Menachos 50

Today's daf is Menachot daf nun and we will begin four lines from the top of daf nun amud aleph. So, the Mishnah on daf mem tes amud aleph is continuing with the theme of maseches Menachot for the last several weeks and that is things that are me'akev each other and things that are not me'akev each other. And as we saw, the Mishnah is going outside of the box, so to speak. Not all examples were kashrut related examples. We had tefillin, mezuzah, tzitzit, trailers, etc., etc. Regardless, the Mishnah on the bottom of mem tes amud aleph discussed what's the halacha regarding the korban tamid, which was brought twice. You had the tamid shel shachar and the tamid [clears throat] shel bein ha'arbayim. Are the two korbanot tamid me'akev each other? Or what about the ketoret? The ketoret was also brought twice during the day. The ketoret was brought in the morning and the ketoret was brought again bein ha'arbayim. Are the ketoret me'akev zeh zeh? So, the Mishnah said on daf mem tes amud aleph, lo hikrivu keves baboker, yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. That if the tamid shel shachar wasn't brought, it's not me'akev the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. It's still okay to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Meaning, you could have thought that it's a set, it's a unit. Either you bring both or you bring none. Says the Mishnah, it's not all or nothing. Even though the l'chatchila you're supposed to bring the tamid shel shachar and the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim, but b'di'eved, lo hikrivu keves baboker, yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. Rav Shimon said it's not so simple. That's only true if they were anusim or shogegim. If the reason the tamid shel shachar wasn't brought was because of an onus or a shogeg. Aval im hayu mezidim, but let's say b'meizid the tamid shel shachar wasn't brought, then the halacha is, lo yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. Stating that, Rav Shimon said, that's only true for the korban tamid. As it relates to the ketoret, lo hiktiro ketoret baboker, yaktiru bein ha'arbayim. So, according to the chachamim, the tamid shel shachar, the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim, the ketoret shel shachar, the ketoret shel bein ha'arbayim are never me'akev each other. You could bring the bein ha'arbayim even though the shachar wasn't brought. According to Rav Shimon, there's a distinction between the korbanot tamid and the ketoret. The korban tamid, if they were anusim or shogegim, then you could bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. But if b'meizid the tamid shel shachar wasn't brought, you can't bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. As it relates to the ketoret, Rav Shimon doesn't make this distinction. And Rav Shimon says, lo hiktiro ketoret baboker, yaktiru bein ha'arbayim. And then the Mishnah gave a reason for all this. And that is she'ein minchan chen as mizbe'ach hazahav ela b'ketoret shel bein ha'arbayim. V'lo mizbe'ach ha'olah ela b'tamid shel shachar. V'lo yisa shulchan ela b'lechem hapnim b'Shabbat. V'lo yisa menorah ela b'shemen zayit bein ha'arbayim. And poshut, the Mishnah seems to be giving a reason for everything it just said. And that is because when it comes to inaugurate the keilim in the Beit Hamikdash, there was an avodah that had to be done. Meaning, you couldn't just build a mizbe'ach and start doing any avodah you wanted to do. The first avodah that was done on any particular keli of the Beit Hamikdash mattered. And it was very, very precise in terms of how you were me'chanech the keilim. How you inaugurated it, how you used it for the first time. Says the Mishnah, the way they were me'chanech the mizbe'ach hazahav was with the ketoret of the bein ha'arbayim. And the way they were me'chanech the mizbe'ach ha'olah was the tamid shel shachar. And that somehow is a reason, it's a ta'am for the first part of the Mishnah, which discusses what happens if they didn't bring the tamid shel shachar. Is it okay to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim? What happens if they didn't bring the ketoret shel shachar? Is it okay to bring the ketoret shel bein ha'arbayim? And the Gemara begins with the obvious question, chinuch? Man d'chashmei? Who said anything about chinuch? How is the second part of the Mishnah a reason for the earlier part of the Mishnah? Says the Gemara, the way we read the Mishnayot, it really doesn't make any sense. Bachurei nachsei v'chikei tanu. What we need to do is a little bit of surgery on the Mishnah. We have to edit it, insert words, and then it's all going to come together. Bachurei chikei tanu, lo hikrivu keves baboker, lo yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. The Mishnah begins with a halacha that's actually the carrot from what the Mishnah says. And that is, if the tamid shel shachar wasn't brought, you cannot bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Says the Mishnah, v'al medvar amur v'al medvar amur, when is that true? Sh'lo yischanchu mizbe'ach. That if you're using the mizbe'ach for the first time. So, the first time you're use the mizbe'ach, you're going to use it with the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim, that's not okay. The chinuch of the mizbe'ach has to be with the tamid shel shachar. Aval nischanech mizbe'ach, let's say the mizbe'ach was used already, then it's okay, yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. And it just so happens, punkt today, on a Tuesday in October, they didn't have the tamid shel shachar, then it's okay to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. But Rav Shimon, Rav Shimon argues and says, im hayu anusim o shogegim. The only time it's okay to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim if they didn't bring the tamid shel shachar is if they were anusim or shogegim. Aval im hayu mezidim, if they were mezidim, lo hikrivu keves baboker, lo yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. Lo hiktiro ketoret baboker, yaktiru bein ha'arbayim. But the point is, what the Mishnah just did was it added language. It added one line and that is that although the Tanna of the Mishnah holds that it's okay to to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim despite the fact the tamid shel shachar was not brought, that's only if this mizbe'ach was used already. It's a regular day, punkt. For whatever reason, it was batel ha'tamid, they didn't bring the tamid shel shachar, it's okay to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Rav Shimon says, it depends why they didn't bring the tamid shel shachar. But what would be if this is the first time the mizbe'ach is being used? As if to say the mizbe'ach became erect 1:00 in the afternoon. They never brought the tamid shel shachar because they didn't have the mizbe'ach to bring the tamid shel shachar. And now for the first time they want to bring a korban, the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. That's not okay. That's what the Mishnah was saying. That if the mizbe'ach was never used before, thus