Menachos 75

Today's is and we are at the Mishna on the bottom of moving along with some of the technicalities of how certain were prepared that were prepared in a we'll see in the Gmorra what that means to required three servings of oil one was to be the mitzvah of another was to be the mitzvah of and additionally right at the beginning before the and before the was done there was oil that was put into the so the is saying that we know that most required she had it exactly was the oil put into the says the is that when were done in three servings Rashi says that the Mishna is really explaining it backwards. The first thing that happened was there was oil poured into a cliches. After the oil was poured into a cliches, they put silus. Then they poured more oil and when the second serving of oil was put into the cliches, they were becoming the mitzvah of bel which literally means they mished the silus together with the she. After they did the bilo, there was a third serving of oil that was put in. That was the mitzvah of this is all learned from. But again, when we talk about oil being put into the carbon mah it was put into three phases. We already know this because we're learning already for almost 75. But this is the source that comes from this Mishna right here. The continues and says so one of the that were brought were the mafas maf. Additionally, you had the mas and the mas which were all going to be baked before the part of the mah that was supposed to go on the mak was going to be put on the mb. So ordinarily when you visualize in your mind the carbon so you think of and you do the you put the on the and then you prepared the so that the we spoke about it yesterday's but the truth is that there were many that were prepared first afterwards the kamita was done. So how do you do kites on a kala? How do you do kites on a matzah? So there was a mitzvah called pisa. You'll see that at the latter part of the d they were po the po the and then after the after they turned it into crumbs or we'll see different shittas in the tan then they were able to go ahead and do the kit again. The question is these when exactly was the bila done? According to rabbi they the belie was done in the state of kala. So just like the was done after it was already so to the was done after it was already that no even those was done while it was in a state of within the world of there were two types of there was that was and there was the mafana that were the difference between andik is think of a a bread or a pa or or a that you eat on chabas Rikin were more like flatbreads more like matzas. So the wereo and they needed the mitzvah of whereas the wasn't in a state of it was in a state of rather than having the mitzvah of what there was instead was a mitzvah of how exactly was the done they poured a little bit of oil on it like the shape of a key. We'll see what that means in the and whatever was left over from the she was eaten by regardless of the Mishna said that when we talk about putting she so it wasn't done in one serving but rather was done in three servings but the Mishna prefaced it by saying it was only the prepared in a says the what is it coming what's the prepared in a that doesn't have of exclude the was prepared not in a like the and the mares but rather was prepared in the oven. Obviously the T of the Mishna is of the opinion that this oven wasn't a being that it wasn't a so it has a different over here you don't have that of three mat how many matones do you have so really going to have to wait until later in the d to see this but it's going to say it was two mat the one that it didn't have was so ordinarily you put she into the kali then there was then there was only true for the nasis but that wasn't the mut Why wasn't it aos was in a tanner and we're going that is not a it only had two mat it had the first and the second what it didn't have was the third it didn't have the say the talking about the we learn from this that before you do anything before you even put into the you first have to put into the where do you see it in the because it says You should put the on top of the easy. First you put the she and only after you put the it says that's the we just read. It also says regarding it says we learn from as we just said because it says that the goes on top of the so even though that you only have by the you don't have it by the stating that is going to be true by say as well. How do I know that from because it says but it also says once you have you can learn from as well. says it only says it by. So the bottom line is the said included in the really if you go through the you're not going to see and if you go through the you're also not going to see you're going to see one here you're going to see two there but what you're also going to see is the same word both to teach me that the one here applies there and the two there apply here bottom line is both pars are going to have all three. So we had a regarding the mas the and the m all of which were baked or fried before he did the before it was put on his back of the question is when exactly was the mitzvah of done? Was it done before it was baked or was it done after it was baked? So the Mishna said Rebi says the bleed was done after it was already saying no the bleed was done while it was still in a state of the says and we learn from there you see clearly that the is supposed to be when it's at a state of this is referring to the which was later going to be fried and you see clearly that the is done while it was in a state of says no it is done because the says regarding the so on the one hand it says regarding but it says regarding it says by the same and then later it says which according to you rebi would seem to suggest that the belie happened after it was already a state of but told you you and I can both