Menachos 7

Today's daf is Menachot Daf Zion, and we are about 20 lines from the top of Daf Vav Amud Bet, Ki Amar Rav ben Betzeira. So, yesterday we began the second Mishnah in Maseches Menachot, which is really the second Sugya in Maseches Menachot. Maseches Menachot begins like Maseches Vaknin does with the Sugya of [ __ ] Lishma. It continues with the first Sugya of the second perek in Maseches Vaknin, which deals with psul, people that are unfit to do the avodah. And the Mishnah mentioned the same exact list that the Mishnah did in the beginning of the second perek in Maseches Vaknin. Kol ha Menachot she kimson zar So, the Mishnah gives a whole list of people that are psul, all of which were discussed in very, very great detail in Maseches Vaknin. A lot of gishmaka sugyas related to the psul oyen, the psul zar, mechuksar bigadim, as mentioned bigdei maleh and kunos maleh. We spoke a lot of rain when we went through those sugyas in the beginning of the second perek in Maseches Vaknin. But for now, all the Mishnah says is that that same exact list that we had in Maseches Vaknin with regards to the avodahs of a zevach apply to the avodahs of a mincha as well. Then the Mishnah mentioned the machlokes ben Betzeira and the Tanna Kamma. Komatz bismol pasul. That's the Tanna Kamma. Ben Betzeira omer that it's not pasul, because pasul suggests that there's no way out. You can actually fix that issue. Yachzer, take the komatz, if it was done with the left hand, put it back together with the rest of the mincha, viyachzer, yachzer bimeima, and do it all over again, this time with the right hand. Rav on the top of Daf Vav Amud Bet said, "Zar shekimetz yachzer." If zar does kimitzah, he can put the komatz back into the mincha, and now a kohen will come, and a kohen will do the correct kimitzah. And the Gemara began its discussion of what exactly what was Rav was referring to. Was Rav saying his Halacha according to the Kohanim or was Rav saying his Halacha according to Ben Betera? So, we're in the middle of the Shakal of the Taryav. We're going to pick up where we left off yesterday. Says the Gemara, "Ki amar Rav l'Ben Betera, you have to say that when Rav said his Halacha that if he does Kemitza he can put the Kohanim back together with the rest of the Mincha and now let the Kohanim do a proper Kemitza." So, he was saying it according to Ben Betera. Ben Betera who said in the Mishna that if a Kohen did Kemitza with his left hand, put the Kohanim back and do a proper Kemitza with the right hand. Says Rav, "Ben Betera didn't only say it with regards to a Komatz b'smol, which is one type of psol. He said it with regards to Komatz zar as well." But the Gemara asks the obvious question, "Pshita, why do I need Rav for that? Why would somebody learning the Mishna and the Avodah of Yom Kippur think that maybe Ben Betera's chiddush of Komatz b'smol yachser v'yikmotz b'yamin was only with regards to the psol smol? What's the difference between the psols smol and the psols zar? They're both Kemitza is psula and if Ben Betera says a chiddush that if you do a Kemitza psula you can always redo it. See, if you shecht the wrong way, you can't do the shechita again. But if you do a Kemitza psula, so you can take the Kohanim, put it back together with the Mincha and do a proper one. Why would you think there's a difference between the smol and the zar that I need Rav to tell me the Ben Betera that just like Komatz b'smol you could do it all over again, Komatz zar is the same thing? So, the Gemara says, "I'll tell you why. Because the day might come that Ben Betera b'smol avodah is absolutely like Komatz b'smol. But why mashma smol?" Says the Gemara, presumably the Ashkanazim have shiyur b'Yom Kippur. This is an idea that you find throughout Kodshim, but really you find it throughout Shas. And that is that anything that's psol but you find somewhere that the Torah was meikel with regards to this psol, that suggests a leniency even where it really is psol. So, smol is psol. You can't do avodah with your left hand. But there is one time you find that you could do avodah with your left hand. That is in Yom Kippur, when the Kohain Gadol entered the Kodesh Hakodashim to bring the special ketores, kippur on and a right al ach apeiras. So, he had the calf that was the spoon with ketores in his right hand, and he had the machta with the gachalim in his left hand. The point is, he used both his right hand and his left hand to bring the ketores into the Kodesh Hakodashim. Now, bringing the ketores was an avodah, and you see avodah can be done with the left hand. So, once you find a coolah in avodah smol, some reasons to say that every avodah smol is more cooladic, even kimitzah b'smol, which is pasul. But, at the very least, maybe there's a coolah that if you did the kimitzah with your left hand, you could do it all all over again, as opposed to zar. But, the Gemara says that's not true, cuz it's not as opposed to zar. Zar nami ash kol she b'shchitah, you find by a zar that there's a coolah as well. And where is that? Shchitah. Shchitah ksheirah b'zar. So, kabalah, z'rikah, kimitzah, melikah, you can't do with a zar. But, shchitah you could do with a zar. But, the Gemara says shchitah lav avodah hee. That's not a coolah. Because the reason you can use a zar for shchitah is because it's lav avodah. A coolah would mean that it's an avodah, really it requires kehunah, stating that there's a chiddush that you don't have to use a kohen. The reason shchitah is ksheirah b'zar is not a chiddush in avodah shchitah. It's because shchitah is not an avodah, and it's for that reason a zar is kosher. But, the Gemara says, "V'lo yesh that true? Shchitah lav avodah b'vameh amar Rav Ashi? Shchitah is parah b'zar psulah. The shchitah of parah adumah couldn't be done with a zar. Isn't that because it's an avodah? That's why it couldn't be done with a zar." V'amar Rav Lav Rav Seder k'she b'zar, cuz it says that all of us had to bring the first parah adumah, and it says chukah, which means it's machkiv. But, the bottom line is is from the fact that shchitah of parah adumah had to be done with kohen. Isn't that a riot? It's an avodah. The Gemara says, "No, shani parah. The kodesh b'dei hagabayas parah is not kodesh b'dei Rav Akiva. It's kodesh b'dei hagabayas, right? That's the dichotomy you find with the parah adumah. On the one hand, it was kosher by the gabai's, it was brought on a rishus, but then again, kadosh kadoshim is a lot of a lot of kadosh mishbe'ach. But the gemara says at its core, in its essence, the para aduma was kosher by the gabai's. So could it be the shchita of kosher by the gabai's is an avoda, but the shchita of kosher mishbe'ach is not an avoda. Meaning from the fact that you find shchitas para aduma requires kehuna, that's a raya shchita avoda, but only by kosher by the gabai's, not necessarily by kosher mishbe'ach. But the gemara says kodesh kodeshim who? Also known as the love kodesh kodeshim. Kosher by the gabai's by kehuna, kosher mishbe'ach loy by kehuna. How could that be? How could it be that when there's a shchita by kosher by the gabai's, it's an avoda, but when there's shchita by kosher mishbe'ach, it's not an avoda? Amar Rav Sheishes b'rei d'Rav Idi, me did have a maris ayin. The love avoda mennu ubayikun. You have to say that really shchita is not an avoda. And the truth is even by kosher by the gabai's, it's not an avoda. The fact that you need a kohen by kosher by the gabai's is because it requires a kohen. And the gemara gives an example, like maris ayin requires a kohen. Another example would be pidyon haben, right? That also requires a kohen. Not that it's kosher mishbe'ach, but the