there was no tamid shel shachar because there physically wasn't a mizbe'ach, and now you want to bring a korban for the first time that is the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim, that's not okay. If the mizbe'ach had been used before, then it is okay. The last part of the Mishnah is giving a ta'am for the first halacha. The reason that if the mizbe'ach was never used, you can't use it for the first time with the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim is she'ein. That's the last part of the Mishnah. She'ein minchan chen as mizbe'ach ha'olah ela b'tamid shel shachar. Thus, the first usage has to be with the tamid shel shachar, not the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Says the Gemara, meina ha'imili? How do you know this distinction? How do you know that you can't use a mizbe'ach for the first time with the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim, but at the same time it's okay if you missed the tamid shel shachar to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim? Tanna d'bei Rav Yishmael tanu b'braisa, v'es ha'keves ha'sheini ta'aseh bein ha'arbayim. The pasuk says, es ha'keves ha'echad ta'aseh baboker, v'es ha'keves ha'sheini ta'aseh bein ha'arbayim. We're all familiar with the pasuk. And the Gemara is bothered with the obvious question, why does the Torah have to refer to the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim as the keves ha'sheini? We know it's the keves ha'sheini. If the tamid shel shachar is the keves ha'echad, then I could do the back of the envelope arithmetic and figure out that the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim is the tamid keves ha'sheini. Why does the Torah have to emphasize that it was the keves ha'sheini? Says the Gemara, very gishmak, to teach me that the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim has to be the keves ha'sheini. It can never be the keves ha'rishon. When is that true? V'al medvar amur v'al medvar amur, sh'lo yischanchu mizbe'ach. That if you're using the mizbe'ach for the first time. Then, on a brand new mizbe'ach, the keves ha'sheini needs to be the sheini. And it can't be the rishon. Aval nischanech mizbe'ach, if the mizbe'ach however was used before, afilu rishon bein ha'arbayim, then the keves ha'sheini could be the keves ha'rishon. Meaning, on a regular day, on an old mizbe'ach, even if the tamid shel shachar was not brought, it's okay to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Aval Rav Shimon, Rav Shimon made a chilluk, he said, im hayu anusim o shogegim. Aval im hayu mezidim, the only time it's true that you bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim despite the fact that you didn't bring the tamid shel shachar is if they were anusim or shogegim. Aval im hayu mezidim, but let's say b'meizid the tamid shel shachar wasn't brought, lo yakrivu keves baboker, lo yakrivu bein ha'arbayim. Then you shouldn't bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Lo yaktiru ketoret baboker, yaktiru bein ha'arbayim. But even Rav Shimon acknowledges that's only true for the two korbanot tamid, it's not true for the ketoret. Over there, even if the meizid the ketoret shel shachar wasn't brought, he still brought the ketoret shel bein ha'arbayim. The Gemara asks, v'chi kohen chotei mizbe'ach batel? And one of the themes that we've seen throughout kashrut is that we look at the mizbe'ach as a living organism, k'viyachol. And when we burn, or the kohanim would burn meat on the mizbe'ach, they were feeding the mizbe'ach. D'she'achila is a kas umidaber. Achad achila l'adam, v'achad achila l'mizbe'ach. Pouring wine on the mizbe'ach was a beginner of giving the mizbe'ach a glass of wine. This is one of the themes that we've seen. And the Gemara's kasha is that if the kohanim b'meizid didn't bring the tamid shel shachar, so what's the halacha? You don't bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim, says Rav Shimon. It's a mashma that it's not so much me'ikar hadin, because if it was me'ikar hadin, what difference does it matter if it was done b'meizid or if it was done by onus or shogeg? It must be some sort of knas. But says Rav Shimon, so you you want to cancel the kohanim. You did a very bad thing, you didn't bring the tamid shel shachar, we're not going to allow you to bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. But this knas is chaval chireini, it comes at the expense of the mizbe'ach. The mizbe'ach is losing out. So, the first thing the Gemara asks, v'chi kohen chotei mizbe'ach batel? Why should the mizbe'ach lose out? Says the Gemara, amar Rav Huna amar Rav Kahana, lo yakrivu hein aval acherim yakrivu. Rav Shimon never said that if the tamid shel shachar was not brought b'meizid, do not bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Even though it sounds like that's what he said, it's not what he said. He meant those kohanim that were responsible, the ones that won the goral, the ones that were responsible to bring the tamid shel shachar, they themselves cannot bring the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. But others should bring, and as a result, you can accomplish both things. You have the knas on the one hand, at the same time the mizbe'ach is not going to be batel. Stating that, Rav Shimon only said it with regards to the korbanot tamid. As it relates to the ketoret, lo hiktiro ketoret baboker, yaktiru bein ha'arbayim. It is okay to bring the ketoret shel bein ha'arbayim. What's the reason for it? Why did Rav Shimon not make the same knas? You know why? D'keivan d'lo sh'chiach, because this whole situation is anyways lo sh'chiach. Umna asro, and the ketoret was a school of fashion heroes, as we'll see more about later. How do you feel about it? The chances of the ketores not being brought were very, very slim. We know that a kayan that did the ketores had to earn it. They had to win the goral. Not just that, it was hadash on the b'kar. You only were able to bring the ketores one time, and the reason is because it was a school of fashion heroes, and we wanted to spread the wealth, literally. So that all kayanim should have an opportunity to get this school of to become greater than everyone. So if somebody wins the goral, it's his job right now to bring the ketores on Shabbos. You think he's going to sit around and say, "Ah, you know what? I'm a little lazy. I'm not feeling it. I have other things to do. I'll get to it later." It's not very shiyach that that's going to happen. If you were zoycha, you won the goral, and you have the opportunity to get this segulah, of course you're going to go ahead and do it. So if Shimon says, "I don't have to make this knas. I'm worried that somebody will be posheya and not bring the tamid on Shabbos." So as Shimon says, "Knas." Shimon says that if you don't bring the tamid on Shabbos, you can't have anything to do with the tamid on the mizbei'ach bein ha'arbayim. But as it relates to the ketores, Shimon says, "For that, I'm not worried." This, incidentally, has ramifications lahalacha. We'll get to that a little bit later in the daf. So the Gemara says, "Shimon, kol ha'eilu