Menachos 69

Today's daf is Menachos daf samech tes. And we are at the Mishnah at the seventh wide line of daf samech tes on mid base. Today's daf is being learned as a zechus before for Chaim Miriam bas Malkah Freida, ben Chaya Leah, Baruch Yitzchak ben Shifra Mirel, and Rachel bas Henna. So, we're moving along in the sixth perek of meseches Menachos, perek Rabbi Yishmael. We're discussing halachos related to the korban omer. Additionally, as we've seen in an incredible way, almost everything that we've been learning is dover be itay matoyv. Shloshim yom choidem l'chag, so many different sugiyos related to chametz and matzah, korban Pesach, korban omer. We'll see in today's daf an incredible shout-out to the learned day daf yomi, a little wink in terms of how the zmanim are aligning. Regardless, another daf that talks very much about the korban omer. So, the korban omer, like all korbanos, had a purpose. The purpose of the korban omer was to be matir the t'vuah chadashah. It was brought on 10 Nissan up until 10 Nissan. Anything that was quote unquote chadash was assur b'chiyuv. You're not allowed to eat chadash, just like you're not allowed to eat neveilah, just like you're not allowed to eat basar b'chalav. What about bizman hazeh? So, that's the ray bait from meseches Kedushin that we attached to the previous daf. There was a part two to that ray that b'ezras Hashem will attach either to today's daf or I think to tomorrow's daf. But, regardless, the korban omer, in addition to being a korban, it was a matter. The truth is, there was another korban that was brought in the base of that was also matter the Torah Hadasha. That carbon was the stay Halacha. The stay Halacha was matter just like the carbon I am was matter. Now kind of been show you I don't understand. You need two carbons to be matter not just that the two carbons were brought seven weeks apart. So if the carbon I am was already matter what's the stay Halacha be matter? Our mission is going to address that question thus without further ado I'll tell you the mission. I am matter in the carbon I am was matter the Torah Hadasha in Medina meaning outside of the base of stay Halacha in Medina and the stay Halacha was matter the Torah Hadasha in the base of in other words as much as the carbon I am was matter it was only matter that if you want to eat Hadasha now at your Shabbos table that's okay. But to take Hadasha and bring it as a carbon that was not okay. You can't take the Hadasha and make it part of your mincha part of your stay Halacha. Part of the Halacha I am part of your Halacha that was something that was not okay. It was the stay Halacha that was matter Hadasha in the base of so even mincha will be mincha will be you not allowed to bring. Mincha from Hadasha mincha from Hadasha and the mincha which is the mincha from Hadasha before the carbon I am was brought because again the carbon I am is matter Hadasha in heavy and let's say one did bring possible the carbons going to be possible. You also not allowed to bring Hadasha in other words even then while you have as the mission just said stay Halacha was matter in however in heavy in the event that one violated this. And he did it but the evidence going to be kosher. So the stay Halacha is what was first matter Hadasha in stating that is enough mean between the Omer being matter the even as it relates to versus the in the event that one brought in the it's going to be possible if one brought in the not the of the even though you're not allowed to cuz it's only the that's matter but it's going to be possible if you brought it before the Omer it's possible. So wasn't sure about this and he was very bewildered. He was bothered. The what's the difference between that was brought the Omer where the is that in the base it's going to be possible versus that was brought where the is in the base it's going to be meaning if the is what's matter the in the then then if you brought it before the Omer it should be possible just like if you brought it before the Omer it's possible. So wasn't sure about this so it was a year his name is he was in the presence of when he was asking this question and he turns to he says I know the could be before the Omer it's more and the reason is because before the is brought not only is also in the but it's also being that it's also so comes out there's no matter as a result this is very severe could you compare that to could you compare that to could you compare that to could you compare that to where you find that at that point it's already because the was matter the meaning could be the reason after the Omer before the stay even though you didn't bring the stay yet which is not the hardest for me that is it's not so common so that we do have the carbon is going to be kosher is because this right now is being that it's such a small that you find in many so that's why we treat it a little bit more cooler even when it comes to the as opposed to where there's no at all therefore even clapping the it's going to be more common it's going to be possible either way this was you the idea how are you supposed to tell me that you heard that it was quiet meaning you tell me that walked into this matter she has this crazy and you would have to have me out seemingly stumped out of and when was quiet so who do I have face began to glow a little bit meaning you had a little smile that was creeping into the sides of his face I'm going to be a keeper of was it was a town of Ireland he said you would have so I can are you very proud of yourself cuz you were able to stop the to my honey would be a to me and if you would have a I'm going to be who was a town of he said let me tell you the post script to this story he said and you can't even make this up was two weeks before that in the world of that two weeks before like 10 a minute does it say 729 it's incredible but either way that's when this story took place cuz at least that's what he said when I came back there is what was time so I noticed that I couldn't find you the so I started asking you who do I have you have you know where he is but I'm going to be and they told me he left this world and he said that it was for sure because of the other the words to me honey in time of Yom Yom and it was for sure because of the fact that Yehuda ben Nachman is face gloated a little bit. He had this smirk over the fact that he was able to stump Reb Tarfon. We're going to get back to this in a