Menachos 48

Today's daf is menachis daf memches. We are 15 lines from the bottom of daf mem zayin amud beis. Boyeminei Rabi Yirmiya of Zeira. Today's daf has been learned as a zchus for [ __ ] for Boruch Yitzchak ben Shifra Merel and Rachel bas Henya. So, we're moving along in perek atchilas learning the intense sugiyah of the shtei halechem. So, as we've mentioned in the introduction to the last several dafim every year on Shavuos in the Beis Hamikdash, there was a special set of korbanos that were brought. This set was made up of an olah a chatas, a shlamim and a mincha. The primary sugiyos here in perek atchilas deal with the shlamim and the mincha respectively. The shlamim, which is known as the kivsei atzeres the mincha, which is known as the shtei halechem. We talked a little bit about how the kivsei atzeres were unique in that they were korbanos shlamim, yet shalmei tzibur. Why is that unique? Because typically, a shlamim is a korban yachid. In fact, this is the one example of a korban shlamim that's a korban tzibur. Additionally ordinarily, a shlamim is kodshim kalim. The kivsei atzeres were actually kodshei kodashim. The shtei halechem was a mincha was also unique. There was no cheilek of it that you were actually magriv on the mizbei'ach, but rather there was tenufah that was done with it together with the kivsei atzeres. Additionally, it was eaten like all menachos are with zichrei kehunah. Another thing that we talked a lot about was the zika, the connection that the kivsei atzeres and the shtei halechem have. Specifically, we mentioned that it was the avodas Hashem of the kivsei atzeres that gave kedushah to the shtei halechem. It upgraded it from being kedushas dam to now being kedushas Additionally, it was that we the sadam of the kipsei atseres that were matter to the shtei halechem. It allowed it to be eaten. Additionally, we saw that there's some connection between the two in that one is ma'akev the other and the other is ma'akev the one. Now, which one is ma'akev which? That's machlokes Rabbi Akiva ben Ananias. According to Rabbi Akiva, the ikkar is the lechem. The lechem is ma'akev the kvasim. The kvasim is not ma'akev the lechem. According to ben Ananias, the halacha k'moisa, it's the kvasim that are ma'akev the lechem. The lechem is not ma'akev the kvasim. But again, a lot of different sub examples of this special connection what the Gemara calls zika between the kipsei atseres, the shlamim that was brought on Shavuos, and the shtei halechem, the mincha that was brought on Shavuos. Now, we just said that there was machlokes Rabbi Akiva and ben Ananias regarding whether the lechem is ma'akev the kvasim or whether the kvasim is ma'akev the lechem. But Rabbi Yochanan said on the very bottom of daf mem alef amud beis, going on to the very top of daf mem beis amud alef, that hakol modim, everybody agrees, meaning say Rabbi Akiva and say ben Ananias, that once the shchita is done with the kipsei atseres, at that point there's for sure a zika between the kipsei atseres and the shtei halechem, and at that point, in the event that you would lose one, the other would be a problem. Meaning, then the kvasim will be ma'akev the lechem and the lechem will be ma'akev the kvasim. The whole machlokes is when the shchita wasn't done yet. Right now, could I bring the kipsei atseres without the shtei halechem or not? But once the shtei the kipsei atseres already had shchita done, at that point there's for sure a connection between the kipsei atseres and the shtei halechem, and it's for that reason if something happened to the kipsei atseres there's no lechem, and if If happened to the lechem, there's going to be no kifsay atzeres. Today's daf is going to begin with an ibbaya of Rabi Yirmiya. So, we're familiar with Rabi Yirmiya's shailos from Rashi. This by Rabi Yirmiya is to a person. It's to his rebbi, Reb Zeira, and it's really predicated on this introduction of Rabi Yochanan's statement, and that is that despite the fact that Rabi Akiva and Rabi Yonah argued whether the lechem are the kvasim or the kvasim are the lechem, but hakol modim once the shchita was done with the kifsay atzeres, at that point for sure the lechem are the kvasim and the kvasim are the lechem. So, the Gemara says, "Wait a minute." Rabi Yirmiya asked Reb Zeira, "Rabi Yirmiya asked Reb Zeira the following question. Kifsay atzeres were shachted in the event that the kifsay atzeres were brought, the shchita was done lishma for all of the lechem, but before this zerika, the lechem got lost. So, at this point, being that there's a zerika between the kifsay atzeres and the lechem, and again, hakol modim Rabi Yochanan said at this point that that's the case. So, for sure you can't bring the kifsay atzeres if there's no lechem anymore. So, for sure the lechem is like the kvasim, and therefore you certainly can't do this zerika with the kifsay atzeres betoiras the shlamei tzibbur betoiras the shlamim that you're mandated to bring. So, what's Rabi Yirmiya's question? His question, however, is could you do this zerika shelo lishma? Well, if I do it shelo lishma, then it's like a bynuma shem chofa. Then it's not going to be the kifsay atzeres, but hamia, maybe it'll be a regular shlamei nedava. And if that's the case, you're going to profit something, and that is lahatas basar ba'achila, you'll be able to eat the basar. If the kifsay atzeres are being treated as such, well, then it's pasul because it was avada lechem, and as a result, a carbon that's pasul, you can't eat its basar. Yetzu leveis asreifa. If, however, there's a machala, to maybe convert it from being a gift to a regular show me the door but how would you do that by having a well when it comes to what's the of Islam in for emphasis on which would allow you to eat the pasta. So the question of Sarah was would it be okay to go and proactively in any the same culture of today to go right now and have a slow to do that you'll be able to be the best by here. Meaning you may be telling I know this is a far-fetched idea but maybe you can do it. Now why is it so far-fetched because we know from and from staff base that is not just something that passes a carbon but it's also a question of it's also a person is doing that is not going to have a but maybe being that over here there's a vodka by having a show me the door but maybe in this instance it would be okay. They told him quote in a show me the door but show me the door but show me the can't be because if you're it's an think about the anomaly that's going to emerge. It would come out that this right now the gift if you would bring it with a it would be possible but if you would bring it with a would be cautious. Could that be? So said it's impossible because just based on logic you would end up with a that as far as I'm concerned is untenable hence it has to be that this is not an saying that there's no such thing as having something that if you would do the it would be possible what about the carbon if somebody would bring it on your dollar but before before before the time that you're supposed to bring it the inner if you would do it a of Pesach, would be possible because the Pesach has to be brought in our by. However, because it's if you do it it'll be kosher. And the reason is because a Pesach could be a and if it's kosher. So you see tiny that there's an idea where if I bring a carbon and I have in mind it's going to be possible, but if I have it in mind it's going to be kosher. How could say it's impossible that the could be possible because it's what about a Pesach in the manner? That is possible because it's a Pesach in the wrong time, but it's kosher because it's like a in the wrong time. So the said let me tell you what I meant to say. I know there's a