k'dei bein ha'arbayim." She'ein machnikhnin es mizbei'ach hazahav ela b'ketores shel bein ha'arbayim. So the Mishnah said that the way they inaugurated, the way they were machnikh the mizbei'ach hazahav, that's the mizbei'ach that was in the heichal, was with the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim. The way they were machnikh the mizbei'ach ha'olah, that's the mizbei'ach that was in the azarah, was with the tamid shel shachar. But mizbei'ach ha'olah chinukh happened al y'dei the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim. Frightens the Gemara. We learned in a braisa b'ketores hasamim shel shachar. It's a stira. Was it the ketores hasamim shel bein ha'arbayim or was it the ketores hasamim shel shachar? It's mistaber to me that the man that says that the way they were machnikh the mizbei'ach hazahav was with the ketores, not shel shachar, but shel bein ha'arbayim. And how why the mistaber because the posuk says when it's describing the milu'im, and that's when they were machnikh the keilim that were used in the Mishkan, as mentioned in Parshas Tetzaveh. And the posuk over there says, "Ba'boker ba'boker And the posuk seems to begin to describe the chinukh first thing in the morning. The kayan, Moshe Rabbeinu was the one who did it, but the kayanim should bring the ketores at the same time that they would matev the neiros. Now, what does matev hanieros mean? When they clean the neiros. Says the Gemara, "Ilu lav davar hadavuk mei'orot, had these neiros not been lit the previous night, had davar hadavuk mei'orot, there was nothing to clean in the morning. Ela mai, they must have lit the neiros the night before. If they lit the neiros the night before, says Rashi, it's ikkar chosam min hasaif min hag'mara, inserts Rashi, that means they probably were makteh the ketores the night before as well. Because we know that the z'man of the hakta- the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim was taluy in the z'man of hadlakas haneiros. The two are very much related to each other. They both happened at the same exact time. So if we know that there was hadlakas haneiros in the morning, how do we know that? Because the posuk says that. It means there was hadlakas haneiros the night before. If there was hadlakas haneiros the night before, it's mistaber. Abaye doesn't have a checkmate proof, but Abaye said mistaber. It's mistaber. It's reasonable because we find that the two are very much related to each other. So it's mistaber that they were makteh the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim as well. You see that the first thing was that the ketores the ketores in during the shivas yemei hamilu'im. Thus, this is a limud. It's a binyan av for all chinukh of the mizbei'ach hazahav, all the mizbei'achos that would be in the heichal, that the way you machnikh, the first usage would always be with the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim. The man that says that they didn't they weren't machnikh the mizbei'ach hazahav with the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim, but rather with the the ketores shel shachar. How does he know that? Gamar min mizbei'ach ha'olah. He learns it from the mizbei'ach min tamid shel shachar. Mizbei'ach ha'olah was with the tamid shel shachar. How do we know that? We learned that already The keves shel bein ha'arbayim has to be the sheini because you were machnikh with the keves with the tamid shel shachar. shel shachar. So it's true, there's a stira. Our Mishnah says the way they were machnikh the mizbei'ach hazahav was with the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim. There's a braisa that says the way they were machnikh the mizbei'ach hazahav was with the ketores shel shachar. It's not a kasha. And the Gemara even gave the sources for each one of these respective shitos in the Tanach. By the way, when we talk about being machnikh the mizbei'ach hazahav, the mizbei'ach ha'olah, it's important to realize that historically speaking, there were many mizbei'achos, unfortunately. Things happen. Sometimes the mizbei'ach was nifkam. You have sugyos in Maseches Zevachim that talk about nifkam ha'mizbei'ach. After the Chanukah story, the Makom Hamikdash was ransacked, and they had to start rehabilitating literally the keilim of the Beis Hamikdash. And there's Mishnayos and there's sugyos in Shas that talk about if they had to remake certain keilim of the Beis Hamikdash. What if they didn't have gold? L'chatchila, the menorah is supposed to be miksha zahav tahor. What if they didn't have gold? Menachos. So there's different halachos, but it's all based on historically speaking, you know, we think of the the one menorah and the one mizbei'ach. There were many mizbei'achos, unfortunately, and from time to time things needed to happen. So if right now you're using a brand new mizbei'ach, there's a process of how they would unveil this mizbei'ach. It was an unveiling. They were machnikh it. How were you machnikh it? So, the mizbei'ach ha'olah, the one that was in the azarah, that was with the tamid shel shachar. What about the mizbei'ach hazahav? That's a machlokes tanam right here. The first thing they would do was ketores. The question is, was it the ketores shel shachar or was it the ketores shel bein ha'arbayim? Either way, what about the shulchan? So you have a shulchan now, a brand new shulchan. We're going to unveil it. It's going to happen on Shabbos. That's when the ceremony is going to take place. And the first thing they're going to do is they're going to put the lechem hapanim on it. That's a says the Mishnah, "Lo ya'aleh es hashulchan ela lechem hapanim b'Shabbos." Says the Gemara, "It's mashma ela b'chol." who d'lo im machnikh hakdoshim mikdash. The Mishnah emphasizes that they unveiled the shulchan on Shabbos. That was when it was done. As if to say that the first usage of the shulchan had to be on Shabbos. But ordinarily, you can use the shulchan whenever you want. Frightens the Gemara. Is that true? We know that the shulchan was only used on Shabbos. What was the shulchan used for? The lechem hapanim. You had to eat by Shabbos. That's what the shulchan was used for. And when did The challos would remain on the shulchan for a week. And the changing of the guard happened on Shabbos. At the time that the mishmaros in the Beis Hamikdash, the shifts in of the kayanim of the Beis Hamikdash would switch from shift A to shift B, from shift B to shift C, that's when they would take the breads off the shulchan. They would divide it. Six of the breads would go to the mishmar hayotzei, that's the shift that was leaving, and six of it would go to the mishmar hanichnas, that's the shift that was coming. When did the When was the changing of the guard? It was all done on Shabbos. That means the whole avodah of the lechem hapanim was any way was done on Shabbos. So the Gemara cashes, "Then why we emphasizing that the unveiling of the shulchan, the inauguration, the chinukh of the shulchan happened on Shabbos? It sounds like ela b'chol on a weekday chinukhei hu d'lo im machnikh. [laughter] You just can't be machnikh it. Now, don't make the