minute, but just a postscript halachic postscript to this discussion. Says the Omar Nachman said that Yehuda ben Nachman is interesting. As much as Yehuda ben Nachman goes down in infamy because of this shuckle Torah that he said and the way he reacted to it Abu Masi said good. Ad K'dei that they reckon with what he said. The great Rav Nachman ben Yitzchak said that according to to Yehuda ben Nachman stiner which was what? That the reason that hadash kodem l'omer is possible in the Mikdash is because it's l'o chotam l'o chole as opposed to hadash kodem l'shtei halechem although the chotam is not okay but the ever is kosher in the Mikdash because it's chotam l'o chole in Medina. According to that methodology so the following should emerge. Nisachim bikurim she akrivam kodem l'omer that in the event it was nisachim that was yayin that was brought from bikurim kodem l'omer before the korban omer k'sheiram they're going to be kosher. Meaning nisachim bikurim she akrivam even kodem l'omer are going to be kosher. What's the svara? The svara is because nisachim the yayin doesn't require any heter in the from the korban omer perspective because nisachim is never ossur l'hedyot. And being that the nisachim is never ossur l'hedyot so kum da is it's muttar l'hedyot even kodem l'omer. If it's muttar l'hedyot even kodem l'omer so now if you're going to bring it in the base Mikdash it's going to be muttar as Meaning, why is it that hadash after the omer is kosher b'dieved? Because it's mutal added. So, then the even is mutal added. It's for that reason they're going to be kosher. So, the answer isn't that so obvious? So, the answer is no, it's not so obvious. I'll tell you why. I would have thought the whole story is the whole hadash should be awesome. It became mutar after you do awesome. It became mutar after you did the carbon omer. So, that is a halois hector right now on the hadash. So, being that there's a halois hector, we say the story of the halois hector makes it mutar. It's a mikdash. But, over here when it comes to the the law where it was never and the reason is because there's no issur that you need to be matter. So, I would have thought I would have thought that's not considered meaning there's no reason to say that when something is assur, now we will matter it. So, it has the cool of but something that's not assur at all, it's not in the hadash. So, maybe even though it's mutar but it's not considered that's what wanted to teach us that no, and in fact it's just the opposite. This is even more of a reason that it should be mutar. Meaning I hear the that's why it's addressing this point. They could have been to say that is a this is actually just the opposite. If anything would be a the fact that it was that it was never even assur, that's the the bottom line is that the missioner said you're not allowed to bring from the a carbon even after the carbon was brought before the stating that if you bring it after the was brought but before us the stay of lechem brought but the evidence is going to be kosher. If you would bring it even before the carbon omer was brought, then it would be possible. So, usually we think of the omer talking to hadash as it relates to gvul and the stay of lechem is talking to hadash as it relates to the mikdash. But, you see from our mishna that there's enough coming in the mikdash gufa as it relates to the the carbon omer because before the carbon omer was brought, hadash in the beit hamikdash would be possible. Once the carbon omer was brought, at that point hadash in the beit hamikdash b'di av would be kosher. What allows you to bring the hadash that would bring the stay of lechem. What's the chelek? What's the difference between hadash before the omer in the beit hamikdash versus hadash before the stay of lechem in the beit hamikdash? The end of the day, you need to bring the stay of lechem. So, you need to bring the stay of lechem and that's what's matter. So, l'chora, you would say that it should either always be kosher or always be possible. Why is there a chelek between bringing the hadash fire the carbon omer versus nach the carbon omer? That was Reb Tarfon's kosher and Yehuda bar Nachmani said infamously responded by saying that before the carbon omer was brought, it's l'chuta m'chulala etzel hadayet. Hence, we treat it more stringently in the beit hamikdash. We say that the evidence going to be possible. Once the carbon omer is brought, it's already chuta m'chulala. Once it's chuta m'chulala, that's always a svara to be makel and in this sugia, we're going to be makel as well. And then the Gemara went and told a fascinating anecdote related to Yehuda bar Nachmani. That when Yehuda bar Nachmani caught on quote stumped Reb Tarfon, Reb Tarfon was quiet. Yehuda bar Nachmani was savu panav. Rebbi Akiva didn't like it and Rebbi Akiva told him would be a chiddush to me in Torah chaim. If you're going to have a richus yamin and Rebbi Yehuda bar Rebbi Ilai, who's the famous Rebbi Yehuda, who's a talmid of Rebbi Akiva, who was an eyewitness to these events, he says I want you know the story took place exactly two weeks before Pesach and yes, all the chachamim were in Eretz Yisrael and they were to summon. They were being oleh l'regel. He said, "I came back to Shavuot's time. That's the next time you have a mitzvah being in Eretz Yisrael to be a Rego." He said, "I was looking for you, Yehuda bar Nachmani. I couldn't find him, and they told me that he had died, and it was clearly because of the words that came out of Rabbi Akiva." Just one hour before we go right there, and that is I saw a proof in Margolies in the safe in the Tzut Sayar. So, he makes a beautiful observation. He said, "When did Yehuda bar Nachmani die?" It sounds like he died sometime after Pesach and sometime before Shavuot, right? This might have happened right before Pesach. It sounds like Rabbi Yehuda was in Eretz Yisrael for Pesach, came back for Shavuot, and he found out that Yehuda bar Nachmani wasn't alive anymore. He died being diff at Sarta. So, he says, "Take a look at the Gemara in Maseches Yevamos daf samech aleph amud aleph." That everybody knows. The Gemara says Rabbi Akiva had 24,000 talmidim. The kulan mesu the perek echad. They all died during the same tkufa. And what was the tkufa that they died? It was between Pesach and Shavuot. And why did they die between Pesach and Shavuot? kavod zeh la zeh. Cuz they were mevazeh talmidei chachamim. Says Rabbi