point is is that there are halachas of kohen that have nothing to do with avoda. So the truth is shchita is not avoda. And the fact that shchita is sheer bizarre doesn't suggest any kula in zarus because the fact that you could do shchita with a zar doesn't mean that the psul zarus is not chazak, very very chazak. You don't find anywhere a kula. The reason you could do shchita with a zar is simply because shchita is not an avoda. Ah, shchitas para aduma, that's kosher by the gabai's, and the reason you need a kohen there is just like by maris ayin, you need a kohen. It has nothing to do. Incidentally, there's a discussion in the poskim, what about bigdei kehuna? Did shchitas para aduma have to be done with bigdei kehuna? Maris ayin, does that have to be done with bigdei kehuna? That's a little bit of a raya that we're not going to get into now. But for now, says the gemara, so maybe the reason Rav had to say the ben mesayra's halacha is true not only for komatz b'smol, also for komatz zar. Because had he Because ben mesayra's halacha that was said by common small you could be thought misled to think is only true by common small which you find is not such a common of soul cuz there's a cooler in the soul small where do you find the cooler in the soul small? On Yom Kippur. As opposed to Zahara where you don't find anywhere a cooler maybe if a Zahara does the committee you don't have the option to redo it. That's where I was coming to be that even Zahara makes you ask of course according to them to say according to the common of the Mishnah you can't return the comments of small you certainly can't return the comments are but he was coming to say that according to Ben Israel the Gamara says I'll still find you a case where you find that the Zahara says a cooler thus it should be no different than common of small where is that from they left me by my because Shita or all of this for that matter by a bomber was a bizarre says the common of bomber they have you know you got to tell me avoid that make those look good and avoid this bomber look good they're very very different even though there was avoid this done in the base of to avoid this done in the bomber but it's different you can't bring me riots and coolers and curses and what should be all of this from avoid this bomber they're fundamentally different comes to mind is the measure of the Zahara say for you grow where he makes a compromise between the Rambam's of of why carbon is were brought and the Rambam's of why carbon is were brought the Rambam says that the only reason we have terrorist kind of by you grow and was all because the year that when they left me trying but over there Zahara all of the Zahara all of the Zahara all of the Zahara and to somehow distance the Jews from the avoid the Zahara that they had gave us something that they were able to relate to so don't bring carbon to pagan deities instead bring it to our God but does our God really need carbon is now that's what the movie says I don't need carbon is our God doesn't really need carbon is but it was just that generation will not be able to relate to serving our God without the idea of carbon is so that's why our God said bring carbon is but club Zahara our God doesn't really need carbon is our God said could you say that?" Rabbi Nachman says, "Of course I shall need carbonos." Rabbi Nachman incidentally, you know the Ramah wrote a safer on carbonos. It's You can buy it in your local swarm store. The Ramah wrote swarm on on seder carbonos and in the beginning he goes through all the different shitos of the tamei carbonos. And and the Ramah he brings the from the he brings the Ramah and the Ramban from the safer ikrim and the kuzari and there's many different mahalos. But, most are not like the Ramah that there is a tachlis, there is a matter. And the Ramah's biggest raya is the Torah says that a carbon is re'ach nicho'ach. Re'ach nicho'ach means Hashem has some sort of a Says Rabbi Shimon, "I'll be the kosav ashlishi v'achri'a beneihem. I'm going to be machri'a. The Rambam is right when it comes to that carbon is on a bamah. The Ramban and all the others are right when it comes to a carbon in the mikdash. The carbon in the mikdash re'ach nicho'ach. The carbon on a bamah there's no re'ach nicho'ach. What's the point? You see they're fundamentally different. They're different in terms of what they're coming to accomplish even. The avodas mikdash mikdash those in avodas re'ach nicho'ach. The avodas avodas bamah that wasn't avodas of mikdash. So, says the Gemara, you going to go tell me now maybe learn it from a bamah, right? In other words, say that it's true that in mikdash you don't find anywhere any kula, any klitzos, any weakness in the psul zar cuz zar is always pasul. But, in bamah you see it. So, the Gemara says v'chi neila b'bamah v'chi neila b'bamah you'll find the time you can't learn from bamah. Yeah, why can't you learn from bamah? Maybe like we just said it's fundamentally different. But, time we learn in the parsha of avodas avodas avodas avodas so we learn from parshas v'eileh kadesh. And we're familiar with the concept of mizbei'ach kadesh psulim and an oileh lo ya'areh. The Gemara says, "How do you know that psul ya'areh says a psul we have the halacha of lo ya'areh?" So, ya'areh to kasha bamah because you find psul ya'areh says also a a a a a a cooler dig psul because there's no ya'areh by bamah. Why is there no ya'areh by bamah? Because there's no machitzos by bamah. Rashi Zevachim Yud Daled Amud Aleph that you can bring carbonos on a bamah anywhere in the world not only in in Eretz Yisrael. But, either way, so you see that we do apply a cool law in a korban boma to a korban mikdash, says the gemara. No. Tana as always tells us some of them we had this already many times in maseches zevachim that the reason, the real reason why psol yotzei is amala yedei zotat from a pasuk. So yotzei is amala, that's the makat bechoros makat psol. Stating that there were three miyutim in that pasuk. And the question is which psol to apply the miyut to? So we apply it to yotzei say because there is a svara. There is a svara why yotzei should be amala yedei because you find that by a boma you don't have the psol yotzei. But in and of itself it's not a real psol. Meaning it's not a real svara. If you needed to rely 100% on the fact that motzinu b'boma you wouldn't be able to rely on that. The reason yotzei is amala yedei is not because of boma. It's because of a pasuk. Because of zois teira asur. We learn from there makat bechoros makat psol. There's three exceptions. We're trying to figure out what the exceptions were. Which ones are amala yedei? Yotzei is going to be amala yedei because motzinu b'boma. So it's a svara kal vachomer. But to use it as a real svara there maybe not. Either way, what what are we trying to say? We're saying that you don't find anywhere that if it's motzinu b'boma that should be a kula. So again, had you asked why did Rav have to say according to Bamba Kamma Yachser, why would you think why would you think that kamatz b'smol shouldn't be any different than kamatz zar tamei Rav, says the gemara. Al lav v'hachi hava mino b'shav sulam pasal bein b'seiro. The time we learn in the braisa. Again, why do I need Rav to say this? We have Rebbe Yehuda Rebbe Elazar Rebbe Nachman Rebbe Elazar Rebbe Nachman kula. Meaning, so we're saying that the reason Rav had to say it, again let's just recap one more time. The reason Rav with these gemaras back and forth and forth and back you have to recap every now and again. So again, Rav is saying his halacha of kamatz zar yachser according to Bamba Kamma. Bamba Kamma already said kamatz zar