dik. Of course, the shulchan was only used on Shabbos. The way they would have made it, maybe the chinukh could have been done during the week. Says the Mishnah, "The chinukh of the shulchan and the kidush of the shulchan, all usage of the shulchan was always done on Shabbos." And by the way, says the Gemara, "K'dei tanai seifa." The seifa, for sure, means that. Because what does the seifa say? How were they machnikh the menorah? You have a brand new menorah. What do you do? You light the seven neiros bein ha'arbayim. Obviously, that's what you always did with the menorah. What, on a regular day you're going to make the dik, you only lit six neiros or five neiros, or you didn't do it bein ha'arbayim? This is not up for debate. These are psukim in the Torah. We know how you lit the menorah every day. Ela mai, the Mishnah is just saying that also the way you were machnikh it. As it relates to the shulchan, it's the same thing. Either way, we're talking about the ketores. So the Gemara digresses for a moment with an interesting braisa. Tanna Rabbanan, a braisa. "Zeh hu ketores shel yachid on mizbei'ach hachitzon. So the braisa is is describing a ketores that was brought by a yachid and the braisa says, "This is the only time that a yachid brought ketores on the mizbei'ach hachitzon." Don't learn anything from there. The reason you can't learn anything from there is because this was a hei rashah. Says the Gemara, "Eicha? What is it referring to?" It's a very cryptic braisa. There was this hei rashah, this one-time event, where there was a ketores that was brought by a yachid on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. What's it referring to? Says the Gemara, "What it's referring to is the nasi'im. The nasi'im, amongst the korbanos that they brought b'yom hakamas hamishkan, the first day of Nissan, the second day of Nissan, the third day of Nissan, they brought ketores. Just uh read a posuk in the Torah that we're all familiar with. But here, "Machar bayom harishon." Right? The Parshas Hanasi'im repeats itself 12 times. That's why Parshas Naso is the longest parsha in the Torah. And that's why we're so familiar with the kriya, because you hear it again and again and again. So here, "Machar bayom harishon es korbano Nachshon ben Aminadav v'korbano." Right? "Kaf achas asor zahav." As we all know it. "Kaf achas asor zahav malei ketores." One of the things that the Torah says is that he brought ketores. Says the Gemara, that ketores that was brought by a yachid, it was the nasi's korban. Right? It's the the chatas is always referred to as chatas nasi. The se'ir of nasi. So it was Nachshon, it was the yachid's korban. "Kaf achas asor zahav malei ketores." Was something that was brought one time, and it's the only time that a yachid brought ketores on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. And the Gemara makes a dik. It sounds like "Ela yachid al mizbei'ach hachitzon hu d'lo ilai." It sounds like a yachid only that time was able to bring ketores on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. How mizbei'ach p'nimi machnikh? It sounds like if a yachid wanted to bring ketores on the mizbei'ach p'nimi, no worries. Another dik. "B'su al mizbei'ach hachitzon yachid hu d'lo ilai." It sounds like only a yachid can't bring Ketores on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. Hotzei b'Machlokes, but that's a Tzeibur that decides that they want to bring a Ketores on the Mizbeach HaChitzon, it's okay. Now, Ketores was brought on the Mizbeach HaPnimi, it wasn't brought on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. One of the names of the Mizbeach HaPnimi was the Mizbeach HaKetores. It was called the Mizbeach HaKetores because that's where the Ketores was brought. It was called the Mizbeach HaPnimi simply because it was it was inside, it wasn't outside in the courtyard, it was in the Heichal. It was also called the Mizbeach HaZahav because it was made out of gold. In contrast to the Mizbeach that was in the Azarah, that was called the Mizbeach HaNechoshes because it was made out of copper. It was called the Mizbeach HaChitzon because it was outside. And it was also called the Mizbeach HaOlah because that's where the Korban Olah and and really almost all Korbanos were brought. But regardless, so the Gemara says it sounds like a Yachid can't bring a Ketores on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. I didn't see him, that's a Rashah. Tzei d'Yukei. It sounds like a Tzeibur could bring on the Mizbeach HaChitzon and it sounds like maybe a Yachid could bring on the Mizbeach HaPnimi. But the Gemara says it can't be. But then we learn in the Braisa a Yachid A Yachid is allowed to bring maybe here it's a Korban Nedavah. I would think that if a Yachid wants to bring Ketores, he could bring. So a Yachid could bring an Olah, he could bring a Shlamim, a Chatas. What if a Yachid decides one day, I want to bring Ketores? Maybe he could do it. V'Korach u'Virama, it's the same Halacha and the whole Parsha of Nedavah and Nedavos as they relate to Korbanos maybe should apply all of Ketores Zarah. You can't bring a Ketores Zarah, a foreign Ketores. The Ketores that the Torah prescribes, that's the only Ketores that's allowed to be brought. Yachol l'Yihye Yachid maybe Shnei maybe I would think maybe only a Yachid can. I would think maybe maybe Shnei maybe But maybe the Tzeibur that had Ketores brought on its behalf every single day, maybe the Tzeibur could bring it as an Nedavah as well. Talmud L'Yima Lo Salu. Lo Salu is a Lashon Rabbim. Even the Tzeibur is not allowed to. Yachol l'Yihye Yachid on the Mizbeach HaPnimi Yachid on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. I would think maybe only on the Mizbeach HaPnimi it's not okay, but maybe on the Mizbeach HaChitzon it's okay. Talmud L'Yima Mishkan u'Mishkal. That's Ketores HaSamim L'Kodesh K'Chol Asher Tzivi Sichah Ya'asu. Ein Lohem Shachah. They can only bring the Ketores that the Torah lays out. Any other Ketores is not okay. So it's a S'eirah. From the Braisa it's Mashma a Yachid can't bring a Ketores Nedavah on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. Tzei d'Yukei. A Yachid could bring on the Mizbeach HaPnimi and a Rabbim, a Tzeibur could bring on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. Here it's Mashma every Ketores that you're not allowed to bring is a Ketores Zarah. Amora L'Yima Na. Where do you read the Braisa L'Yima Tzeibur on the Mizbeach HaChitzon Lo Yachol L'Hachin. That's Poshei that the Tzeibur can't bring Ketores on the Mizbeach HaChitzon because there's no precedence for that. You don't find anywhere that the Tzeibur brought Ketores on the Mizbeach HaChitzon. L'Yima Yachid on the Mizbeach HaPnimi Lo Yachol L'Hachin. And that's Poshei that a Yachid can't bring Ketores on the Mizbeach HaPnimi. Again, there's no precedence for that. Afeelu Yachid on the Mizbeach HaChitzon d'Ashkenazim in the Shulchan Aruch, but I would have thought that maybe a Yachid could bring a Ketores Nedavah on the Mizbeach HaChitzon because there is precedence for that. The Ashkenazim, where did you find that? B'nei Sinai. That's