Margolies, "It's a precedent from the great talmid of Rabbi Akiva that they died because they were lo nago kavod zeh la zeh." And when did they die? During this tkufa. He says, "This Yehuda bar Nachmani literally had the misah of talmidei Rabbi Akiva. He was mevazeh talmud chacham on some level, Rabbi Tarfon, and he died mamash during the zol but tkufa." And by the way, who is the one that said to me, "Ani would be a chiddush if you're going to make it out alive." It was Rabbi Akiva who had experience with this. But the bottom line is they he died misas talmidei Rabbi Akiva bo' otza perek mamash. And he like so does Rabbi Margolies that we know the Gemara says in Maseches Shabbos daf kuf mem zain amud aleph that Shmuel the doctor said, "All the different inyanei refuah work best between Pesach and Shavuot. That's the time that they're the most effective. We've mentioned many times over the years that the Hilchos Seforim and Seforim that says this is the year being the year of Rosh Chodesh and he said it comes from this it's the one complete month between Pesach and Shavuos. So says my goal is that if you think about it it's like this is a matter of so what's going on over here? And the truth is the already makes this observation. The says that all died the says they died because of a because of says the take a look at the Shabbos this is a matter that's supposed to be and they died and this is a that despite the fact that it's a matter of they died. But says what's the what's why are all these people dying during this he says because the says all of the all of the and he says could be that's exactly the point of that during this which is a where people are supposed to have and a few of them all why because they were because all connected. This is the either way a very very light anecdote tucked away here in that we now return to our regular program which is the of the of the and going to see from where we're up to now until the ends or at least until we're our ends which is in the middle of the is going to fire away with a whole bunch of different related to the the says the say there that's interesting you have the word say there in parentheses right what's your your is the say there it's not bad say there that says the by me by him is the first debate. The following question could the bread be eaten so ordinarily the carbon was eaten and the bread was eaten right as it relates to the two different types of bread in the temple it required these two materials like two it required two materials it required the carbon and it required the the bread the traditional seder would be on the next day and you bring the carbon and then you count 49 days and on the 50th day on you go and you bring the bread the question is what would be if first the bread was brought and then the carbon was brought it was brought would it be or would it not be now to be clear on the side that it would be like the seder the would be you would bring the bread it can't be because the bread also needs the carbon right the bread is standing on the plates of the carbon but the bread would be for when you bring the carbon you can have to wait almost a full year and then when you bring the carbon the next year you won't have to wait until the next day we'll say that oh I had the bread I had the carbon or be it it's going to be okay this was the question again also to be clear as it relates to the carbon there's no question because for the carbon all you need is the carbon the bread is not the carbon it's the that's the carbon and it's only the carbon that's the carbon the question is as it relates to the two different types of bread in the temple that has two materials because the carbon and the bread both need to be brought in order for it to be usually the seder is carbon bread what would be if it happened in the reverse order now the question is what's the case I mean the case is where you didn't bring the carbon like what exactly is the case the question is no I'll tell you a very simple case going to the bread what would be if you between the carbon omer and the stay lechem? The and then you went ahead and you brought the stay lechem in the subsequent year you brought the carbon omer my consideration do we say it has to be in order otherwise it's not going to be okay no have to wait for the following stay lechem in order for it to be I don't know or maybe it's going to be matter as well. So what's the case? The case is with somebody planted in between the carbon omer and the stay lechem. So we need to know this cuz it's going to come up a few times in the daf. And that is the carbon omer was only matter that had been planted or even more than that it had what's referred to as it was already rooted in the ground before the carbon omer was brought. But the carbon omer is not going to be matter something that was planted after the carbon omer was brought, right? You're a day late and a dollar short. And even if you planted it before the omer was brought if it didn't have until after the omer was brought it wouldn't work either. So the case is where the was planted the carbon omer which means for sure that happened the carbon omer which means that the carbon omer by definition has no ability to be matter it. But the planting of it and the of it happened before the stay lechem which means the stay lechem it's already in its quote on quote fiscal year has the ability to be matter. So the is the next year when you're going to bring the carbon omer do we say I have the stay the carbon omer or no being that was not say there it's not going to be okay. So the said I'll bring you I'll bring you a riot. So the riot is going to be from a long we're going to need the last part of the the said so this is a is talking about a mincha that's a minchas bikurim. So, what's this mincha? So, the bris of minchas mincha is referring to the minchas omer that's bikurim. It's uh chodash, right? Before the carbon omer was brought, there's no chodash being eaten b'chlal. So, this is called a minchas bikurim. May come up. What was it brought from? Min asoirim. It was brought from barley. I thought it was min asoirim. You'd say it was brought from barley. And then min maybe it was brought from wheat. All the minchas come out were brought from wheat then. So, why would you assume that this one's different? It's brought from asoirim. So, the bris says yes, asoirim. Yes, it says I'll tell you why I know. "Hem are oviv b'mitzrayim." Again, there's