yachser. Why would I think it's different? I'll tell you why. Cuz smile is a you find somewhere that the smile is not possible as opposed to you don't find anywhere. You find it by it's not an I you find it by don't give us a whole it's a whole different deal. That's why we need to say that says not only true for smile it's true for as well. But the says I still don't need to say it cuz it's before you it's before us. Okay, number one. Number two is a it says it says and we learn from them that the place that the had to be done was the place where the was allowed to go. So what about was done on the what about where was done? So the kind of common this says it says become as it should be done that's coming to establish the where is that the place where the was able to walk there. But what is something else from the mission? You know what he learns that? Our mission. How do you know that if you did with your left hand you could put the back into a all over again. How do I know that you could put the back into a all over again? How do I know that the mission is that's what the mission tells me. You could do from there. From where? From the place you did again. What's the bottom line? The in the cross we know that the doesn't talk about any specific doesn't say the word smile anywhere. Not at least smile not at least smile. So clearly the said with regards to any time you did a and for some reason you have to do the again do it again. So what do I need for this for? The how come must be coming to teach me something else. What he's coming to teach me is what he's coming to teach me is that the that said that if you do a you can you can put the back and do it all over again. It's true even if you did the and then put it into the so you did the equivalent of the as well. You did already the second you would have thought that once you put it into the cliche as you took the comments put it into the cliche but what were the four of us by the comments commits from the original cliche put the comments into a second cliche as I walk at his back and then do that so you would have thought that once you put it into the second cliche maybe now you can't put it back into the original cliche that's a lot of money to the device and Yossi and after the moment I want to give up to possible do a two time nothing to turn on that do not appear finish up Yossi and Yossi and Yossi and Yossi and after the baker either way it says these that the only time it's true according to that if you do a absurd you could do it again as if it was for like but if it was commits with it's possible comes again and telling me commits what's the not the emphasis is not on the is he did commits and it goes on he put it into the second cliche Yossi so you can go back to get from those that just the opposite he was coming to say commits in commits like it's only commits but if it was commits commits like it's says come on like those who have done a comment like the that holds not that way either way commits was not versus smile rather commits according to this was the whether it's going to be true that it's a even if you put it into a cliche or only if you didn't put it into a cliche what exactly was saying we're not sure you can one way the other way either way it says the master for like what are these that's an interesting sheet of a this sheet of and Yossi and Yossi and Yossi and after and according to one of the rough and that is that if a possible would do commits according to the Rambam, he could put it back into the mincha and do a second kemitzah. Obviously, not the kosher do the second kemitzah. But, if he did the kemitzah and put it into a k'li shareis, now it's already too late. So, Rav Nachman didn't understand this and loved this. He said, "Make us already honey tonah. If kemitzah is pasul an avodah, if the kemitzah itself is the avodah, then I forgot the avodah matan k'li, then even if you didn't put it into a second k'li shareis, once that avodah was done, maybe you shouldn't be able to put it back. And if kemitzah is pasul in lav avodah, even if the kemitzah of a pasul is not avodah, k'li avodah matan k'li mah havei?" What's Again, what what is putting it into the second k'li have to do with anything? At first glance, putting it into the second k'li is the equivalent of kabalah. It's the second avodah. So, when a an avodah in the sense that it now is something that can't be fixed? Then you can't fix it, even if you didn't put it into a second k'li shareis. And if a pasul doing an avodah is not an avodah in the sense that it can't be fixed, then fix it. Then then put it back back, even if you did put it into the k'li. What What is the second k'li shareis have to do with it with anything? Hold on, Rav Nachman. So, Rav Nachman said, "You know what you see from here? A super lomdus. Lo oilam avodah hi. A kemitzah is pasul as an avodah." Meaning, once a pasul does an avodah, you can't redo it. It destroys the kashrus of this mincha. Does the second machshavah is pigul? You can't make it right. You can't fix However, "For the gamirah avodah so, avodah matan k'li But, the avodah is kemitzah is not complete until you put it into the k'li shareis. So, if he picks it up and doesn't put it into the k'li shareis, the avodah is pasul wasn't completed yet. So, now you could fix it. Once you put it into the k'li shareis, so putting it into the k'li shareis constitutes kabalah, but at the same time, it's also the hashlama of the kemitzah. So, we have to talk to the Rambam to understand exactly how this works. But, the point is it completes the kemitzah as well. So, as long as the kemitzah wasn't completed yet by the pasul, so it didn't pasul the avodah in a in a sense. So, put it back and do it again. But, once the kemitzah is completed, and when is a kemitzah completed? When it's put into the like that is the shita of those tanoyim and the shita of Rav according to one listener in the Gemara. But, the Gemara says e hachi, that's the case, a feel like it. That's the case, I have a problem. I have an inherent flaw in all of this because if you're going to tell me that when a possul does the avodah, as long as he doesn't put it into a kli shareis, the avodah is not complete. Thus, he can put it back into the original kli shareis. It's only if he puts it into the kli shareis that the avodah is complete. So, now you can't put it into the original kli shareis. What's the issue? The issue is that when you put this chometz, the possul, into the original kli shareis, he's putting it into a kli shareis. So, the moment he puts it into the kli shareis, now the avodah of the kemitzah is complete. Once the avodah of the kemitzah is complete, you shouldn't be able to do another kemitzah. Faith in Gemara of chaim ad o lo chometz l'duchta, when you put the chometz back into the original kli shareis, tikdash v'lo yisov, why isn't that an issue? Mana shach, if the possul would do the a kemitzah, whether it's a kohen doing it with his left hand or whether it's a zar doing the kemitzah, he puts it into a new kli shareis, now you can't put it back. You can't unwind it now. Then, why? Cuz it was in a kli shareis. You just completed the kemitzah. And who put it into the kli shareis? The possul put it into the kli shareis. Then, you have the same exact issue. If the possul is going to go ahead and he's yachsir v'yikmotz, HOW CAN YOU PUT IT BACK INTO the original? What's the difference if I'm putting it into the original kli shareis or I'm putting it into a new kli shareis? I'm Rabbi Yochanan. So, Rabbi Yochanan says they're the same matters. Kli shareis ain't makdish al libi You know what you see from here? That a kli shareis is