the Braisa I Rashah. I said to him, "Rashah, and that is not going to be okay." And by the way, we're not going to speak about this this morning, but the whole idea of a Ketores Zarah is a very big deal. Nadav and Avihu, what caused them to die? So even though there's so many Shittos in in Chazal, Gemara Eruvin and so many different Midrashim, countless Plotim. But at the end of the day, the Torah says that they brought a Ketores Asher Lo Tzivu. They brought a Ketores that they weren't supposed to bring. And the Ketores Zarah was ultimately their downfall. Korach v'Adasoi, how was it decided who was telling the truth? Was it Moshe and Aharon or was it Korach v'Adasoi? It was by a Ketores. Everybody bring a Ketores. Whoever's Ketores is the real Ketores will be chosen. And Korach v'Adasoi, their Ketores was the Ketores Zarah. As a result, the Ketores Zarah consumed them. Im Chaser Achas MiKol Samanim Chayav Misah. Even if you bring the Ketores that you're supposed to bring, if you're missing one of the Samanim, it's already a Ketores Zarah so to speak and you're already going to be Chayav Misah. So there's a lot related to Ketores. We're going to learn Sugyas of Ketores later in Maseches Menachos, but for now, before we go by there, just one Arus. So the Gemara mentioned the idea that the Ketores was a School of Ashirus. And Rav Shimon bar Yochai said there's enough Kaminah L'Halacha. Nafka Mina is is that I believe that if the Tamid Shel Shachar was not brought b'Meizid, then the Kohanim that were responsible to bring the Tamid Shel Shachar were not allowed to be involved in the Tamid Shel Bein HaArbayim. It's a Kinas so to speak. But if the Ketores Shel Shachar was not brought b'Meizid, I'm not worried about that. I want to you make the same Kinas. Says Rav Shimon because it's Lo Shichecha. And the reason it's Lo Shichecha is because it's Ma'aser because it was Ma'aser and as a result, it's Chaviv and it's it's just not likely it's going to happen. In the event it happens, it happened, but I'm not going to impose a Kinas and a Takana over something that I believe is very very Lo Shichecha that it should actually take place. So where is this idea that this Ketores is a School of Ashirus a Nafka Mina L'Halacha? It's Halacha that everybody's familiar with. The Rama in Hilchos Milah in Yoreh De'ah Siman Resh Samech Hei talks about the Chashivus of the Sandek. Says the Rama, "V'Nohegim L'Hader Achar Mitzvah Zu L'hiyos Sandek L'Tzvois HaTinok L'Maylah Alav." That doesn't Indian to be Mahader to want to be the Sandek to hold the baby at the time of the Bris Milah. Says the Rama, "The Yafah Koach HaSandek MiKoach HaMohel L'Hachkim L'Kriyas HaTorah." The Sandek is more Chashuv in the picture. Right? If you take a snapshot of a of a Bris Milah and you want to know who's the most Chashuv person in the room after the child. Who's the most Chashuv person in the room? You take maybe the Mohel? That's not the Mohel. Says the Rama, "It's the Sandek. The Yafah Koach HaSandek MiKoach HaMohel." And by the way, says the Rama, a Nafka Mina L'Halacha. If there's Kriyas HaTorah, you should give the Aliyah to the Sandek because for that moment, for that morning, he's the most Chashuv person. As a result, he gets the Aliyah. The whole Sandek, says the Rama, "What's the reason for it?" It's because the Sandek is K'Mach HaKetores. And being that it's as if he's bring Imagine there was a Yid in your Beis Midrash who that day brought the Ketores. I think you'd give him Shlishi or Shishi. Right? You'd give him the Aliyah. So the Sandek IS THE MACH HAKETORES. If he's the Mach HaKetores, he's Chashuv and as a result, there's an Indian L'Hachkim L'Kriyas HaTorah. Says the Rama, "How do I know that?" In parentheses, "It's a Ma'aril who quotes a Rabbeinu Peretz." So this comes from Rishonim, but the bottom line is says the Rama that the Sandek is very very Chashuv. Thus, "V'Nohegim L'Hader Achar Mitzvah Zu." People travel to be Sandek. It's a very very big deal and the reason is because when you're Sandek, it's as if you brought the Ketores. And as a result, says the Rama, "He's more Chashuv than the Mohel, you should give him the Aliyah." The Rama continues and it says, "U'L'chein, it's to that reason there's a Minhag Sh'Lo L'Heitein Shnei Yeladim B'Bris Echad." Therefore, if one person has many boys, he shouldn't repeat Sandekois. So he shouldn't give Sandek to the same person for two of his sons. Why? Ki d'Amrinan Gabei Ketores Chadashim L'Kitarim. Because being that the Sandek is K'Mach HaKetores and we know the Gemara says in Maseches Yoma that one Kohen never did the Ketores twice. The reason is because it was a School of Ashirus. We wanted to spread the wealth. We wanted other people to have an opportunity to be able to have the School of. So says the Rama, again quoting the Ma'aril, quoting Rabbeinu Peretz, that the same thing is going to be true when it comes to Sandekois. And therefore, says the Rama, "The Minhag Sh'Lo L'Heitein Shnei Yeladim B'Bris Echad Ki d'Amrinan Gabei Ketores Chadashim L'Kitarim." Says the Vilna Gaon, "D'Var Ov Ein Lohem Shachah." This that the Rama said that the Minhag is not to give the same Sandek Sandekois twice for two of your boys, Ein Lohem Shachah. Absolutely not. No Shaychus. The Im Kay, because if the Rama b'Shem the Ma'aril, b'Shem Rabbeinu Peretz is Oisgehalten, then May Timan May Od MeChadafka. Then why is it only I can't be Sandek for one person's two sons? The Echad Lo Ya'aseh Beis Pe'amim Sandek Olah. I mean if the Makor is the Ketores, a Kohen was never able to do the Ketores twice, period. That's the way it was. It wasn't May Adam Echad. He was never able to Ketores twice. So if there's an idea that the Sandek is K'Mach HaKetores, so why is it that one person can get Sandekois 100 times? It just has to be from 100 different fathers. L'Chorah, the Halacha should be that you can never be Sandek twice. Says the Vilna Gaon, and here's the punchline, "U'L'Olam Lo Einam Ra'inu Sandek She'Me'Asheh." I never saw a Sandek become a Ger. And as a result, to me this whole idea that the Sandek is K'Mach HaKetores Ela HaMinhag d'Avosainu d'Chasidim, it's true there's a Minhag, the Rama quoted the Minhag, but it has nothing to do with this Ma'aril b'Shem Rabbeinu Peretz b'Shitah relating Sandekois somehow to Mach HaKetores. It's based on a Tzavah from Yehudah HaChasid and it falls into that realm, it's a whole different conversation. But the bottom line is says the Gaon, very very sharp, "D'Var Ov Ein Lohem Shachah." And then the Vilna Gaon says, "U'L'Olam Lo Einam Ra'inu Sandek She'Me'Asheh." So we've been speaking about some Sharfer Gaonim. This is Sh'eilah K'Darkah. The Vilna Gaon about Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin, Tefillin d'Chol HaMoed. His is a very Sharfer Vilna Gaon. But the Gaon says, "D'Var Ov Ein Lohem Shachah. U'L'Olam Lo Einam Ra'inu Sandek She'Me'Asheh." Stating that the Gedolei Gedolei HaPoskim wrote Teshuvos about this Rama. So again, the Rama says that there's an Indian not to give a Sandek twice, meaning for two of your boys, and it's based seemingly on this Ma'aril b'Shem Rabbeinu Peretz