no shortage of remasim to the fact we're doing the right thing right now. It says the word oviv b'mitzrayim. This possuk is actually tucked away. It's in the end of parshas Mikeitz. This is discussing the aftermath of makas barad. But, either way, it says the word oviv and it says the word oviv in the context of asoirim as we just saw. letters and it says the word oviv l'doros. It says in this possuk in takif minchas bikurim lashem oviv. Ma oviv oviv b'mitzrayim? Just like that oviv oviv that we just mentioned was asoirim. After oviv l'doros asoirim. So, as I said, based on shavah oviv oviv, that's how I know it's asoirim. We find that a yachid brings carbonos from chitim. And sometimes there's a concept of a yachid bringing a minchas asoirim. The tzibur we find the tzibur should be bringing carbonos from chitim. And they bring minachitin. And if that's the case, it's mustaber to bring carbonos from asoirim. There must be some carbon tzibur that's brought from asoirim. Just like you find the yachid brings minachitin and asoirim. So, it's mustaber to bring carbon tzibur that the tzibur also brings minachitin and asoirim. Based on process of elimination, this is the only option you have for a minchas tzibur to be brought from asoirim. And if you're going to tell me that it's brought from minachitin, you don't have anything. Must be it's brought from asoirim. Now, as I said, I'm backing into it. I don't have a shovel like the other does, but at the same time it must be this is the way it is. This is the way we need. Rabbi Akiva said I have another how I know that the was brought because in it's going to come out the way we is not what does that mean? When the Torah talks about the so the says that so the day of is referred to as the day of why is it referred as the day of because right? The is the first fruit. It's the first day that you're bringing what? So the Torah says that it's the first In other words, the Torah describes the carbon as a the Torah describes the as a the carbon as a first the carbon the which means they both have to be the first. The has to be the first and the has to be the first. The Akiva, how's that possible? The if the the is brought from and the are brought from the so the is not going to be the first anymore because the was already brought from the new comes to us that the is close. It's close, but it's second. It's not first. How then could the Torah refer to it as how could the Torah refer to it as the says the Akiva again I'm backing into it must be that the was brought from and the was brought from and as a result they're both this is for the and this is for the as I said the Akiva either way in this price we have three different how we know that was brought men siren. Remember the answer said I have a positive there is over over the by Marcus borrowed and over regarding the carbon armor. And just like the over over there was referring to siren this referring to siren as well. And he gives us I don't have a positive but I have two ways of backing into it. One of backing into it is I know there has to be a carbon sibur of a min of siren and the only thing I have available right now to be able to fit that bill would be the carbon armor. Additionally, I know that the armor and the are both referred to as and if they're both from the same men it's only the that would be the as opposed to the not be the must be one was brought from siren hence it's the for the siren and the other one is brought from hence it's considered the for the time is the as it relates to the the third in this price of how we know the was brought and understand him if you're going to tell me this is going to tell me if you're going to tell me that could be brought even which I have so that the carbon armor could be considered the and the could be considered the big one. They're both brought men and there's no issue. How's that possible? I'll tell you how it's possible. The the could be or both of the they the case would be where a person went ahead and he planted after the carbon armor was brought and before the was brought. Which was the case of where the is being brought before the carbon animal was brought because in that case the carbon animal didn't work for it because that's Russia happened not the carbon animal and the state of him did work for it because that's Russia happened before the state of him unless you tell me the state of him doesn't work unless the carbon animal was brought first but the case I'll go upon him is with somebody went ahead and he planted between the carbon animal and the state of him. Now the carbon animal that was brought that previous year didn't work. So the next year the next year when he brought the carbon animal the carbon animal needs to be mattered that for and he went ahead and he brought the carbon animal from that for. I isn't that last year's? It's last year's maybe copy the state of him on the side of state of him works which is what we're trying to figure out but copy the carbon animal for sure doesn't work. So again he brought the carbon animal from that for that had Russia fire the state of him and not the carbon animal. Okay, now when it came time to bring the state of him he brought the state of him may have not the ash coin the animal. The hash who bought state of him the stock. This person went and he planted a second time. He planted after the state of him had already been brought the previous year which means that that for was not mattered even by the state of him that had been brought. So that this person if you think about it he planted twice. He planted between the carbon animal and the state of him and then he planted again not the state of him but as it relates to the carbon animal that he brought he brought the carbon animal from what he had planted between the previous animal and the state of him and he brought the state of him from the for that he had planted after he had brought the previous state of him. What's the Nakuda? He couldn't bring the stay alechem from the tour that was brought after the from the tour that he planted after the previous carbon before the previous stay alechem cuz that the stay alechem that he had brought previously was already matter. But at the same time, he was able to bring the carbon from that tour. And the reason he was able to bring the carbon from that tour is because the carbon had not been matter that. But here's the nakuda. The nakuda is in this