only makdish b'das. So, if the possul or would put the chometz into the new kli shareis, why is he putting it into the new kli shareis? He wants to be makdish the chometz, so he should be able to do l'achtorah with it. Right? He's he's doing what he's supposed to do. But, if when he puts it into the original kli shareis, why is he doing that? He's not doing it to be makdish l'achtorah. Just the opposite, he wants to undo what he did. So, being that he didn't have dots to be makandish, the climates let shame up Torah, that's why it was never makandish it. If it was never makandish it, so it's not considered the [ __ ] of the avoida. Major love this here. So if it's not considered the [ __ ] of the avoida, that's why that doesn't bother me. Perfect tomorrow how many dots we got it. Interesting says the Gamara that would be the one that would say this. Cuz clearly was bothered with the kasha. We didn't understand that when the apostle takes the climates and he puts it back into the original k Sorry, why doesn't that constitute the [ __ ] of the climates? That So I said, oh, you know they say klishoris and makash I say to Gamara Rab and the shita say shouldn't have understood the question. This is the wrong kasha to ask Rab cuz cuz once I ask Rab klishoris I assume like Could the klishoris be makandish the double apostle? The kora the kachila the kora so we know misbehave is makandish apostles. Even something that's not allowed to go on the misbehave doesn't have a dinner kora. But in all the way yet not my soul in the misbehave in the beginning of misbehave makandish and once it goes on the misbehave you leave it there. That's a whole paragraph in the Gamara that discusses that and says Rab what about a klishoris? If you take a double apostle you put it into a klishoris. Is the klishoris makandish the double apostle just like the misbehave was makandish the double apostle or does the klishoris not have that ability? know what he told him makandish. A klishoris can't be makandish the double apostle. Now if a klishoris can't be makandish the double apostle, the klishoris can't be makandish the double kasha if a possible is the one that put it into the klishoris. It's the same thing. So the kora kind of the Gamara that what's this whole discussion anyways? Rab seems to be saying that if the apostle would put it into a klishoris even the original klishoris as long as he had dots to be makandish it, it would get a kadusha so that now the klishoris would be nishlam. The reason there's a kora between the apostle putting it into a new klishoris versus the original klishoris cuz one is makandish and the other one was not mikadesh. But it sounds like the klishoris would be mikadesh the kimitzah of the possul. Like the gemara Yoyness the one who told Reish Lakish that even though mizbei'ach is mikadesh psulim, klishoris is not mikadesh psulim. Amaleh, so the gemara says two different things. Ein mikachin likorban, aval mikachin lipossul. There's different levels of There's different levels of mizbei'ach mikadesh. There's mizbei'ach mikadesh likorban and there's mizbei'ach mikadesh lipossul. Rebbe Akiva said there's no mizbei'ach mikadesh psulim. That if you put a double possul into a klishoris, now you can go ahead and be mak that thing. That you don't. Mizbei'ach mikadesh. Yeah, im al lo ya'ir. But a klishoris is not mikadesh likorban in the same way that a mizbei'ach is mikadesh. But that's not what we're discussing over here. Well, we here we're discussing something else. Here we're discussing the klishoris being mikadesh it lipossul. To say that the avodah of the possul was complete. The klishoris could be mikadesh lipossul, it can't be mikadesh likorban. Amram Amram Amram said a different What was the question? The question was that we're saying according to these tannoim, Rebbe Yosi ben Yosi ben Yosi ben Yosi ben Yosi ben Yosi ben Yosi that the only time there's a svara that the only time perhaps it's true that Rebbe Seira holds ya'atzar, that's if you did the kimitzah, but you were never mikadesh in a klishoris. But once you mikadesh in a klishoris, at that point it's going to be a problem. And what's the svara? Because the klishoris is or putting it in the klishoris is mashlim the kimitzah. Once the kimitzah is nishlam, it comes out we have a chalois avodah of psul in this korban. You have no way to unwind that. It's only if it wasn't put into a second klishoris. The gemara says mon o shna. If you can't put it into a second klishoris, then I can't put it into the first klishoris. Let the first So the first teretz is Amram Akiva and so I say neirus klishoris ein mikachin only das. And being that when the possul puts the koinus back into the original klishoris, it doesn't have a mind to be mikadesh it. It's for that reason it doesn't get kedusha. Amram Amram Amram said a different das. Going to say zero the baisa kedusha. He put it into a a klishoris that had soil less all the way to the top so that when he put the komets back it never went inside the machitzas of the walls of the kayli. And the only time the klishoris can be makash is if it's physically within the walls of the kayli. But being that it wasn't within the walls of the kayli, so it's for that reason it didn't have ability to be makash it. But the mar is kasha is presumably what this person did in Ben Basera's case is he did komets and then he just returned it. So if he when he returned it it's on top of the walls of the klishoris that when he did the komitza he took it from on top of the walls of the klishoris. Frightened the mar of the kayli komets law will make it a komets. Doesn't it mean that that's how he did the komitza? It's not a good komitza. Because komitza has to be from within the walls. So that can't be the case. I look you going to see the bissa t'fufa. You have to say it's talking about where it's not on top completely on top but rather it's up to the exact top. So you did the komitza it's and you put it so that now it's on top. Meaning the first understanding of the mar the entire komets it was just way up it was way over. And so that the komets never went inside the walls of the kayli. In the second terrace of the mar it's perfect it's exactly up until the top. Now that you placed it it's going to be above. What's the what did the mar accomplish? What the mar accomplished was is that first the mar thought that when you did the komitza you were doing it from on top. Now what the mar is saying is that when you did the komitza you did it from within. We did the komitza you did it from within. So you took the komets out but it was exactly up until the top before you did the komitza. Now that you put the komets back being that it was exactly up until the top before you did the komitza now it's on top of that so now it's going to be on top. I don't know if you're following. But frightened the mar kim how do we get away the mana koma and the lay? Frightened the mar I don't understand. If it was perfectly until the top and you did the komitza then when you put the komets back look it should just go back to where it was and it should vibrate to be within side. When you did the committee, you made a little hole. Right? You made a little There's a little ditch inside the cave now. When you put it back, it shouldn't be go back into the hole. The master says no. What happened was is that you when you put it back, you put it on the sides. It was on the wall. And then it fell on its own. It's as if a monkey was the one that did it. The bottom line is you net the coin at place of back. Had the coin placed it back and you're right, it would have been there. But the master said there's a way to do it. The master