and the Vilna Gaon came out very very sharp. The Noda b'Yehudah in a Teshuvah, it's in Yoreh De'ah Madura Kama Siman Peh Vav, was asked a Kasha about someone that had a lot of boys, can I have and he wanted to repeat Sandekois because you know, he was looking for a Chashuv Sandek and he and he had a he wanted to repeat Sandek and he sent a letter to the Noda b'Yehudah, is it okay? So unfortunately, the Yehudah responded to this Teshuvah a lot, you know, very much after the fact. It's actually interesting, this is how he begins the Teshuvah. Divrei Igrosai, I mean this is this was a Shtikel Zman Gerama, right? >> [laughter] >> Time is of the essence. But either way, Divrei Igrosai b'Tishrei HaOver, he got the Teshuvah last Tishrei. Higiyani b'Chol HaMoed Sukkos. He said he got the true one of my see that the in its pains down so he said what I got the true one I couldn't I couldn't respond because you can't write a column and he is not a comedian as well then the news man started he says I know she then I got busy again bottom line is that you who does sit down now to write a true one and and this is the gist of his true one he says as follows He may indict the English service he says I don't like responding to that have no interest the parents it's like an asthma what is his time I'm in the will be good over to my real the bottom line is the told the show you that this whole thing is a minute and and it's not rooted in chance I mean that it's not rooted in chance says the maybe who does if you're familiar with my true verse you know in my house the double say in my house stating that wrote a true verse has a little bit of an and at the end the maybe who does writes but I call it just for a minute but everything I'm telling you everything is English I can be tomorrow but equal minute of war over Medina's he says to me people are in the back of it who says in many places I will hear the tournament the rabbit always gets like a standard solution gets handed the gun play and I become like and then again finally at the very end he says the same exact thing the is a call in the town with the so this is the maybe who does I mean you know we've had the opportunity to go through a lot of these true verse together in the with the maybe who does didn't write true verse based on the so whether it's a or whether it's whether it's the maybe who does drew a line there was a very great distinction between and everything else and again maybe who does once even was forced to write a true verse to explain his position because the show you was very bothered told the maybe who does you're not I got it and I am and and he told the wrote a whole on the and he wrote back he says on the same that wrote a on the right somewhere that you don't bring any right is from so the bottom line is we have read by this week but the bottom line is it is the maybe who does this was his state he said I hear it's a minute and there are more to my real parents but at the end of the day perspective the perspective is it's not rooted in tomorrow and if it's not rooted in tomorrow all it is is a minute says even though this it's a but I don't know he calls it and he says as a result the minute I've seen otherwise they give it to the it's really not such a big deal then I'm sorry for also wrote a true verse on this topic and it's in the true verse of the kind true verse and it begins as follows he says the nearly that is I'll be my real mirror the same parents and he brings this minute says the sorry for he knew maybe who does I give you parents he says maybe who does I am I will says the sorry for I feel an obligation the call is over the call is he says the call is over I have to go and no I have to I I disagree with the maybe who does approach of just being this whole minute of here the maybe who does come to be the real maybe who does and then the maybe who does wasn't only a he was also a maybe who does was one of the who was a tremendous as well so there's probably some in this but the bottom line is is the sorry for goes and responds to everything that the maybe who does said so again it's beyond the scope of what we do now but I am sure the maybe who does true verse which is in the maybe who does and the true verse which is in the maybe who does but one interesting thing that has a thing and that is that the maybe who does he says I've seen the maybe who does in cities they always take it's a standing thing they always get standing if they always get standing you see it's not like the so where is this from says the sorry for as it relates to that maybe who does very possible he says because what's the that you shouldn't have standing twice it's based on the because no one was able to have twice but is that true says the sorry for it's not because we know the was the was allowed to do whatever he wanted that means there was a carve out in this and that was the maybe who does maybe who does was always allowed to do what he wanted says the sorry for the of the city the maybe who does the maybe who does he could do it don't bring me right is from the maybe who does the maybe who does yes I mean the whole time is based on this thing and being that you find that the maybe who does was so it makes sense that he would be able to be as well it's interesting the sorry for says that the that maybe who does standing and he says it's not true he believes it's a tremendous school of and he says that even though the says that the maybe who does but says which means that the God and the show you that a person could change his and he says that he thinks is God fascinating it's God so where is the maybe who does like the sorry for says was this minute because it's not rooted in so as a result the maybe who does wasn't very concerned with this minute and he said that the minute was not that way the sorry for had a very different take the sorry for and again I think this is the sorry for who very much accepted this one but the bottom line is this fascinating maybe who does approach the sorry for his approach both good daily good daily a place came but very very different approach when it came to this it's actually interesting that one of the that the sorry for says is that we're going to read in Korea so the says the maybe who does I mean one of the show you who you and then the said you show but you see the is so it says the sorry for what is you mean says because even though the didn't do the four years but did so show you the maybe who does the very next is your you have you see the maybe who does says the sorry for how do you read these two very simple the way is explaining is you want to know why the maybe who does the maybe who does and to your you have the maybe who does it's because the maybe who does because the maybe who does kept that's where they were to your the maybe who does and to your the maybe who does so it says the sorry for it's it's a you see there's a connection there's some between and the the maybe who does what's the show you see the maybe who does what's the it's this the maybe who does the maybe who does that the standing is thus because the maybe who does was in it's