concept of where right now I can do something that's possible it's going to be kosher. You should have done that. Are you aware of a precedent? Should is there something that was kosher to be brought then and now something happened as a result if you did it it would be a problem so that the but the kosher but it'll be kosher. Meaning I know there's a concept of where right now I can't do it but I can do it. But what about if I add one wrinkle where it was once something that I could have done now because of circumstances I can't do it but yet it's going to be kosher. That piece of is not going to help you because was never right to be brought and the were right to be brought So the were right to be brought before it was now it was it can't be brought and you want to bring it for that I don't have a precedent and for that piece of is not a good source. It says that's true. What about Pesach after What about Pesach after Meaning what about the carbon Pesach after this man? Once it's not been you're down at that point if you brought the Pesach it would be a Pesach in the wrong time it would be possible. If you brought it for it would be a moment and therefore it would be kosher. Now the passover money was once right to be brought when when it was money. So I have an example of when it was right to be brought then it was because it's money. So I can't do but I could still do it but that's what it was right to be brought when I had the it was when I lost the but I will let it be kosher. So the says that he know you still not understanding what I'm saying. You have to add one piece to this. You used to you have something where it was right to be brought then that's the actual piece and you did the and then and then something happened as a result which you can't do it anymore maybe kosher but the kosher is kosher that you don't have. Even passover the wasn't done in the right time in a situation where it was right to be brought and the was even done with then it was you wanted it to be kosher that's okay and that's your case but the case of the is because the case of the is when you did the of the and then it was right why do we need that to be the case? Because we wanted it to be a labor the I live in that the one is done there's going to be a ready for that there's no precedent and that was response to he told them I never heard of such a thing but the the lie I can actually find you a precedent for this as well. What about the what is this mean? This takes us back to that we learned together two days ago with the is a that talked about the relationship between and and there were a whole bunch of cases if you remember three examples of something bad happening to the and three categories of each one of those examples but the bottom line is in that long uh one of those situations mentioned was where there was a that was done with the that with the animal And then something happened to the lachmi toyda. It was nifras, it was yoitzei, it was tamei. So the halacha is yizarek adam. You can go ahead and you can do a zrika with the carbon of the carbon toyda. Now, the truth is, if you think about it, it's a little bit of a chiddush. Because a carbon toyda needs breads. And once the breads are a problem, so what do you mean yizarek adam? So the answer is, you're doing it as not a carbon chiyuv of toyda, you're bringing it as a shlamim and a dod. If you remember, the braisa said v'ein v'ein nidrei nedavah yotzei. You're not even going to fulfill your neder. You're still going to have to bring a new toyda. But the point is is that I'm going to take this toyda and I'm going to bring it not as a toyda, I'm going to bring it as a shlamim. So think about what happened. I had a carbon toyda that was ro'i to be brought as a carbon toyda. Good. I did the shchita. I even did the shchita. Then something happened to the lachmi toyda. I'm a la- I can't do this zrika now as a toyda because the toyda doesn't have the breads, but I could do it shlalei shma, I could bring it as a shlamim. So I have your example. Reb Zeira is saying, is there a situation where it was ro'i to be brought lishma? I even did the shchita lishma? Then it was nitra milishma, but I could do it shlalei lishma? Yeah, I have an example, the carbon toyda. I was able to bring it lishma, I did the shchita, it was nitra because something happened to the lachmi toyda. I can't therefore now bring it as a toyda lishma, but I could bring it shlalei lishma. So Reb Zeira told Reb Yirmiya, there's no such thing. I have such a thing. The masa shaini toyda is madir karban shlamim. Toyda is not a tzusta. And the reason is because even though when I take this toyda now and I bring it as a shlamim, I'm technically bringing it shlalei lishma, it's not the same type of shlalei lishma. Because a toyda is called a shlamim. We mentioned the Torah refers to the toyda as a shlamim. Zevach todah shlamav. It's a subcategory of a shlamim. Torah calls it shlamim. I think that the Torah calls it shlamim, so it's for that reason it's for that reason the toyda lesheim shlamim is not really considered such a shlalei lishma as opposed to the kivsei atzeres that the Torah doesn't explicitly refer to as a shlamim, so over there if you would bring it now as a a shlamim, that would be a real sh'lilei lishma. You don't find anywhere that something that was right to be brought lishma, the sh'chita was done lishma, then it was nitza from being able to be brought lishma, you should be able to bring the sh'lilei lishma. That was Reb Zeira's response to Reb Yirmiya, and this concludes the very first part of today's daf. So again, what was the very first part of today's daf? It was Reb Yirmiya's question that he had Reb Zeira, a fun question like many of Reb Yirmiya's questions. And that is with the kivsei atzeres had a sh'chita that was done lishma, it was over the l'chem, how come we do now that kivsei atzeres is pasul because the sh'chita created azeika, is there an eitza to go l'chatchila? And do this azeika sh'lilei lishma, so that'll be a regular shlamim, so that a korban em you'll be marviach, you'll be able to eat the basar, you won't have to take the basar maybe the basar straight for. And after many versions of what exactly Reb Zeira's response was, Reb Zeira told him, I know no of a precedent of a situation where I have something that was right to be brought lishma, even though the sh'chita was lishma, and now I can't do it lishma, but I could do it sh'lilei lishma. That's too big of an anomaly, and it's for that reason it's not going to be Oh, okay, moving along to the next part of daf. So what we need to remember as introduction to the next part of the daf, again, all these different components of these dafin are totally in different components of previous dafin, so it's uh practical to try to zero in on the specific nuances of the previous sugias that we need so that it'll segue b'ezras Hashem and flow smoothly. So, the kivsei atzeres and the shteialechem were made up of two sheep and two loaves of bread respectively. Our Gemara is going to discuss what would be if the kivsei atzeres were brought not with shteialechem but with arba chalos, with four breads. Or, what if it wasn't two kvasim that were brought, but rather it was four kvasim that were brought? How would that impact the hakrava of the kipsei atzaros and the shtei halechem? Another thing that we have to chazer over, and that is the machlokes between Rebbe and Reb Elazar ben Shimon that the Gemara brought in the braisa on the top of daf mem zayin amud aleph. The case over there was where the kipsei atzaros were brought, schitah was done lishmah, but the zrikah was done shelo lishmah. And the question is, what kedushah, if any, is chal on the shtei halechem? Reb Elazar