said if you want you didn't If you did the committee so long You put You didn't put it into a new You could put it back into the original one. I when you put it into the original one is putting into the original is mashed with the way that So now you have an avoid this committee so long. It should make the carbon a problem. You shouldn't be able to unwind it. The answer is do it in a way where you're not physically putting it back in. Put it back on the side. Let it be knocked in. And the only way that works is if it was on top. So you personally never put it in within the walls of the original It got knocked in. There was room for it. And therefore it's not a big thing that you yourself the coin didn't put it in. So he never completed the So he told I have a better answer. We're trying to figure out the law. The master says just put it back in. But when you put it back in you can leading the way that What if I put it into the original cave I put it into a new cave? Said the master I have a perfect answer. Why don't we say it's talking about what the original is on the cave? And if the original is on the cave presumably that doesn't work. That the way this only worked if the coin was holding the original. If the coin wasn't holding the original it wasn't a good law. You could argue then that when it comes to committee it's the same thing. That putting the comments into the original which is a very important law maybe only works if the coin holding the charis. If he's not holding the charis, maybe it doesn't work. I don't know. The coin is holding the charis. Isn't this a riot that you can do this from a riot that when it comes to that of the you don't need the coin to be holding the it's okay if it's a coin. That's why we didn't answer that cuz even if it would be a coin you would have the same problem. So the says told you not to you're touching on any the one that was discussed. Meaning you're opening up a Pandora's Box. This is a very big what's the context of the that told me that told me that told me that told me that told me that over the following this the context over there is completely unrelated we're discussing that we're telling they had to follow the steps and had to make sure they were getting top dollar fair market value for the couldn't just sell it. So the regarding that said was that if you they had to put it out there put a that we're going to sell it to attract as many buyers as possible. So if they do it day after day is enough. They only did it Mondays and Thursdays they have to do it 60 days. Bottom line is that said I was only by and I had from what does it sound like? I mean he was the the gives the patch not the other way around. My days. So I mean he doesn't give the so you see how so I mean he said I learned by that said that said that said that said that said that said that Menaches. So he went to his house and let him learn. So he went to his house to go learn by him. Wait a minute, if he was his rabbi, why did he have to go to his talmud? The reason is basically shouldn't he have called his talmud and say you know maybe you can come to me we can learn together Menaches. So the reason is he thought so far he must die and will suffer that if I'm going to go to my talmud versus my talmud coming to me, I'll have more of the Shmaya. He thought it would be better. He'd be more successful in his understanding of Menaches if he went to his house rather than the other way around. Why? Says Rashi, not even a full line, three words. Mission you got to you know what I'm saying. You got to you know what I'm saying. You got to you know what I'm saying. I'll tell you. The only way it works is if it's you got to so I mean he felt that if I'm going to go to my talmud, it's going to be it's going to be you know what I'm saying. If my talmud comes to me, I'm not going to have to work so hard. The harder you work, the more effort you put into something, the better chance you have of being successful. And it's you do what you want to do with it. In his words, he said that you see from here that you got to you know what I'm saying isn't just in how much a minute you put into the actual learning, right? You got to you know what I'm saying. You know what I'm saying. Okay, so the more you think about the more the better chance you have of actually understanding the more the more time you put into your learning so the better chance you have of being learning. He said if that's the case, what difference would it have made if went to his house and went to his house. What would matter is when he sat down to learn how much effort was he putting into it? He said that you see from here it's not the way. You got to you know what I'm saying means the more a person is wasting effort for his learning. It could be sometimes quantitatively and it's sometimes it could be qualitatively and it could be maybe waking up earlier or staying up late or focusing when it's hard to focus. The more you that a person puts into his learning, the more he's going to be successful. the side of the Agra. It's not just analytically, it's true in every sense of the word. And therefore, Avini wanted to be a little bit more moist than that. From the fact that it bothered him that he had forgotten the he wanted to know it. So he figured you're got to you had a way. Let me go to him. You don't come to me. This way I have a better chance of being but the bottom line is Avini learned by his time with and he was the one that posed this question. This was the the shilo. the part of the story of Avini. I'm going to tell him the constant. So he tells him learning by Kimecha. Tell me how do you do Kimecha? I'm going to lay. So it was a lay on the floor. He told him he cleans that. You would take it out of this Keli. I'm going to lay so told Avini he comes from Gabi Gaka. Could you do Kimecha even from a that's on a on the floor? I'm going to lay the coin. So he told him no a coin has to hold it. That's what he told him. Avini that's what Avini told him. Apparently he had heard that from Kista. Kisa and the office. He asked him of Avini did how do you do Kiddish for the meaning the original that's placed into the original is how do you do that? I'm going to lay the coin. He pointed to the same Keli. So he told him Kimecha Gabi Gaka could you be the in a Keli that's on the ground? I'm going to lay so he said no the no you have to have a coin. I'm going to lay so he told him. So Avini in Kenu wow. So he comes that you needed three for the because you needed coin to be holding the is What's that? You couldn't use his left hand. That's a good point. See you need three I'm going to lay so he told him so what? You you should need and you 13 you could tell me the needed 13 so what's the what's so if the needed three so he said I'll ask you a question is this true? They are coin mates and the coin and I'm going to lay the matter and what's the significance of these four these are the four avoiders of the coin that are the equivalent to the avoiders of that. So, if someone a coin does one of these avoiders, the lack of the lack of the lack there, my service people, right? With that mission over there discussing the laws of people, it says there's four avoiders where you can make a carbon people. What's the cash of the evil might be out with the coin in it? If you need a coin to hold the clay shores while you're doing the committal, we should mention a fifth avoider cuz you would think it's an avoider. If a coin has to do it, should it not be an avoider? Thus, my service people of that coin that's holding the clay shores should be able to make a carbon people and doesn't say that. Isn't that a right you don't