scenario. Assuming this all works, assuming this all works, you would have a situation where side the carbon could be considered the mincha hadasha and side the stay alechem could be considered the mincha hadasha. They could each be considered the mincha hadasha, right? Go from the beginning. The stay alechem that was brought between the carbon that was brought from the tour that was planted between the carbon and the stay alechem from that first planting. At that point, it was the mincha hadasha, right? Why was it the mincha hadasha? Because the carbon had not been matter. So that's considered new tour as opposed to when you go ahead and you plant again and then you bring from the carbon. Well, that carbon is also being brought from the hadasha because even though you had brought already a stay alechem at the stay alechem didn't work for what you planted afterwards. So you have a situation where side the stay alechem is considered a mincha hadasha. I have a situation where the carbon is also considered mincha hadasha. Now, to be clear, the situation that we have right now is is the stay alechem is the mincha hadasha in the previous years had been the mincha is the mincha is considered the tour hadasha in this year's had been. but Rashi goes right there and Rashi says that when you're going to go ahead and you're going to bring even the Stay Alechem this year, meaning you're going to bring that second Stay Alechem, that second Stay Alechem is also going to be considered Hadash, it's going to be considered Yom Kippurim, it's going to be considered the the Mincha Hadasha. And the reason is because being that it's being brought from a different crop, it's being brought from the crop that was planted after the previous Stay Alechem, and it's the first carbon that's being brought from that crop, so that even itself also gives it an ability to be considered Mincha Hadasha. But the bottom line is is if you hold it could be brought to like a seder, so there is a Chaim Sofer where everything could be brought Mincha Tamid and everything's going to be considered the Mincha Hadasha, everything is going to be considered the Yom Kippurim. Yet Rebbe Akiva said that it's impossible that it's the both brought Mincha Tamid because they're both brought Mincha Tamid, then how could the Stay Alechem be considered Bikurim? How could it be considered Mincha Hadasha? So the Gemara Amar Rava, from Rebbe Akiva I think you could be poshit that the only time this works is if it's brought K'seder, if it's brought to like a seder it doesn't work. Being that it has to be brought K'seder, so at the end of the day you're always going to be bringing the Stay Alechem from the same Tfuah that you're bringing the Carbon Omer from, and if that's the case, and if that's the case, you'll never have a Chaim Sofer that they could both be brought from the Chaim Sofer. But the Gemara says it's not because Misavris Bikurim B'Pairo K'amrinan L'mizbe'ach K'amrinan V'ha'ochal Mizbe'ach M'pairo B'hashashas. We look at Rashi a little bit S'asum what the Gemara's dikduk is, but the Gemara is saying that when we say that the Stay Alechem has to be the Mincha Hadasha, the fact that it's the first of its crop, that even itself is not enough to satisfy the definition of it being Yom Kippurim Mincha Hadasha. It would have to be the first thing that went on the Mizbe'ach during this year. It would have to be the first thing the Hashashas that actually made it on the Mizbe'ach. And being that you're always bringing you're always bringing the carbon omer together with the the shtei halechem, even if they're going to be brought from different crops, but at the same time it's going to be considered chodesh this year on the mizbeach, if they're being brought both min achitin, you're not going to be able to satisfy that. Must be once from the same, once from the chitin, and that's what the raya was. Next ibaya. As relates to the shtei halechem, hanotza o shariya, o chanota shariya. So we're not farmers, so we don't know exactly what hanotza and chanota are, but these are two very, very early stages in the maturation of tfua. Hanotza being the earlier stage and chanota being the later stage. So the question is, which stage of the development of the tfua would have to have been reached in order for it to be considered this year's tfua, so that when you bring the shtei halechem, it's going to be matir. Is it the chanotza or is it the chanota? This was the shaila. So the Gemara says, one second. We say hanotza and chanota, let's be a little bit more clear. Either in hanotza d'peiri or in chanota d'peiri, do we mean the hanotza of the peiri and the chanota of the peiri? Meaning you're looking at the actual peiri, the actual tfua. Hashta hashrasha shariya, hanotza of the chanota mi ba'ya. We said earlier that what's the kavaya when it comes to does it belong to this year or not this year regarding chodesh? It's totally in hashrasha. Did it take root? Hashrasha is before the hanotza and the chanota. Hanotza and chanota, it's growing already. Hashrasha is part of it when it takes a root. Ela must be hanotza d'ala o chanota d'ala. We mean the leaves. We mean a stage that's even before the hashrasha. And that was the shaila. Mi havi hashrasha ala. Do you say that once the hanotza and the chanota of the alim already start developing, that's the equivalent of hashrasha and at that point it's considered chodesh and the shtei halechem can be matir. And I know the hanotza and the chanota of the peiri is already considered chodesh because that's not that Hashrasha already took care of that job. The question is what about that of the hour and the says take rather anybody and she's on the calendar. That somebody planted in the ground. Is the is the matter so we're jumping from the back to the so the is the question is if somebody took and he planted in the ground and right now you brought the the fact that you planted the is that enough for the to be and not enough for them to be now we mentioned already twice this morning that what stage do we say the is what's the in? It's we said so what exactly is the let's catch if it's talking about whether it was so it's a it's what's this what was it also what's this English if it's a before the was brought then if it didn't have before the was brought I assume it's going to be until the next was what so what exactly is the I'm not sure is real. We know it's a mission it's all has Russia versus the case is