ben Shimon, working backwards, said nothing is chal. Lo oilam, he said, ein kedushah acher yishcheit lishmah is acher tam lishmah. According to Rebbe, however, there is kedushah that's chal once the schitah that is done lishmah. Now, what's the level of kedushah? So, Rebbe was very cryptic. He said, kodesh v'eino kodesh. And we saw a machlokes by Rebba what exactly that means. What emerged was that Sayah and Bayah and Rebba amoido that, according to Rebbe, the shtei halechem are not going to be mutar l'achilah. Kodesh v'eino nitar. Additionally, we saw Sayah and Bayah and Rebba, according to Rebbe, the shtei halechem are going to have kedushas haguf, so that it'll be nifsul b'yoitzei. The shailah was, whether it has kedushas haguf so that it can't be poided anymore, or it doesn't have kedushas haguf so that it can't be poided anymore. But, v'ein yo neino, Sayah and Bayah and Sayah and Rebba amoido that, al libei de Rebbe, once you have a schitah lishmah of the kipsei atzaros, even on a zrikah, the halachah is it's chal kedushas haguf in the shtei halechem, that at this point it would be nifsul b'yoitzei. So, as it relates to psul yoitzei, somebody asks you, schitah of the kipsei atzaros, and now the shtei halechem went outside of the chaim Yerushalayim, right? That's the psul yoitzei. So, the question is, or outside of the azarah, we're talking about the not the chalom state, we're talking about the shtei halechem. So, what would be the halachah? Would it be nifsul b'yoitzei, or would it not be nifsul b'yoitzei? So, the right answer is it's machlokes Rebbe and Reb Elazar ben Shimon. According to Rebbe, kodesh v'eino kodesh, it's possibly yoitzei. say. According to the college until the street that end of is this has nothing to do with because this is I'll leave it to going to it's I'll leave it to going to it's not necessary I'd say. Either way with that introduction again go with the rather than the one I was going to bring Bryson and then whole another discussion with regards to what would be if the kids say this in the state of were brought with more than stay homes and more with two of them to go to the shop to go to the other one in the event that the coin went and he did with two of them and four so the question is now what what do you do so the wish to stay in the you take two of these colors stay at home or money for you do to because that's what you're supposed to do with the stay at home the and as relates to the other two now all of them you go and eat it but only after you fight. So what's the if you brought four colors instead of two you take two and you do and the other two and after you're going to be allowed to eat them. That's possible that the kids say in the state of can't have four breads meaning it's a nice discussion but push comes to shove you can't have four breads there says two two means not four so for sure the name of the state of going to be two of the colors not on the other two the question is what do with the other two also how do you know which is which so the somewhat cryptically says that being two sounds like I don't know any two do to new for with those and the other two be when you're going to be did then you'll be able to eat. So, is going to be told the I think this price has to be the like Rebbe. Rebbe, cuz if it's according to Rebbe, and again, which Rebbe? The Rebbe that we have it over in the this part of the daf, the Rebbe that holds that once you do the of the gift at that point, it's enough to understand what to be It can't be like that Rebbe, cuz if it is that Rebbe, keeping in mind Rebbe holds the right there Rebbe. The particle How are you going to be parted the other two breads? Eat the particle if you're going to take the four breads outside of the and that's when you're going to be parted. Well, keeping in mind that it says by the So, that means it has to be ready in the if it's going to be possible, which again, we know this already from yesterday's daf. And if you're going to do it inside, how come when you're going to be parted the two breads, those breads are going to go from being to now you're not going to be It's just like I can't physically be I shouldn't be able to be parted in the because inevitably that's going to be bringing who the must be the It's the like Rebbe. Who's it going according to? It's going according to So, this like a lot of these here are a little bit tricky. Helps us out, but let's speak up about what's going on over here. And that is according to Rebbe, it's going to be enough on two of the four breads once you do the gift. Now, you don't know which two it's right, it's impossible to know. But, the reality is that it's right now enough on two of these breads. As a result, if you're going to now want to be parted the breads, what you would have to do is you would have to take the four breads and take the money or whatever it is you're transferring from to and you would have to say that I know two of these breads are Kodish. I've no idea which ones. I want the Kadusha of the two to transfer over to these two, right? That's essentially what you would have to do. And that's fine. Do that cuz in that that's something you could do. Now, two of them you can't be poider. Let's get this clear cuz two of them are Kodish Kadushas Agav. When something has Kadushas Agav you can't be poider. Two of them, however, you could be poider. And the reason two of them you could be poider is because two of them are only Kadushas Damin. And the ones that are Kadushas Damin you can be poider. Now, you can ask me why the other two not Kodish Kadushas Agav? Because only Sh'tei Lachmaos become Kadushas Agav. Now, four. Why is that Kadushas Damin? Because once you were Machtish it, you made it part of this carbon you obviously said that you want it to be Hektish, right? It doesn't have the unique Kadushas Agav. That's something that the Avodah of the Kifsei HaSeraim create and it can only create it for two, it can't create it for four. But the bottom line is all four are Kodish. Two with Kadushas Damin, two with Kadushas Agav. You don't know which is which. So, you essentially have to take all four and you have to figure out some sort of piddyon. Good, that's fine. There's no issues with that. The problem is where am I doing it? This is a weird problem, not a what problem. It's a location, location, location problem. V'hu Zolech Tundah Piddyon. Should I do the piddyon outside of the Azarah? Well, I'll have to take all four of them outside of the Azarah cuz again I'm being poider all four. Two of the four, but I need all four. I can't cuz two of them going to be Niftar B'Yedei Adam. Should I do it inside? I can't do it inside either. The reason I can't do it inside is because the two that are going to be Niftar are going to become Chulin and I won't be able to be able to be Chulin so I don't have a weird problem and as a result I'm stuck. Must be the Braisa is not going according to Rabbi. The Braisa is going according to Rav Shimon. What helps me if the Braisa is going according to Rav Shimon? It's very simple. According to Rav Shimon there's no P'sul Yotzei yet. Even though I did the Sh'chita but it wasn't Chalyak D'Sagav so there's no P'sul Yotzei. So, what do I do? Do whatever you want to do. Take two, do T'nuvah. You'll designate those as the ones that you want and then the other two the other two I'm I'm to take out. And when I take out the other two, so it's fine because I'm not violating any because all they have is kishus dam and it's going to be okay. So the rabbonim told this price it must be going I'll leave it to it can't be going according to Rebbe but the says only told him I disagree with you. It's a nice but it's a good but it's not accurate. So why don't I can tell you it's