's going to be it only becomes if it can't be it can't make this something that all of a sudden is subject to the laws of right in order to be subject for the laws of so the only way to even have a of understanding is if he holds a grabby who holds that the makesh so that even though the lady is going to be when it was already. So now it could be on the but if he holds like that then it was already the so if that's the case it's that I see from that there's a connection between the and even when say so that the is inherently well if that's the case then I don't see why shouldn't have the ability to be in the same way it has ability it own that was the question to be what kind of is that you can't be the way you're being suggest he has like because the says We know that was already upact was upact and the gumar already knocked it out. Well, if that's the case, if the garra knocked out really you could say between which is not like which would undermine it would knock out the whole sh of but here's the bottom line. The bottom line is the bra that the brought on the top of was where the were brought with the were both or the was the what would be the and really the focus of the wasma and the was done and the price itself it's a cryptic between says it's nothing says nothing. So nothing is pretty straightforward. But what does mean according to means it's 100%. It's just not it's not even 100% sounds like it's not. So what is it? It's in the sense that it's but it's it's in the sense that it's but it's not. But one thing is clear they both agree that it's not that the extent that was done it can't be a m but not the wouldn't be able to be mad where you find that on what's the case we there was a then and then there was a that was with holds that it's Even though the which means that there was an inherent forget there was an inherent in the as it relates to the is that it's going to be it's going to be a proper it's going to make it pickles you could be on the same you could be on your own if that's the case then maybe the same should be true with regard to just like could It could be it could be and he knew holds not that way and he knew holds not that way but doesn't mean that according to it would be not that way. Now his whole shila was in Rashious's a rabbi brought rap who had a whole different avana of Rabaka. Either way this concludes our D Mensah.