need a coin? The more it says no. Don't say that avoider is not given by the city of Ham. It could be there other avoiders. True. We're discussing avoiders that could be done by one coin. Four avoiders that he himself can do in succession where he will be able to make a carbon people. The committal, he can put it into the cali. He could do the avoider and he can do the after that to one coin that could do all four. Now, it's true there are other coins involved and the other coin could also have a my service people. So, if we were going to discuss that coin, whatever, it'd be different. But in we're just discussing one coin that could do four avoiders in succession that could be my service my service people. But in a human army, there are other coins involved in the preparation of the mincha. It's an avoider and maybe it could even have a a my service people. Interesting feeders what's coming out of this coin that the coin that was holding the clay shores according to this sheet that holds a coin had on the clay shores during the committal was considered an avoider that's harsh enough. You could have not all avoiders could have my service people. For example, I say more and there's no people in which we got to run. That's usually we're accustomed to thinking that avoider. So, here you having a mincha an anomaly. Either way, my name is Shisha. The same question was asked Shisha. You do committal from a kill that's on the ground. I'm a lazy told him. Why don't you go to the base of the garden and see what they do? Now, Shisha didn't mean it literally cuz he lived way after the base of the garden. But learn and right, travel down the the of them and and be in the proverbial base hamikdash and see what is and so he just said his followers, what do you see in the about the four that would go in every during the changing of the guard of the so we know the had 12 loaves of bread. Additionally, there were and every the would take the they would be take it from the and when they were the of last week that stayed fresh miraculously throughout the week was now able to be eaten. So every during the four that we're going to have to enter the two of them base and two of them were holding the six loaves of breads respectfully. The other two were holding The other two were holding the two this is for the new breads. The other four and then there were four that had to be before them. Two to take the two the loaves of breads from the previous week who basically and two to take the from the previous week. What's the the doesn't say that there was a there that had to hold up the hand. What's the the is that we know a little bit and we'll be more familiar with this as we go through the of this that putting the onto the to be and to be was considered it was the okay what the bigger is that removing the from the was the equivalent to the if if that's the case then if there's a that when you do in the a has to be holding the from where you doing the there should be a that when you remove the vino from the that a coin should have to be holding the hand. and said that I went into the proverbial and I found the that there were eight for doing this for doing that but there wasn't a ninth but you need a ninth coin holding up the coin. You see you don't need to be holding the while you do the says why is that different than the previous love said that I can say that we just asked the from the four of when you can have a and it didn't mention the coin holding and what did we say because we're discussing that so here too we're discussing the so we're not mentioning this ninth coin that has to be holding the maybe you did have to have a ninth coin holding the the we don't it's not true hustle hustle hustle hustle hustle hustle hustle hustle hustle Then this is not talking about when it said four it didn't mean four what did it mean four of where one coin could have a again over here we're discussing about this about we're discussing the meaning of so if there was a ninth coin and listening to me to go to me my treat the coin to go to the that you can be from a coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the because you find from the nobody picked up the when they removed the from the so you see from there that you could be you could do even when it's additionally catching the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the the entire coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to the coin to go to because that's what you find by the that's what you find when they put the entire in the that's the equivalent of the entire mincha. When they put it on the klishores again, there wasn't a cohen holding it. But Rava but Rava said what I'm not sure about Rava said this I'm sure this I know this I'm not sure. Kiddush chaim mates my could you be mekadesh the chaim mates in a klishores? That's agav karka. Maybe there you do need a cohen to hold it. Me mincha yafin and there he had no raya from the shulchan cuz there is no equivalent in the shulchan. Right? There's an equivalent in the shulchan to the mincha. You could draw the parallel of being mekadesh the entire mincha. Where is the equivalent in the shulchan? Putting everything on the shulchan. Do you have the equivalent of the kumitzah by the mincha? Removing the baziv from the shulchan. But taking the kumitz and putting it in the second klishores there is no parallel. There's no the equivalent there of when it comes to the shulchan. That's the shulchan went on to the mizbeach. The mizbeach wasn't a keili. So of course nobody was going to hold the mizbeach. We're discussing klishores not discussing mizbeach. So the question is I don't know what to do. So Rava said I have two shitos what are my shitos? Me mincha yafin alah. Do you say just like the original kiddush of the mincha could be done agav karka you don't need a cohen to hold the klishores. The second kiddush of the mincha when you take the kumitz and put it in the klishores the same thing. O me dami al finah alah. Maybe you learn it from that. And just like the kabala of the dam definitely had to be done while a cohen holding it. Right? Me kabala of the alach. Mitzvah big huna. Avoda is like a kabala is an avoda. Of course you need a cohen that's avoda. So you need a cohen so maybe the second kiddush of the mincha should be the same thing. Shmag shaila. So Rava wasn't sure. The second kiddush of the mincha should compared to the first kiddush of the mincha it could be agav karka. How do I know that? I know that from the shulchan. Or maybe not maybe the second kiddush of the mincha that's the equivalent of the kabala of the dam. So maybe just like the kabala of the dam needs to be held this too. So the gemara says halder poshta. Rava was poshet the shaila and what did he say? Me dami al finah alah. You learn it from dam. And just like dam a cohen has to be holding the klishores when you mekadesh the dam. So too here you're going to have to be holding it. So again why are we discussing this? Because the Gemara is going to digress now. The reason we're discussing this is we're going back to the original shaila. Where Ben Bezalel said a hidnush. Ben Bezalel in the Mishnah. That was further elaborated on by Rav in the Gemara. But the the halacha is mamesh in the Mishnah. The Mishnayos, you have to spend Bezalel already. Where Ben Bezalel says a halacha that if you did kemitzah with your left hand, and in the braisa it's mefurash Ben Bezalel didn't only mean the left hand, he meant all pesula. The halacha is if you can put it back into the mincha and then just do a proper kemitzah the second time. Just because you did a pesula kemitzah doesn't mean you can't fix it moving