going according to Rebbe. And you want to know where the pigeon is going to be again this is a weird problem. Right you want to know where the pigeon is going to be it's going to be inside the azarah. I want to cash you bring maybe azarah it's not true. I'm not bringing azarah. I'm being the hectic dish and the men milk of heaven. It's just men milk that the men is being brought there. And is being there's an issue to physically bring azarah but if I'm going to be played the hectic and men milk is going to be in the azarah that's not also that's what would be happening over here and as a result this is really not an issue. So is Ravina and Ravashi they were the final redactors of the Talmud Bavli and they're going through this discussion that once upon a time took place and Ravina turns to Ravashi and he tells him I don't understand Ravina this but there was another price that was said on this topic and said played on in played on that when you played it you have to be played it says you have to be played this must be going according to Ravashi. Cuz there's no answer to be played according to Rebbe cuz then for sure you're going to violate the so what happens over here. It's going according to Ravashi. According to Ravashi there's an answer to be played. Now there's a way to say there's a way to learn this price according to Rebbe there's a way to learn according to going to Rebbe it would have to be according to Ravashi you can be played. Now the price says you should be played on in played on. And by the way why would the price say it has to be played on probably cuz otherwise you're violating the issue of azarah but here's the bottom line you see the price going to Ravashi told him Ravashi that price is your right. It's obvious because otherwise it's going to be a problem of as it relates however to the first price. There's no from there. See right there's a from the second price but there's no from the first price. Now someone will say that if the second price is it's the first price also and the two prices are talking to each other. They're complementing each other. Right? The second price is just adding a piece of information the first price didn't have. Say that. That's okay but the bottom line is that when it was he was being from the price there's no right that this price is going to go home. You could say it's going to go into or be with a that is innocent to physically take and walk it into the but if you play the hectic in the and having that in itself is not a problem. The other price of that says that you're doing it by that's a good time. Another to this discussion. I think this price is a on my that had a done and it was brought on this very similar to our case. We're talking about that were brought on four right? Here the title was brought on 80 in fact they're both double the proportion two to one ratio. So the still is supposed to be two and in our case it was four and the it was supposed to be our it ended up being on so what's the title with the with on 40 of the 80 are going to be meaning 40 are not 80 40. I think it's our now. No such thing as 40 out of 80 either you have all of them or you have none of them. Going to there's nothing. Our is clearly it's clearly not right? We said two of the four are meaning 40 out of the Going to you need all 80 and you can't have it. That's you have nothing. You need all four. Can't have it. That's you have nothing. He told them back don't you know what commented on how come the person with him before us I want 40 out of the 80 to be would be he said he say there's no scenario for 40 of them to be there is a scenario. In fact, if you say before us I want 40 out of the 80, then the 40 would be no will tell you that this is going the and it's for that reason this could even with if said it's never possible. Okay, you have to right and we know even though when it comes to he would seem to be the highest ranking right and and and and and but he can't argue with a braver. Hence, the limit is not a kind of he can't argue with a braver. Hence, the limit is not a kind of he can't argue with a braver. Hence, the limit is not a kind of he can't argue with a braver. Hence, the limit where you could bring the 80 and if that's the case it would be a scenario where you could bring a on 40 so the so the first part of this discussion was a that talks about where somebody brought the two instead of on two he brought it on four the and the other two are the and the other two are the question was how are you going to be and the other two are the question was how are you going to be and the other two are the question was how are you going to be and the other two are the question was how are you going to be not so much because of how but more because of where you want to give it to but it's you're taking two out of the four outside and you're going to have to do it now But if you hold like Reb Shimon, there's no say When all you have is you don't outside but if you hold like Rebbi that there is so you're doing it. I can't do it I can't do it does that mean that this price is the way it is no I could always tell you this price is talking about what you did with them. Could we do a there's no to be played the hectic when the only going to be there either way that was the discussion. Oh by the way and is this a two of the how could you even have four you can't bring your on nothing is no it's my said that he spoke it out but I can't I want fully out of the 80 to be it would be okay. No I skin and that would be the case. Now the is talking about what would be the reverse situation where instead of bringing two of them four you bought four of them two so I don't know T so T so taught in a come in the this is also a so T so T so this is a place. He's the one that's selling. He's the one that's in this but so I don't know what would be if the chef did four give it to us on two hours. So again too many so what do you do I don't know man. You take two of the this I don't know you bring this and then you're going to take the other two and you're going to bring but you have to do it in this order says the so because if you're not going to first bring the two and then the two if you're going to end up messing up the and at that point it's already going to be an issue. So in the case where there were four and two it starts really in the same way as in the previous case where there were two and and four so you can't have four right just like you couldn't have four so two of the are going to be there says two and then you need only going to relate to those two. So, two of them are going to be give us as Terrace the other two are not. So, what's the eight so with the other two class and so partially you could say eight so the base of I don't know. They're not good. They're not good. But, that's always a a bit of a effort, right? So, the prices said that really this a better idea. The better idea is to do two of them Lishma. And if two of them are going to be Lishma, so the two that are Lishma will be kosher. They won't have to be eight so the base of cuz it's going to be a Lishma. That was the first part of the give Lishma Lishma Lishma. And based on that, you would think that it would be okay. Stating that, the adds one connect. First, you do the Lishma and then you do the Lishma. What's the reason? Who cares? Why can't I do first and then the Lishma? Why would it be first the Lishma and then the Lishma? He said, "I'm going to tell you why I think that has to be." Because of what Zera said, this is very smack. In the first part of the In the first part of that Yirmiya came to Zera and he asked this to him as a question. Right, he wanted to know if I was in a situation where I can't bring the Zera by even kosher. The