the that's where they were to your the maybe who does the maybe who does the maybe who does maybe the so a little bit of background there were in the in the that were brought twice a day you had the carbon as a you had the you had the that was brought in the morning and you had the that was brought in the another carbon that was brought every single day in the not once but twice was the was brought by the and he would bring it by and by the it's right in the beginning of that carbon one of I see the I see the it was a so it says the maybe who does by the maybe who does half of it was brought in the morning and half of it was brought in the so this carbon which was made up of was divided into two half half bottom line is another carbon that was done every single day in the it was brought by the it was considered a personal carbon of the but the bottom line is it was brought twice a day so this maybe who does that the carbon was brought twice a day how was it brought the maybe who does it was not brought where the carbon was brought would bring half in the morning the this half of the be go home for lunch come back with another half be that I bring the second half that was not okay the way it had to be done was maybe you have to bring the entire share be then divided into two maybe who does maybe who does be maybe who does half of it in the morning and the other half of it in the maybe who does maybe who does maybe who does brought half in the morning and then he died the maybe who does and now they the maybe who does he steps into the maybe who does shoes now the maybe who does maybe who does he now has to bring the maybe who does in the afternoon now he can't just bring a half of the for the half of the that he needs to bring in the afternoon additionally he can't bring the he can't bring the other half of the mincha that the first was already Ella he has to do the same thing. Maybe he's he has to be completely sorry. He brings half of it the other half gets lost. In this case it's going to come out that two halves are going to be and two halves are going to be lost. Right? What happened the in the morning was an entire right? He was half and then he died. The other half can't be brought by the second right? Thus it's going to go to waste. The second again has to bring an entire he's going to be that's the second part of the that's going to be brought that day. But the other half can't be brought the next day thus it's going to be lost as well. So you're going to end up being two halves half of half in the morning and bring another half in the afternoon. What the Torah says is what does mean? Half of it. As if you're starting off with a and you're bringing half of it. Maybe bring it completely divided into two. the half of right? So the first case was literally the just a slightly different scenario. In the the the brought half and then he died. So the new came he had to bring a whole there's two halves that are going to be brought and two halves are going to be lost. In the first case of the the brought half and then the other half became so he has to be now the second half. He can't just bring a half. So again you have to bring a whole. So it's the same thing. Two halves are going to be and two halves are going to be lost. What happens if the was and then he died? So this is the second part of the which is literally our they appointed another you have to be I would think that the second should just bring a so he could bring the of or he should bring the second half of the first time or the other I can't say maybe next again the very very simple. So what's the theme of the and this brought that there was a that was brought twice a day but the way it worked was it wasn't two independent it was one and and you took the entire you and half of it was brought in the morning half of it was brought in the afternoon. What happens if something happened to the second half then you would have to bring again another whole be half of it and the other half would get lost. And the two scenarios where you're being two halves and you're losing that before you go ahead and you lose quote unquote that was the mission tomorrow. Before you lose the other half you have to make sure it it goes bad first or it becomes possible. You would wait overnight wait till it became bad this bread came a little stale and then afterwards they would burn it. And the idea is you don't want to burn that's in a pristine state. So you wait for it to go bad for it to become possible and afterwards you burn it. I understand the first half. So let's talk about the case of the which is the second case of the a and then the other half of the was brought in the morning and then the other half of the was brought in the half of it and then he died. So what's happening now with the second half of what he brought? You have to burn it. So that second half was once like that. Why? Because when he was it he was destined to bring both halves. It just so happens he died. But being that it was so there's a sensitivity to it thus you don't want to burn it without without it first spoiling becoming possible only after you want to burn it. But when the second now came and he too was it an entire right? And he was only half. The second half the one that he's not being this the half that's going to be lost that was destined to be lost. Why do you because it was already destined to be lost. So if based on that we shouldn't have to be as sensitive something that's something that was dead on arrival. It was possible you shouldn't have this of it says it the money. This who said that both halves that are getting lost need that. That even before you burn it needs even though was a problem never had this still you need you see you always need every time you're going to burn need it. Why would the second half need that? Because it's true the other half of the second was never was never destined to be that. Because we knew it was only going to bring a half because he became in the afternoon and he was only being the second half of what the first did. But you didn't know which half he was going to be thus each half was like that. Being that each half was we look at it as if it's it needs even according to the one that holds that it has to be in order to need we look at each half as being thus each half would need actually just to conclude with one final order. So the topic of the second half of today's is is going to be the and as mentioned the was brought every single day by the every day the would bring the the truth is there was another time that the was brought and that is every single one. The first day that he did the a not the would have to bring a one. So we talked about how they were the one the and the one. The needed a as well. So the first day that a did the he had to start off by bringing a one. Which did he bring? A one. Specifically the one. By the way it's also known as the one. The one. The one that was brought to be that. The one. So the would bring the every single day twice. The would bring it once in his life. He would bring it the first day that he did the now there are it's more