forward. You can fix it. Just stick it back. You can't fix the shchita and a melika. And there's a lot of avodos you have no way of fixing. This you can fix. So, fix it. Put it back in. Stating that some time now I'm held with you the hanachah. But that the only time that's true is if you didn't put it into the second klishos. But once you put it to the second klishos, because when you put the kemitzah into a klishos, that completes the avodah. The Gemara says, "I'm one of shok." If putting it into the klishos completes the kemitzah, and now you have a chawisa avodah pesula in this mincha that you can't undo, then how can you put it back into the original klishos? Putting it back to the original klishos is going to be the same thing. And the Gemara has three terutzim. That's what emerges from the sugya. The first terutz is Rav Yochanan on zai say meres klishos ain mekadesh el midas. That being that when you put it back into the original klishos, your intent wasn't to give it the kedusha that it needs for the haktarah. To the contrary, it's to undo what you did. So, you didn't have the kavana that you would need when you put it into the second klishos. By putting it into the first klishos, because in your mind you're not putting it into a second klishos. You're undoing what you did. So, you need kavana for the klishos to be mekadesh it. Your kavana is not to be mekadesh it so that it has the kedusha to continue with the avodah. It's just the opposite. Your kavana is to unwind what you did. Klishos is only mekadesh midas. Second terutz the Gemara said was an akimta. The akimta was where you put it in a way it was it was filled to the top. You created a ditch. You put it on the side of that ditch. it fell in by itself. You never put it in. If you didn't put it in, it never got kedusha. The third suggestion that the Gemara said was, maybe it's talking about with the the klishores was like agav karka. That's the way of Eretz Yisrael held you could do it. Put it when the klishores is like agav karka. You can't be mekadesh a mincha if the klishores is like agav karka. Is that true? So, that's this whole arichus. The last thing we saw was Rava. Rava said, yeah. Cuz Rava said that even if you could be mekadesh the original mincha when it's agav karka, even if you could do kemitzah when it's agav karka, but the second kidush that the coin does that the coin has to be holding. Cuz the second kidush we don't compare it to the original kidush of the mincha, we compare it to the avodas hakabala of the of the zevach. That's this last Gemara. Either way, that sort of concludes that part of the sugia. But the Gemara digresses now. Says the Gemara, "U mi amar Rava hachi?" Did Rava say that we compare this the second kidush of the mincha to the avodas hakabala of the dam? Is that true? But how could you say that? For it says "Koimitz she chokoi bishnei keilim." Let's say the kemitzah was put into two keilim. So, you did kemitzah, you have to be mekadesh in the klishores. But instead of putting it into one klishores, you put it into two klishoreses. Rav Nachman in a kodesh, Rava mekadesh. Rav Nachman says it's not kodesh, Rava said it is kodesh. What's the kasha? "Dein eisa." If you're going to tell me that you that there's a comparison, there's a parallel between the second kidush of the kemitzah mincha, meaning the kidush of the koimitz, and the avodas hadam. "May I lift me dam?" Then shouldn't you have to learn from dam that dam, just like you find you can't be mekadesh it in in two klishoreses, it has to all be done in one klishores, then the mincha should have to be the same thing. Says the Gemara, "Hodu be Rava mayai." You're right, Rava was choizer. Rava must have been choizer, says the Gemara. "V'dam minon lo kol she chazon." How do you know that you can't be mekadesh dam in two klishoreses? Maybe the dam you could also be mekadesh in two klishoreses. "Tani Rav Tachlifa ben Shaul." And from here until the bottom of the amud is verbatim Zevachim daf tzadik gimel amud bet. We learned this together. Tony Rev Takhleefa Ben Shaw Kideish b'shochas mikteih hazoh b'klizei, u'pochas mikteih hazoh b'klizei like Kideish. Rev Takhleefa Ben Shaw said that when the Kohain was mikadeish the may chatas for the parah adumah, he had to be mikadeish all the mayan in one kelis. We saw many times in Maseches Zevachim there was a shaila in the Gemara if there was a shiyur in may chatas hazoh tzu k'shiyur hazoh in tzu k'shiyur. But he had to be mikadeish the entire shiyur hazoh in one keli. If you were mikadeish pochas mikteih hazoh b'klizei, u'pochas mikteih hazoh b'klizei lo kideish. We bought with that myan. What about that? Do you have the same halacha you have to be mikadeish all the dam that you're going to use for z'rikah in one keli, or could I do the kabalah in two separate kelim? What's the study halacha? The hilchos the fact that you have to be mikadeish all the may chatas in one keli, is that halacha l'Moshe miSinai? If that's the case, we have to learn halacha from halacha l'Moshe miSinai. I don't know some might tell me maybe that halacha by may chatas is not halacha l'Moshe miSinai. It's brought down from a pasuk d'ksiv "tovel b'mayan", and we learn from there that the t'vilah has to be in mayan, but in the same concentration of mayan that you had b'shas kidosh. So when the Kohain does t'vilah b'mayan for the parah adumah, obviously the shiyur is there cuz he's going to do the t'vilah, he's going to do the hazoh. There must be the whole shiyur there. So "v'tovel b'mayan sh'hayah kvar", that that shiyur mayan that you have now by shas t'vilah, you had already b'shas kidosh. Maybe that's the makor. Plus you see you can't be mikadeish in two kelim. If that's the case, "achinam yotzei v'tovel b'dam". So maybe you have the same too. "V'tovel b'dam" to do the hazohs, you need the same amount now that you had b'seider b'shas kabalah you had "s'zeh im rabim amar Rav Zeira amar Rav Huna amar Rav Ada bar Ahavah "kideish". Even the dam it's a problem. Amar Rav Nachman amar Rabbah said I it's m'furash b'braisa. It says "v'tovel b'dam". "V'tovel" we learn "v'lo maspik", that you can't clean your hand, you can't scrape your hand on the klishores in order to do his reka. Bedam, what does bedam teach me? Shehei bedam shiyur tfilos mekaros, that bishas kabala you already have to have the shiyur tfilo that you're going to have bishas tahaza. Min adam teaches me a third halacha. Min adam shibeyinyan. The gemara's going to explain. Says the gemara, "Itsrich lemichtav betaval, itsrich lemichtav bedam." Let me explain to you what these three drashos are. Now, first the first two. Betaval teaches me valo yimaspeik. Then bedam teaches me bedam shiyur mekaros. Because rachmana betaval, what does betaval mean? Betaval means that you can't scrape it. It has to be a tree, you have to dunk it into the liquid part of the dam. You can't put your finger, scrape the wall of the klishores, and take the dam that way. That teaches me that. But I still need betaval. Because hava mina I would have thought aval achas lo yikipul shiyur tfilos. Betaval teaches me that you need the entire shiyur bishas hakabala. I don't know that from betaval. Because rachmana bedam, because rachmana had had the dam, hava mina I would have thought tfilos maspik. Because rachmana betaval. Right, get two completely different drashos. It's even a chiddush why the gemara has to go through this exercise of itsrich beitsrich. Two completely different halachos. Betaval teaches me that you have to dunk it, you can't scrape it off the walls. Bedam teaches me that bishas kabala you already had to have the entire shiyur tfilo. Thus I need betaval, I need