reason was cuz it was all of that and that that was after the right? So, I can't bring it by even kosher. Is there an eight so to do it Lishma? Right, you're not allowed to do something with Lishma a solution. Yeah, it's a base of a base. But, maybe it'll be helpful in my not having to burn the So, maybe it's a good idea. And what was his response? He came to it. He said, "You know why you can't do it? Because there's no precedent for a situation where you had something that was right to be brought the was even done with Now, it's not right to be brought but it's right to be brought Lishma. Can't have that. If at this point it's not right to be brought cuz it's Zera says so then that it can't be brought Lishma, either. If you would go now and first bring the two Zera this Lishma, then the second Zera you wouldn't be able to bring Lishma. because tiny because essentially those other two were right to be brought L'shma because I could have brought those two as a gift supposed to the other two. I did the Now I can't bring the L'shma because I already brought two, so the game is over. But I should bring the L'shma. That was and as a result it wouldn't be okay. If however I'm first going to go ahead and I'm going to bring the two shall I L'shma then I don't have problem. And the reason that then I don't have problem is because then when I bring the two shall I L'shma I could have brought them L'shma. I could have brought the first two L'shma because I didn't bring the two L'shma yet. So I'm going to go ahead, bring the shall I L'shma I'll be but it'll be kosher and then I'll bring the two L'shma. Everything is going to be okay. You see once I bring the two L'shma then the other two I can't bring L'shma. I can only bring shall I L'shma. I can't do a L'shma. If however I first go in the reverse order, I first do the shall I L'shma when I brought the two shall I L'shma I could have brought them L'shma. That's not case. case was is there a situation where I can't do a L'shma but I can do a L'shma? Here I could do a L'shma. I chose to do a shall I L'shma. So by doing it in that order, by first being and then then you don't have to be that is the of what this price is actually saying. But it has to be in that order. If you're not going to do it that way you're going to end up messing up the I'm going to go now it's a very big you're going to go now what to be like not having to be mafsid the boss of two of these. I mean I hear, but you're essentially telling the client to violate an issur. And by the way, it could be a machshavah sh'lo lishmah an issur d'Oraisa. Push this, it is. Right? Lo yichasheh. Remember all those raid bites? But the bottom line is, could you tell someone to go ahead now and violate an issur d'Oraisa to not be mafsid korban. Now by the way, this would have been a a legitimate taina in the beginning of the daf as well, right? When Rebbe Yochanan asks Rebbe Zeira this question, Rebbe Zeira wasn't impressed by this. I mean, it turns out it's mefurash b'Oraisa that it's okay. But Rebbe Yochanan is thinking out loud, he doesn't understand. He's asking a kasha. Rebbe Yochanan didn't say "Talmudan y'viludan issur." I don't understand. How could you do such a thing? What's this I don't even understand the conversation. Right? Rebbe Zeira entertained this very stark "It's mefurash b'Oraisa." I don't understand this conversation. How could you tell someone to go ahead and be over an issur and do something sh'lo lishmah even bishvil she'tizakeh? And Rebbe Yochanan backed up his taina not just with a hergesh, not just like a a hergesh, but what tonight is really mefurash mishnah. And where is this mishnah? It's in perek ataruv ois, maseches z'vachim daf eins zain amud alef. The case over there was where devarei chatas are b'dei varim oloh. Devarei oloh chatas min ha'aretz u'devarei oloh min ha'aretz. Now devarei oloh and korban oloh need to be burnt on the mizbei'ach, right? It's called a korban devarei oloh. Chatas are not. So Rebbe Eliezer omer Rebbe Eliezer said "Now that I have ataruv ois, I don't know what to do." He said "Yidnu d'maila. Take all of it. Take devarei chatas, devarei oloh, put them on the mizbei'ach. Are you putting a devarei chatas on the mizbei'ach when really they're not supposed to go on the mizbei'ach? For real? Also chatas my l'kidu eitzim. I'm going to make believe the boss of chatas is really eitzim. Glad to add fuel to the fire on the mizbei'ach. So I'm not doing anything wrong. V'chachamim omerim the chachamim say no, you're not allowed to put a devarei chatas on the maroach of the mizbei'ach. Fact is it's learned from a pasuk, it's something that categorically is forbidden. So what do you do? To ubatzurasa, you just have to wait until there's an ibur tzura and then you're going to burn it, right? Wait till it's nifsal b'lina. We spoke about ibur tzura a little bit yesterday. And at that point you just burn it. What's the problem so I can't do that because I have I can't put the on the why not? Say put the to profit to be what exactly are you going to be I'll tell you what you're going to be you are going to be the way. So to be my go ahead and be just like you're telling me to be my the boss of the other two you could have a so here too to be my the of the you should go ahead and be to the of the you don't say that it's not a why because the way to say do something wrong with me in an area to make me kosher but for the way to be something wrong happening with the way that's not something you can do but is it even so possible that you can do but I don't think another gives us a shot at the small the gives that were brought to I should be with me and be with me and or if the was done not with me and but it was done at the wrong time right the way with me and with me and either before or after so that is a dummy sorry you do with the dummy that bossy and you could eat the bossa. Why? Because uh Scholem and Schliemann is kosher and even if it's still kosher as a regular and as a result a dummy because it has to be done right? Like all the violence and certainly you can't be the but at the same time you could do and you could eat the boss. Then let's see it was when this happened. So you did the Scholem and Schliemann then don't do this thing. on Shabbos If you did this hurts there's a like so you'll be able to be the so if it's Shabbos then already you don't do this and the reason is because you don't bring a carbon on Shabbos so being that at this point it's already a regular so this is not something you could bring on Shabbos. If you did it this week is good now you can be if you want to on Shabbos either what you going to do is you be the and at that point everything is going to be okay. I don't understand why can't you do this on Shabbos? Why don't we say go ahead and do this now this will show that so that you will be able to be what to be the the and to be able to eat the bossa. Meaning why is it that we say that you can't do this on Shabbos? Do this on Shabbos. What's the problem you been going over this when you do this on Shabbos? I know I've been going over this but if I don't do this on Shabbos I'm going to lose out I'm going to lose out the bossa. You know why? Because and at night I'm not going to be able to do this so what's going to be lost? Meaning the price is like this. If you did this you could do the but don't do this but if I don't do this I won't be able to do the I won't be able to eat the boss because it's matter and I'm going to I can't do it tonight. The terrorists is the terrorists is that you not allowed to do this week on Shabbos. You don't want my life. If you can't do it, you can't do it. But what happened to this new I'm going to you letting me bring the gifts why won't you let me do