talking about where this farmer went he already harvested his crop this and he put it back in the ground called before the but also and then when the was brought it was a passed over it meaning what happened was the floor was in the ground while this took place the and the is link could I now after the was brought pull it out and and eat from it what's the the command the do we say that when it was in the ground it's as if it was in a it's as if it was in my pantry and as a result the was I do my the or maybe it became to the now is the Gamara thought of the was, you have a farmer takes heat and takes a seed, he throws it into the ground and the question is is it considered this year's tool for the to be mad to or am I going to have to wait for the next? That's not a Shilo. We know it's always talking about cases something else. Cases with heat and grew this year. And I harvested it this year. And instead of taking the heat and putting it in my house, I took the heat and I dug a ditch, I put it in the ground and it was in the ground when the carbon animal was brought. The query is is the animal mad to something that's in the ground? Not something that's in the ground cuz it didn't grow yet. I grew it and I harvested it. I put it back in the ground. Do we say when it's in the ground it's like it's in a cod? So, why should it not be mad to? It's for sure this year's tool. Not only was there a this year, I was burning this year already. Or do we say that being that it's in the ground it's bottle of the and if it's bottle of the we look at it as a the car car. That was the Shilo. Says the Gamara that really this question of has implications and ramifications of the fact on the same note. Would these heat and be subject to the laws of would they not be subject to the laws of where the maker said that I am selling you the heat and that are in this ditch and you want to know how much heat is there? Six corn of heat. What was the only five? And now the Shilo is is there a or is there not Now, let's just speak for a second. Even though the Gamara is going in a minute, but what would be the Shilo? Even the Shilo as we know so we want to know is there a because it's or do we say being that it's in the ground in another but the Gamara says it's a moot point cuz Gamara said anything that you can measure, anything you can weigh, anything you can count I feel like it's that even if somebody rips somebody off 5% which is right 120 is it's considered you have to say the case is talking about This is again I know 101 the with the tells the I don't know what the buyer law I I want to sell you what's inside this pit. How much is there? Whatever a normal person a farmer would usually put there that's what I'm selling. He didn't put a number to it. So it's not a what's up with the buyer law Anyway what's the buyer law and they say it's not true this guy didn't deliver Yes is that I know why We say that it's as if it's sitting in his house. It's right it's written that you already were harvest as a result it's subject to the buyer law I don't know I don't know or maybe it's to the ground and just like you know another this going to be no this is what another question Let's say someone has a dispute with somebody and right now based on what you bought he should have to swear would it be a buyer law on a regarding this or not again same I don't know what the buyer law Do we say it's as if it's sitting in the buyer law We view it as the buyer law I don't know what the buyer law We say it's to the ground I don't know what the buyer law I don't know regarding all three which is really one take all It is take it so what was the next buyer law I don't know what the buyer law I don't know what the buyer law I don't know what the buyer law Meaning written that you harvested put back into the ground and was in the ground when the buyer law was brought I don't know what the buyer law I don't know what the buyer law I don't know what the buyer law do we view it as being I don't know what the buyer law as being Kafka. Another ramification of this child is this is subject to I know in another Kafka. So if it's Kafka, no. If not, yeah. Now the question is would it be a shvu in the shvu in the Kafka? But if it's metal, then there would be a shvu. Regardless as relates to these three questions that are really one, it's the answer is take a bite of another shvu. Kitten should be Galilee bucker. The siren should be Galilee be he mama. So what would be if an animal had excrement, right? The golo, the dung of the animal, and they found kitten inside or siren inside. What's the tomorrow says? What's the regarding what? Look my ear let me must eat them. Do you mean what he's going to try to guess what shvu might have been? Is it with regards to I mean you want to know right now the kitten and the siren that came out of the golo, is it to make to my shvu or not? So what is to make to my shvu or not? Remember doesn't have to clear the shvu. Everyone knows this price. Kitten should be right back this should be Galilee be he mama. This shvu in the event that it was kitten and it was siren inside the be he mama. Kitten should be lucky though in the event that somebody had a shvu. He says you know something what am I going to eat? I don't know what the visual is, but we'll skip it. But kitten should be lucky though in the event that somebody had a shvu to eat it. In the event that it doesn't give it a shvu of inside it's not going to be a shvu. Look my ear if you did a shvu however, you didn't just think maybe this would you know be good in my sandwich. But rather what he did was he was he did a shvu. Then already to my shvu the bottom line is the shvu is remember can't be clearing the shvu. We know it depends he did a shvu he didn't do a shvu. I don't know maybe the shvu was could you take the kitten and the siren and include it in your next mincha? Says the I don't have a shvu for this, but I don't need a shvu for this. I could do better of a shvu for this. Shvu the way I give it another I hear he said the kind of shvu we get the kitten. We have a minute this is going to work. So let's see if we can get the case must be then continue. The case he's talking about where this farmer took the in the soil and he planted it again. If you come by and now from this new crop which has a origin of this, he wants to go and he wants to bring a mincha. And the question is could he or could he not? Now, we said immediately isn't