bedam because they're not the same drashos. What was the third limud in this braisa? It says min adam and we learn from there min adam shibeyinyan. What does that mean? Lemutei mai? O mai rabba rabba again can split explain lemutei shiyur beetzba. That in between tfilos that was done in tfilos that were done 11:43, right? All the different tfilos that would always be done with the finger of the kohen. Throughout his avodas, he would have to wipe his hand in between tfilos because the shiyurim that were left over on his finger were pasul. And that's what min adam teaches me the mu'utei dam shibeyinyan. What does dam shibeyinyan mean? It means the shiyurim shibeyinyan. The gemara says on that, "No, misayim levalos." O mai rabba rabba said shiyur beetzba pasul. The shiyurim of the etzba is pasul. Amrei rabba bar adah levrabba, "Ambi talmido, I heard from your talmidim who said >> and a little bit of dam fell off his hand. And it went on a beged. And the halacha is dam chatos. She he's on a beged ton kibbos. And that's why this is the context over there. So what happens is dam chatos that he's on a beged, what's the halacha? You have to be mechabes the beged related to say and so nice there maybe, right? We spoke about but but dam chatos that's needed on a beged, you have to mechabes the beged. Now the only time that's true is if the dam is but if it's dam possul or if you already did hazah with this dam, at that point you don't have this halacha. So that's the context. The hazah me yadai and the dam that he's doing hazah with fell off his finger imagine and it went on the beged. Imagine he's a if it fell on the beged before the hazah ton kibbos cuz it's dam that's the regular hazah, you need to be mechabes the dam. Misha he's a if you did the hazah already ain't ton kibbos. At that point you don't have to do kibbos. Says the Gemara my level we say actually he's a what does that mean? Actually gomar hazah outside. It means you didn't do all the hazah yet. And what does it mean when we say she he's a or misha gomar hazah outside? It means he did all the hazah. You know what I'm trying to get across but you see the bus kosher cuz what does it sound like? It sounds like if the coin's doing zayin hazahs right now with one of the parma the strofim. What the hazah is up in the ears. And he's in middle of the seventh. He did four and then a little bit of dam from his finger after the fourth hazah fell on his beged ton kibbos. The dam is the bus. And if you're going to tell me that it's possul that's from a possuk min hadam dam should be in it. She comes at that dam is not if it's not you don't have the halacha dam chatos. Dam chatos ton kibbos is only dam that's regular hazah. Says the Gemara maybe you know if you see that as long as the coin didn't complete doing all emphasis on all all the the is that any done that falls from his finger on his bag it during the process of the ice would trigger the of this gibberish that's a right that you was kosher it must be that right but the Gamara says why maybe that's not what the price of means when the price says actually I mean actually that gibberish and when it says it means it needs to be gibberish and when we say actually we don't mean all we don't mean the entire set of seven we're looking at individual the price is discussing each other you bet the coin does feel he's holding the he has to do one of the seven or one of the 11 or one of the 16 or one of the 43 or the 47 or the 48 all the different sheets he has to do one has but we're looking at each individual has if you didn't do that yet and the down falls on your bag it gibberish cuz that down is right you didn't do that yet if you did that has that has and the down falls on your bag it even though you have another 42 to go it doesn't matter that is going to be ain't on gibberish cuz that down is possible it's your one more cash is your government if you completed doing the mechanical the gibberish so this is the coin that's doing the of the he's standing on the basin no play on your mind he has seven that he has to do so he finishes doing the he takes his finger and he wipes or his hand and he wipes it on the part interesting that's what he does and the reason he did it is cuz the Torah says that you had to burn the Aduma and it says everything had to be burnt together says the Gamara Gamara sounds like the only time he has to wipe his hand is when he finishes doing all the hazaz. But until he finishes the hazaz, in between hazaz, you don't have to wipe. Why don't you have to wipe? Shirayam etzba. He gets all mixed up. It's not even a real hazaz, right? I mean, that's hazaz. It's avoda mishka. Okay. But the point is, the it's not a There's a din shirayam etzba. So you should have to wipe it even in between. Amale. So he says, "No. Of course you always have to wipe it. You have to wipe it in between hazaz." What does it mean then? The braisa, when it says only goma milah hazaz, goma milah yoda. Loy goma milah etzba. The braisa wipe your whole hand. You don't have to wipe your whole hand after in between hazaz. You only have to wipe your whole hand when you finish. Why do you have to wipe your whole hand when you finish? Cuz all the dam, you have to get everything. Right? You have to literally get everything to make sure that it also They literally search for every little yad forensics getting all the dam to make sure that everything is going to be burnt, cuz that's what the Torah says. You have to take every part of the party you have to burn it. That's when Only true when you're done. In between hazaz, you just have to be sensitive to your finger. So goma milah hazaz, mikaneach yoda. Loy goma milah hazaz, there's still an issue of the shirayam etzba. So you're still going to have to be mikaneach etzba. Bishlam when you finish everything, mikaneach yoda bishlam para. You mikaneach your yad with the gosha para. The sares para ainav. Elo loy goma mikaneach etzba, mikaneach etzba. So we know how you mikaneach yad when you finish doing all the hazaz. You mikaneach with the entire para. When you mikaneach etzba in between hazaz, how did you do that? Rashi says it would have been very impractical to go to the para. Apparently, the para wasn't on Har Hamishka. The coin wasn't on it. So every in between all the hazaz, they had to go down the mountain and climb back up. Amarbai bishlam mizrach, the way they did it was they used the klisharis. Kishlam again, this is something mentioned throughout Sifrei Kippurim Zev. Kippurim milashon, wiping, washing. So you would The coin would wipe his finger. So why do we have this whole sugya with the klisharis? Why do we have this whole sugya here? So again, going back to the original shaila. The shaila was that Rava is comparing and equating and drawing a parallel between the aveda kabala of dam and the aveda of taking the coin and putting it putting it into a and the jumped on rubber. How could rubber draw that parallel? Rubber seemed to suggest that you can take the coin and put it into two independent races. Yet we know you can't do the sadam into races. You have to have all of it in one races. He said you're right. Rubber must have made a from that and then he was like how do you know you can't do into races? It's this price of the one of the we learned three from here. What one is is that when the coin did the he took his finger he stuck it into the he couldn't wipe it on the walls of the he had to put it into the liquid part of the number two is that he couldn't be the into races. He had to have the whole share in one race. That's the one we needed for our number three is he now had to use the that was that last digression of the part.