this week on Shabbos? What's the what's the difference? And my you'll tell me it's not the same it's the same carbon. I'm going to do it with this carbon so I should be able to eat the boss and be of this carbon something the mother says that that's not a leader and the reason is cuz If it was happening on the same day we would allow it. The problem is over here it's he's saying go do it so you'll be able to be that way that's already not something that you say. So just like we said in you wouldn't say this so too go ahead and do some sort of this so that you'll be able to be if we want to then we would allow it. But that already you wouldn't ask one more question immediately is that true? We don't say this idea of it by two things right? Again so the way by two things right? Again so the way this is an idea of bringing the gifts couldn't understand it. If you say why don't you say it here? Why don't you say it here? And the way came out you would say it right the same carbon same day but that already you wouldn't say it. It's not true. I have a precedent that even by two things you would say this. Now this precedent is talking about a whole another opinion. It's literally it's a in this true mice it's actually quoted very prominently in the that famous the first paragraph of but we'll just extrapolate from this the one detail that we need. Says the but how much is all you know so in the olden days the wine so there was that was that is a big problem. The reason this is a problem is because as soon as the falls into the that's the is going to become as well and what you can end up as a of which is going to basically knock out all there's going to be nothing to do with it. So there's what to do with. It's a much bigger problem. So as the falls in it becomes and then it goes ahead and it makes problems. So first it's it becomes and then it's nice saying it goes ahead and it messes up the so you're in a little bit of a pinch here because you're about to lose your your inventory. There's a big there's a big issue here and that's the backdrop to this case. So the mission says like this but if there's a way to somehow be of the of the you should do that. The let's say you can't this is the part of what we need. The says to let the let the fall let it be I'll you and don't go proactively and make it so if you want to be you can be so The point of debate between was what would be if you have a way to be the or the that's now or the that's now that's about to become and the way you can be is by catching it in a this so Could I do that or could I not do that? The reason you shouldn't be able to do that is because I'm going to be metamed. You know, I'll be metamed trummus in the day I saw. The reason you would think it's okay is cuz it's going to become Tommy anyways. Okay, so why shouldn't you do be a dime? Let it just happen in mail. I'll tell you why I would do be a dime cuz if I do be a dime, I'll catch it and it won't mess up the rest of my inventory. I know but I can't do it but it's anyways going to happen. That's the shiva. So it says period with the Tommy. You have to let it be metamed. Don't go proactively and make it Tommy. Rabbi Shua says Tommy about. You want to be metamed be metamed it's okay. Wait Rabbi Rabbi Shua and Rabbi Rabbi yes if you can save it but I would have to that's of course what you're supposed to do. But the shiva that you can't save it but I would have to let's see the only way out is but Tommy. Could I do something or could I not do something? Bottom line is what did Rabbi Shua say? What did Rabbi Shua say? You're allowed to go ahead and you're allowed to be in metamed be at. What do you see from here? You see from here there's an idea that I'm you tell someone to go ahead to be metamed to be marvea something. Now, you're doing an aveda with the trummus. That's what you're being metamed. What are you being marvea? You're not being marvea the trummus. You're being metamed the trummus. You're being marvea the chulin. So it's tardy meals. Is even metamed meals there's such a patent? Zuk the gamora shiny hustle it's not a good cuz of the name of mono of shock the trummus getting messed up. It's not the same as over here. Here the tuma that you're creating is going to happen in a mail. What did you do? You were metamed. It's going to be Tommy in 10 seconds. As a result, you're not being moist of and being metamed the tuma. That's why it's not an issue. But if you were to go ahead and take a carbon that doesn't have any additional and to now make it small or you're going to proactively do a three gun Chavez. You're going to be metamed on the all things you're not allowed to do. Be the death wasn't happening in a mail. Even though something's happening in a mail but that's not happening in a mail. This is already not a perfect and therefore that you can do that's the Rabbi Kasha. But between me and you this is not something that you're allowed to do. Either way, we're up to the third and final leg of today's daf. So, one of the sub-themes of today's daf is the Kifsei Atzaros that were brought Shlo Lishma. And up until this point, I think we took for granted that the Kifsei Atzaros that were brought Shlo Lishma is like a Shlomin Shlo Lishma. It's literally the first verse of of Sefer Kodshim. And that is a Shlomin Shlo Lishma is Kosher only by the same life. That's why Rabeinu Yishmael and this last Gemara that we had here, this brace of the four Kvasim with the two breads, they all took for granted that a Shlomin Shlo Lishma would be Kosher. And therefore, in certain situations, you know, maybe make the Kifsei Atzaros Shlo Lishma. So, shouldn't be possible Kifsei Atzaros which is Yitzu Meitzei Asreifa. Albeit, you'd be able to be Makdei Emurin, able to do the Sreika, you'd be able to eat the Basar, right? These things you'd be allowed to do because of the fact that a Shlomin Shlo Lishma is Kosher. The Gemara now is going to bring another discussion. And over here, it's going to emerge that it's not so possible that a Kifsei Atzaros Shlo Lishma is Kosher. So, that's sad that a Kifsei Atzaros Shlo Lishma is going to be possible. So, the Gemara Kiaser Rabeinu Yitzchok. Rabeinu Yitzchok came. So, where did he come from? Like all the Kiasos in Shas. Kiaser Rabeinu Yitzchok Rabeinu Kiaser Rabeinu Yitzchok came from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel. So, he said over the following Tani. He taught this Bracha of Kifsei Atzaros Shishochtan Shlo K'mitzvason. The Kifsei Atzaros that was brought Shlo K'mitzvason possible. The Tuv Turosam, they require Ibur Sur of Yitzu Meitzei Asreifa. And then they go to Beis Asreifa. Now, if you go through the Rashis innovating on this Gemara, so Rashi is Meforesh this one line of Gemara and really the next several lines in two ways. Rashi keeps on referring to the one Malach and the other Malach. We're going to go with the Malach that Rashi prefers. And that is that Kifsei Atzaros Shishochtan Shlo K'mitzvason means Shlo Lishma. Rashi has another Pshat that was brought it was the wrong age, different issues with that. But the preferred shot in that it was it was so again with feeling managed with what we just set up. And that is gives the series that were brought you would think kosher we took that for granted and in the price of no the that were brought are actually going to be possible it needs and then afterwards so I heard this he said the reason you say it's possible must be because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are making the kids say that it's not possible because you are The says you should make a series of those who snake it's in the possible and being that it's in the same exact possible so it's for that reason you must have been making it and hold that