there a union of so the says let's drill down a little bit more. We assume the is the reason we assumed earlier it was is the reason this is not okay because it's just disgusting. Well, if that's the case there's a as the right? Believe it or not this is a fertilizer. Once you plant it again, it's not the end of the world. And if that's the case, then maybe it'd be fine. I don't know it could be the reason this is considered very inferior is because it once it goes through the digestive tract of the animal, it weakens a little bit. And as a result it's not so potent and therefore it's considered something you're not supposed to give the Well, if that's the case even if you was a again the it's not considered the bottom line is like some of the previous the take another pill what would be of a pill an elephant went and it swallowed a mattress. It swallowed a wicker basket the and then it left it exited the body of the pill. Right? Through it's again when it went to the bathroom. What's the what's the nice story but like what's the could you be more specific? So again the has to do some guessing over here. Maybe the was where this pill or not this pill This FIFA mitzris, by the way, mitzris, this is another shout-out to Dover be tamatay. With this uh and the pill is makas odif, right? Again, everything. But, this uh FIFA mitzris had been tamay. And the shaila is that now that it went through sort of the system of the elephant, so maybe now it became tahor. But, the Gemara says that can't be Rami bar Chama shaila. And you know why? Tonina bar Dosa is a mishnah. Kol hakinu yordim l'veito shel mashkin l'machshava l'machshava l'machshava. If you have a kayli that's tamay, the only way to make it not tamay is if you do a shinui ma'aseh. You could do a shinui, but if it's not a shinui ma'aseh, no. This didn't have a shinui ma'aseh. Because it sounds like the FIFA mitzris, after it went through the system of the elephant, looks exactly the way it looked before it went through the system. Nothing changed. So, there's no shinui ma'aseh. So, what would make it tahor? So, the Gemara says l'chricha d'balahus in the case must have been something else. This pill shel balah kifa mitzris it's not talking about where he took a complete kifa mitzris that was tamay, went through the system, and Rami bar Chama is declaring now whether it's going to maintain its tumah or maybe it there's a taharah because the pill was somehow metayeret. The case must be d'balahus in. The elephant swallowed hutsin, the wicker. It swallowed the material that was used to make the kifa mitzris. V'avdinu kifa mitzris. And then the person that fashioned this kifa mitzris did so from those hutsin. What's the shaila? The shaila is mi havay ekal. Do we say that when the hutsin went through the system of the pill that it's considered that the hutsin were digested by the pill. If that's the case, v'havay k'chli g'olem k'li adamah. We would then view now the hutsin as being part of the excrement of the pill, which would then make it klee glolum. And if that's the case, so it would have no ability to become tummy. Or maybe it's not considered equal. In other words, the shilo was a completely different shilo. The shilo was with a pill swallowed hootzin. And then it went and then it excreted it. So the question is if somebody would go now and make a kali out of it, would it be mekabel tuma or would it not be mekabel tuma? Hootzin is mekabel tuma. Klee glolum is not mekabel tuma. Do we say it's hootzin because it went in hootzin and it came out hootzin? Or do we say it went in hootzin and it came out klee glolum? Do we say that the hootzin are considered digested or not? We'll see from the hemsha of the gemara a better appreciation of the shilo. If a person eats food, for example, he digests the food. So the food's considered to have been properly digested. That's ever. But hootzin is not something people usually eat, right? Even elephants. So when the elephant eats the hootzin, could be when it leaves the body, it doesn't get a din klee glolum. Klee glolum is something that the derech is to digest. Me have the equal copy the pill and as a result it's regular klee glolum that's not mekabel tuma or not, says the gemara. For this we're not saying take it so fast. We might have a little bit of a pshitos. It was a story. There were two wolves that went and they swallowed two children. And the story And they said the bosser is going to be tohor. And the reason they said the bosser is tohor is is because even though a child is metamei tumas meis, but once it went through the zaiv, even though it was excreted, but once it went through this save at that point it was considered in the cycle as soon as it was considered but it didn't have to be anymore and it's for that reason that they are they said it's not going to be tampered to mass Adam but what do you see from here you see from here that even though it's for sure not the Derek to eat like this but I feel it's considered an equal that's why it was so to the pill that eats the woods and it should be considered it should be taught so the says what they said they said I think you have a little bit of a small no right but it's very soft and because it's very soft so therefore it's digested as opposed to what you may be not but the most of the mission is safer there was a safer to that story but it was some noise they said that some of this is going to be Tommy so what do you see because that Tommy's is not soft so it's for that reason we say that it's not considered an equal okay so let the woods and not be considered the local and it's almost like that's very hard you can't bring a riot but it's very soft at some of this is very hard woods and it's somewhere in between as a result good social style but it's not a the bottom line is says the Gamora I don't know the answer Gamora doesn't say take cool but the Gamora is not by your outside one more shot heat and you do by oven heat and wheat that fell down from the heavens literally a cloud dropped these heat and now what is the says again what do you mean what's the what what what what should you right be more specific in the heat do you mean can you use the heat and now for a common is that my life why is it heat and why should we have to bring it for a common all the style the style is can you bring it for the style what's the Kira me saying the Torah says me saying to be a lot of to understand so it says it's supposed to