related to between the one and the but the point is is the Torah really says the Torah says that and you see the brought the one and it was also the that used to bring every single brought it one time. The first day that he did the one. So it's interesting that the first day that a did the one he would bring a which one? The one. The one a one. So I was thinking that maybe the the one. Why a one? Is it true mostly and and he he starts off with the and he is and he begins with And the acknowledges that I was just given this responsibility to be the to represent this and I'm an I What does he mean he's an He's an I from my son. The and he right? That's what the acknowledges. He realizes that he's an I. So I think that maybe this that the brought on the first day that he was going to do the was his I. He was an and he brought the one which was the I. It was the that wasn't just brought by the but it was brought by the person that couldn't even afford It was the that was brought what's the symbolism? This is his I. I am an I He's coming in now to do the for the first time in the this. He acknowledges he acknowledges the fact that that he's an I maybe not an I financially but an I am an I this was his I. So I was thinking maybe there's an added along this thing. And that is that why a one? Why a one? You know the pondered a very interesting question. He said how do you allow to give a person that? You give a person that why shouldn't we be concerned that if you give him it's going to get to his head? And what's going to happen is right? >> [laughter] >> He's going to become a guy that if I see that So so he was wondered out loud that why do you allow to give a person that? It's such a big deal you give a person it's a very nice thing. But why are you not worried about it's going to get him it's going to get him. He's going to become a guy that And why are you not worried that it's that it's going to get him? Says it's a real it's a very reasonable thing. But when it comes to me said that every person has to worry about his own midos, and let Yidden worry about Yidden's midos. You do what you need to do. You give him kovid. I may lead to his guy. That's his responsibility. He has to make sure that you don't worry about his midos. You worry about your own midos. You do what you need to do. You give kovid. But as it relates to his guyva, that's his kashvin. But the truth is when you give somebody kovid, there really is a concern that it may come with a guyva. You know, the Rambam says, when the Rambam talks about the cohen and he describes how cohanim do the michal halavin. This is in hilchos kli hamikdash perek dalet alacha alef. Lavodas hakorbanos. What's the real essence of a cohen? The essence of a cohen is what? To give him trumah and ma'asros? No, that's fringe benefits that he gets because of what he what his essence is. No, that's not his essence. To duchen? That's the essence of a cohen to get the first aliya? Hakohanim hufdelu michal halvi'im. Why? Lavodas hakorbanos. The tachlis of a cohen was avodas hakorbanos. Shenemar, "Veyavdel Aharon l'hakdish kodesh hakodashim." That's the tachlis. Says the Rambam, "Vetzorech kol adam miyisrael linog bahem kovid harbeh." A Yid has to give a cohen kovid kovid harbeh. Ul'haktir moisef l'chol dov shebikedusha. To take the terumah rishonah and the ma'aser rishon, to take the ma'aser rishon, but the point is, says the Rambam, you know, you have to mechaber a cohen. Not only do you have to mechaber a cohen, you have to give him kovid harbeh. So, a person has to honor his father and his mother. Kavod av v'em. You have to mechaber a talmid chacham. As it says in the Torah, "Uv'nei Yisrael mechaberim talmidei chachamim mipnei she'eiva." Talmidei chachamim deserve to be mechaber melech. So, an impossible melech melech. Says the Rambam, you have to mechaber a cohen. "Vetzorech kol adam miyisrael linog bahem kovid harbeh." Not a little bit of kovid. A sach kovid. You have to give a cohen kovid harbeh. In fact, there's a big discussion in the poskim, could a cohen be mochel al koved? Cohen shemachal al koved. Koved mochel or ein koved mochel? Remember Rabbeinu Tam with the cohen that his man shavigday malem kedusha malem said touches on and that the the shitas Mordechai says it's given by the bottom line is is that a rav shamachal koved koved mochel. Rav shamachal koved koved mochel. Melech shamachal koved ein koved mochel by a cohen. But you have to give a cohen kovid harbeh. So, I was thinking that a cohen is coming to do the avodah now for the first time. This is what he was chosen for. It could come with a guyva, right? It's not it's not so rocket to think that it could come with a guyva. A little bit of precedence. We know that Nadav and Avihu died by Yom Hakipurim by Kriyas Yam Suf. That was already mentioned that earlier in the daf. And the truth is, if you look in the Gemara in Seder Eruvin and and in the Midrashim, there's so many different reasons for misas Nadav and Avihu. And at first glance, it's really sorech gadol. Rebbi Yaakov Kamenetsky in Emes L'Yaakov, you can look it up in the parsha Shmini, says that he believes that really all the reasons that Chazal gave really stem from one shoresh. And Rebbi Yaakov Kamenetsky, he says again, we're talking about Nadav and Avihu, bikreiva el hakodesh, they were the proteges of Moshe and Aharon. So, obviously, we have to say what we're about to say, you know, with a take it all with a grain of salt. But the point that says Rebbi Yaakov, he believes if you go through all the Chazals, the tzaddik sheb'chol adam was guyva. There was a little bit of guyva. And the truth is, Chazal say that they were moreh halacha bifnei rabam. Moreh halacha bifnei rabam comes from a little bit of guyva. Ordinarily, a talmid would feel too humble around his rebbi to be moreh halacha. But it comes from a little bit of guyva. Now, Rebbi Shmuel Frenkel's forum also said that the ikar chet of Nadav and Avihu was moreh halacha bifnei rabam, which is very much rooted in guyva. And says Rebbi Yaakov that there was a little bit of guyva, again, kaveyachol on the madreiga of Nadav and Avihu, and that's where everything came from. It's very reasonable. This is the first day you're doing the avodah. Everybody's looking at you. You were nifdal for this. The tzorech kol adam miyisrael linog bahem kovid harbeh. Rebbi Yisrael said every time you give a person kovid, THERE'S A CHASHASH that it may come with a guyva. Now you have kohanim, you're giving them kovid harbeh. So, what's the first thing that the cohen needed to do? The first thing the cohen needs to do is he needs to bring the mincha. A mincha is a minchas oni to remind him, don't be such a baal guyva. "Hineni he oni mi ma'as." It's true, yeah, you were chosen, but at the end of the day, recognize that you're serving Hakadosh Baruchu, and you have this this task of of being a shliach for such a tzibur, you have to remember not to allow this position of prominence that you have to get to you. Thus, excuse the pun, a little bit of humble pie, and a little bit of of a mincha, a minchas oni to make sure that it doesn't come with a guyva.