just like the we know it's possible also the first mission in the first the second one so the first one is possible so the first one is possible so the first one is possible so the first one is possible so the first one is But said that the from the of the he learned the from the he was saying that he said that it's not possible rather it's possible what's this the says as it relates to the other so you look at what this is but either way the says that it's not possible that was brought so the other one is not possible so the other one is not possible so the other one is not possible so the other one is not possible so the other one is not possible But Tony Levy that the smell may not smell like the smell is going to be cautious. This Tony Levy is not like this price that you're saying over Ravi Isaac. Why? And at first glance, it's why? Why? Because Ravi Isaac is talking like if they had and Tony Levy is talking about the smell may not the same thing. They actually explain. Ravi Isaac says that Ravi Isaac was telling Ravi Isaac why is it that you would hold that gives you that smell is possible. Makes no sense. Oh, it must be because we're like the smell. Why would you be like the smell? Well, it states in the same it says that the smell may not smell like the smell and then it says the smell may not smell like the smell. Well, guess what? The smell may not smell like the smell in the same as the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell in the same as the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell there. It says it in the same breath and I feel we fight from the No, I don't care about the smell. It's a smell and a regular smell may not smell like the smell it says the smell may not smell like the smell well, in the same exact vein it would come out that the smell may give the smell may not smell like the smell so said Ravi Isaac that I hear what you're saying Ravi Isaac it's obviously based on the but if that's the case the smell may not smell like the smell not that way so Ravi Isaac basically made a this between these two prices and how did he come up with this between the two prices one price gives you that smell the other price is talking about the smell may not smell like the smell but he understood the common denominator between the two prices and he understood the common the common tension that's going on over here do we say let's be like the smell dimension in the same or do we say and as a result the smell may not smell like the smell which gives you that smell the smell may not smell like the smell is going to be similar to the regular smell may not smell like the smell and therefore the smell may not smell like the smell is kosher It's kosher shlami leshma. So too, this would be kosher shlami leshma as well. And this is a kasha on Reb Yitzchak's braysa. And it's a kasha from braysa. It's actually a tosefta. In the first perek of Zevachim. So if you learn tosefta, this is perek aleph halacha bais. Almost right in the beginning of Zevachim. Asham ben shana, an asham that's supposed to be one year old, they hevi ben shnayim, but it was brought two years old. Or ben shnayim, it was supposed to be two years old. They hevi ben shana was brought one year old. Psulim d'halacha is going to be pasul. V'tuvah tzurah k'ivur tzurah. So an asham could be sometimes within its first year of life, sometimes second year of life. Different ashamis have different dinim. Incidentally, it's the asham nazir and asham metzora that have to be ben shana. It's the four other ashamis that have to be ben shnayim. But the braysa says, what would be if you brought a ben shana as a ben shnayim or a ben shnayim as a ben shana? So d'halacha it's going to be pasul. It requires ivur tzurah. It's the base hashe'i'ah for avos of the braysa. This is still the tosefta talking. Olas nazir, for olas for olas metzora, she hayu bnei shnayim shnayim v'shachtan k'sheirim. Now, the olas nazir, the olas olas metzora also supposed to be brought one year old. What would be if they were brought two years old? So at that point they're going to be kosher. So the asham that was brought wrong age, pasul. The ola that was brought wrong age is going to be kosher. Klal yesh l'davar d'tosefta. Kol hakasha b'olas nedava kosher, b'olas chova olas unique. Because neither can be brought nedava nedava. And anytime it's kosher nedava nedava, it's going to be kosher b'chova. Being that an olas nedava nedava can be a ben shana or ben shnayim. And even if I said ben shana, it could bring ben shnayim or vice versa. So therefore, the ola is always going to be kosher. It's not m'akev the ben shana or the ben shnayim. As opposed to when it comes to the asham, asham is not brought ben nedava there the rule is different. V'chol pasul b'chata'os pasul asham. Here the rule is that we treat the asham as if it's a hottest. And just like by hottest the age is my active. So so too by the awesome the age is going to be active as well. In fact, this is such a true statement called a possible hottest possible awesome is only one exception to the rule cuz we know that it's possible hottest and the awesome is kosher. We have it by the way in the mission and the base holds that the hottest kosher that awesome is possible that's not the sheet of the hot come. By the way, what's the kosher? The kosher is that it's my word over here that the awesome is not the awesome that doesn't awesome with Messiah. Wrong age, I'm not talking about wrong age is going to be kosher. Why? Cuz when they damage to the awesome the dog as opposed to the awesome wrong age with my kitchen to the hottest hottest is possible awesome to be so kosher. If you look in the for all three of these awesome all the awesome that we just mentioned they're all mentioned the same exact possible as the hottest. And if you're going to tell me that the fact that the mission say possible hottest the reason to be my kitchen to the hottest right just like you said the kids say a show is possible possible even though it's a show because it's in the same of the hottest. Well, then these awesome should also be possible cuz they're in the same possible as the hottest. Yet they're kosher. The awesome is kosher hottest over not the awesome. Well, if that's the case maybe kosher on the right so everything right down the way I don't know if it's right down the way with the right so but at the same time doesn't have to cuz we know that there's these two there's the right so right so and there's the right so right so right so right so didn't hold it a hash and it's for that reason according to him this would not be an issue. Incidentally, if you look in the right so they struggle a little bit to know what was even the hot meaning he's asking a kosher on the right so right so right so from the right so and what's the right so? Oh, he holds like the other right so. You knew the other right so so we make my kosher my kosher not so clear with the right so but either way the says Anachinami, right so is right so it It doesn't sit with the brice of the but that doesn't really matter. Something tomorrow on this discussion the ton of Levi. Levi taught the following brice. Awesome Nazir Awesome Awesome Nazir should be with the ton of Levi. Now we are talking about the ton of Levi. Awesome of the Nazir Awesome of the with the ton of Levi. Should be with the ton of Levi. Awesome of the ton of Levi. That's the ton of Levi. Awesome of the ton of Levi. The ton was done with the ton of Levi was ton of Levi. So the ton was not yet at the point of his ton of Levi he's ready to bring the ton of Levi or the ton of Levi. They ton or if they were two years old. So we mentioned the ton of Levi was supposed to be a ton of Levi. They ton the ton of Levi went ahead