bring me much for saying new lawful the whole slot it's the light that just means you can't bring it from all the oven but from the heavens it's not for us shopping dummy are you doing much for saying that go and have to be literally that feeling of the oven and even if it comes from the clouds, it's also not going to be okay. Okay, this this is a we want to know if we say him satisfies oven or not. On the one hand, the clouds are not for others, but then again, it's also not so when the terror says is a of we say him What's the doggish of we say him? It's not for others. The clouds are not for others or is the doggish we say him? The clouds is also not we say him, but the interrupts the program for 1 minute and the says seriously Isn't there even such a child? Now, we always felt like we could have said this a few times in today's but this is the first time says this. I mean the pill swallowing the But this I don't believe. There can't even be such a case. So the says in yes, we know of a real such story. Okay, the idea tire. So there was an Arab merchant his name was Adi and he once had the following take place where fell down from the heavens. This is from heaven where the fell literally month from heaven fell. It was a room kiss but it was a tall. That's how high it was and it was it was and you want to know how long this pile was? It was So he had this windfall where all of a sudden these came down and you see something like this can happen and because something like this can happen, it's a good again the not pushing it but the also doesn't say either way, we're going to stop here but just to do a quick the topic of the was the both and together in the in the Beis Hamikdash. And really the latter part of the daf involved multiple ibois, most of them from Rami bar Chama. The first shaila was, is the Shteih Halechem matter only if it's brought kesedran? It has to be the carbon omer first and the Shteih Halechem second. What would be if you brought the Shteih Halechem first and the carbon omer second? What's the case? The case is talking about where you planted it and you had ashrosho in chodesh Iyar, right? Between the time that the carbon omer was brought and when the Shteih Halechem was brought. Do we say the Shteih Halechem works or that when you bring the next carbon omer it's going to be okay or not? Much right being posted from the Dover Achrei Akiva, not the easiest Gemara in Shas. The Gemara was doicheh the dichoi. Regardless, that was the first shaila. The second shaila was with regards to the Shteih Halechem. In the event that there was hanotza or chanota of the omer, do we say that that would make the full part of the year of the Shteih Halechem? The Shteih Halechem would be matter or not? So know that when it comes to the definition of what's considered chodesh, usually it's toli in ashrosho. But the Gemara has said that the chanota and the hanotza of the leaves is the equivalent thereof to the ashrosho. That was Rami bar Chama's second shaila and the Gemara said they take it. The third shaila the Gemara was Rabba bar Rav Chanan's shaila and that is what would be if somebody went, he harvested chittin and then he took the chittin and he put it in the ground, then the carbon omer was brought while the chittin was in the ground. Do we say that being that he already harvested it and it's considered regular chodesh and for sure the carbon omer is going to be matter or do we say that once it was put in the ground that's as if it was part and parcel of the ground, as if you planted it again and it's in the ground and the omer is not going to have the ability to be matter. And the Gemara said by the way, this shaila is not only in igaya minochis, it's in igaya the laws of einav, perek azav, it's in igaya the sugiyas of shnei moichin and in shpon al karkois. But the bottom line is do we treat it as if you planted it in the into the ground as something that's completely new. Didn't have a structure in the previous year the carbon number won't be able to be matter. It's in the ground you know you know the once you harvested it even though you put it in the ground the watch in the mirror is it's commander be kind of it's as if it's in your pantry in your pantry it's in the ground. There's no reason we shouldn't be no reason we shouldn't say that the carbon number would have the ability to be matter. The fourth side of the was back to and that was hidden Galilee should be Galilee the master what was the shilo was when somebody took the hidden and he replanted it and now he wants to use it for so ordinarily would say but the says that there is an argument to be made that once you put it in the ground and you plant it again it's not so bad anymore. Oh yes it could be it's still once it goes through the digestive tract of the animal it's a bit of and as a result it's going to consider based on that you should never be able to use it for a minute. I said take one that the next shilo was again if you're keeping score this is the fifth shilo the fourth and that was the pill shabala or the way the tweaked it the case was talking about where he swallowed and then it went through the digestive tract somebody went and he made a out of it and the question is or not what's the who's in the but is not do we view it as or do we view it as what's the goal is considered such because it was digested. Could be a pill can't digest try telling to the ultimately didn't have any pictures to this the final shilo that we saw today the sixth shilo be more shilos than tomorrow's stuff but the final shilo was shilo and that was hidden that fell from heavens can I use it can I use it for the stay of lechem or can I not use it for the stay of lechem? What's the hakira? The Torah says me moshavoseichem for the stay of lechem. Moshavoseichem means literally me moshavoseichem. Well, this is not literally me moshavoseichem. What does moshavoseichem mean? But a fukei chutz la'aretz this is also not This is not chutz la'aretz. As a result, maybe it will be able to be used. This was the one time that the Gemara says, come on, is there even such a shaila? The Gemara says, yeah. But either way, the Gemara was not pocher the shaila. So, really we're 0 for 6, right? We had six shailos and all six of these shailos, four of them from Rabbeinu Bachya, one from Rabbah bar Rav Huna, the other one from Rav Zeira, were unsuccessful. Maybe we'll have better luck in tomorrow's daf. We'll have to wait and see.