and you ton of Levi ton of Levi is they're going to be so again Awesome Nazir Awesome ton of Levi Awesome ton of Levi will be Awesome if it's Awesome Awesome Awesome then it's possible or if it was Awesome Awesome Awesome it's going to be possible as well. Now if you're going to tell me that there's an idea that Levi holds that the way I view a situation the way I view a situation is that I treat it in a massive of sometimes the way you would be in a massive of never in a well if that's the case the massive massive massive massive massive massive massive the massive massive massive massive massive like a regular massive is and said by extension he would give the massive massive also massive because the regular massive is right was the one that made the massive between and Levi. Well if that's the case then why don't we say massive massive massive should be learned by massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive should be learned from massive washing etc. So why is it that Levi said the washing not washing etc. that if you brought it the wrong age, the washing is it's going to be possible. There are some washings that you could bring the wrong age. So if there's some I'm sorry. There are some washings that are brought when they're 2 years old. So why don't we say that just like those could be brought bench time, so these could also be brought bench time. So again, this is Levi's brice. Levi said washing not washing the washing etc. Shall you bench they shall name the shark don't swim. They had his extreme with Levi who said shall may not the shark don't swim like him it's possible. Shame on Levi all the bench how do these two Levi stand? Again, it's not the easiest come on. The first Levi said that the shark may not Levi was going to be kosher. What's the dish? That you're not Marcus the hottest because you treat it like all the other swimmers. Well, if that's the case, then an awesome that's been a station name where it's supposed to be a bench honor like the awesome not washing etc. should also be kosher cuz you should say maybe they have it like the other washings which are kosher in that situation. There are washings that are kosher bench station name. That's not what he said. So why is it that when it comes to the shark may not he compares the shark may not to all the swimmers, but when it comes to the washing not washing etc. he doesn't compare it to the other washings. In fact, what was the other option when it came to the shark may not there? Compare it to all the swimmers or to the hottest. He said no, all the swimmers by hottest. God they walk in the same path I don't care, but I'd rather compare a swimmer to swimmer not swimmer to hottest. When it comes to that swimmers, Levi sees it the other way around. What Levi sees is is instead of comparing the awesome to the awesome, he compares it to the hottest. So the shark may not there he preferred to compare to the swimmers than to the hottest. The awesome not washing etc. prefer to compare to the Hattos and to the other Ushums. That is the Gemara's Kusha. I don't understand these two ladies at first glance seem to be a steer. They don't seem to stem. In other words, Memuna of Shach. Either you should compare them both to their own like or you should compare them both to the Hattos. And for the Gemara Umra of Simi Beraishi, so Simi Beraishi said there's a very clear distinction. Don and Dovash Lebach Shaim Dovash Lebach Shaira. Then Don and Dovash Lebach Shaim Dovash Lebach Shaira. Very, very different. The Shaami Nazir, what's Levi saying? Shaami Nazir was brought to Lailah Shma. Should I compare it to a [ __ ] and Shailah Shma or to a Hattos Shailah Shma? [ __ ] and Shailah Shma I find it Kusha. Hattos Shailah Shma I find it Posel. I'd rather compare [ __ ] to [ __ ] And I'd say just like a [ __ ] and Shailah Shma is always Kusha, the Shaami Nazir Shailah Shma is also going to be Kusha. And the reason for that is by the way that that's the case, it's going to be true for the Kitzas Ha'aretz as well. That's what we're having this conversation right now. Not talking about Nazir, talking about the Kitzas Ha'aretz. Good. As opposed to when it comes to an Ushum Nazir Ushum Metziah, it's supposed to be a Ben Shana. And I went ahead and I did a Ben Shtayim. So now there's an idea, let's compare it to the Ushum, the other Ushums, right? Pick one, Ushum Gzeilah. Shaami Eglah, Shaami Shifchah Charufah, Ushum Talui. I think those are the other four, right? So compare it to one of those four where they have to be Ben Shtayim. So say just like there it's Kusha, this also be Kusha. No, it's different. There it's Kusha because that's what it's supposed to be. You don't find that even though I deviated still it's going to be Kusha. It's like a cake. It's Kusha because that's what it's supposed to be. What if I deviated? I don't know, maybe it's supposed to be Posel. From Hattos I see that where I deviate it's Posel. That's the better Tzusta. So by the Shaami Nazir where I find in the [ __ ] and where if I do it the wrong way it's still Kusha, so I'll say this too when I do it the wrong way it's still going to be Kusha. I'm done Dovash Lebach Shaira and me Dovash Lebach Shaira. Ushum I don't have a Tzusta where I'm still into Dovash Lebach Shaira Dovash Lebach Shaira. What do I have? What I have is the situation with the awesome could be brought Hattos where it's supposed to be brought. It's supposed to be brought bench they shall so just because you find the notion that sports they shall that means that when it's supposed to be brought bench on I bring the station and it's going to be okay. We're supposed to be brought station on my bring station on of course it's okay. But what about where it's not supposed to be? I don't have any by awesome. You know what I have? I know from the that it's a problem. So if it's probably the it should be probably so but the is that true that we don't do like the like the live and we don't realize there's only so many that you can learn in without saying this. I mean all the way how do you know that one of the that the that says the you know I know that by because is by a I mean that is by a so it's by a so it's something that you find sometimes it's it's going to be okay. What's the how could you learn from the from the by the there is no of because there's no border to be from and as a result it's a shame. As opposed to from the where there is a border. There's a the is called the that's another so you telling me you don't what do you mean? We we learn a cooler in by the which is from which is so the the real reason why there is a the real reason why you would say is not because of this far. It's really based on a a it says so it's to you but it's something you can do as well right all the but it's really but really it's based on a this far is just a simon of a alma Rashi says but it's not the real reason because as a real reason it would actually fall short because you don't either way that's the way you reconcile this two between the two ladies the bottom line this last tomorrow introduced us a new that it could be gives you a would actually be possible what's the reason because this is where do you find it it's in the same tomorrow still to a whole bunch of different things that if that's the case anytime a carbon is in the same as a see after mama's upon you have to suddenly flip over the whole as it relates to as it relates to different that have to be brought a certain way it would change so much that was part of the conversation that the discussed again a lot happened on that over here in Manassas this we're learning is actually coming to an end this is another half a or so of the base we're going to continue moving along here in and Erica's