agree objectively that it's not possible to do the with the while it was in the state of meaning told even though we're arguing regarding the whether the belie was done while it was or it was done after it was already prepared after it was already but regarding the I think you and I could agree tell that there's no sh even though it says so what does that and in and of itself doesn't mean anything because if it means something by the m then it has to mean something by the there's no way they did the by the after was already maybe they did soar is going to ask soon but either way says basically came and they issued their final statement and they said I'm going to tell you exactly how the ma was prepared whether it was a mases or the first thing you put. That's before anything. Then you put the silus on top of the she and then while it's still in a state of silence, you didn't bake it yet. You put she in it. And this time you do the bilah the now you start preparing the bread. You need it and you either bake it or you fry it. Then you're going to do the pisa second part of the do. Then you're going to break it up again. And you're going to put she again this time for the you're going to do the you're going to put the on the etc etc. So according to you do the walls in a state of how's it going to be go down according to first you're going to put the on top of that. Now before the you need it, you bake it. You do the for the second time again you do the and then you put again the and you do the so one thing is clear that everybody agrees and that the was done after was already in state of the question is regarding the sob where the whether the was done before it was baked or fried or the was done after it was baked or fried. But as it relates to the the third serving that for sure was done after it was a ready break. Now the had a checkmate riot to the toldi that I know that my dick is right was it says regarding was that it says regarding the so maybe the right maybe is right but told I'll prove to you I'm right because by the also says and therefore sure doesn't mean that the believer was done after it was in a state of why not and said because It's not possible. must be and it's not a what then is the right in the says why is it not possible if they're debating it regarding the why can't that be the regarding well because if you take the amount of oil that was put into the and the amount of breads that made up proportionally it'd be impossible to do a balo to properly mix the oil into all the breads that made up the and that's based on the fact that an ordinary was made up of 10 breads. So don't think of one bread, think of 10 breads. The however had 40 breads. So that the amount of oil to mix into 10 breads that's possible whether the breads are in a state of soyus or whether they were actually baked already. But if you want to mix it into 40 breads fish if it's soilless so while it's soilless it's porous it's much easier to make this taru but once you have the 40 breads you're going to take the amount of oil this reve and you're going to pour it into the 40 it's not possible must be that it was done in the state of silus if we're dealing with an ordinary I don't know I could hear it this way I could hear it that way from the both ways work from the both ways work it's a sh but I have an object objective proof that the way to it was only possible. It wasn't possible. That's what went when they told that explains what we just said. So the maser came in two forms according to it came in three forms right the terror says very clearly that if somebody wants to bring a maser so this is a mah that's going to be baked in a tanner we had earlier in the what if it was a different type of oven right a tan is a very specific type of oven you learn so you get very involved in a tanner and a there's different types of of ovens but the pik talks about a maf that this ma was prepared in there was two ways you could prepare you could prepare it in the state of you could prepare it in the of as mentioned earlier in is it's more of a it has some height it's like a paikin would be more of a a flatbread. Now the when it talks about the maf and describes these two types the says as follows. So if you're going to make it if you're going to make a then it should be don't have a mitzvah of instead of a mitzvah bel you have a so the started off and said there were three mat of she that were put into a well the three mat of she then you put she in the beginning then there was bila then there was there was a ma didn't have ba at all there was a mka that in lie of bila they did mik it's based on a passing of It's the where it's not being brought in the form of it's being brought in the form of how do I know that it's poss but if the was there was no would have thought I would have thought don't have a mitzvah because it says by still have a belief. Shouldn't you make a that the should have certainly they should have believ that have ordinarily doesn't have it has so you found one that has a new mitzvah should have the had in the form of didn't I would have thought this type of certainly what's this right is saying oh you have a what's the because there's a few times in the Tyra where the Tyra talks about the two types and every time the Tyra introduces it, the Tyra says the fact always brings it that way. That's a that you can't even make and you can't say the fact that the always presents it in this way. It's for that reason that we know that that's the way it's supposed to be. So again, so we have a big over here. We have a a mah that needed she but didn't have the mitzvah of believer. What was that? It was the mafana when you're bringing it in a state of in having a mitzvah. There was a mitzvah. What's very simple? You smear oil on top of the as opposed to where it gets says how was the done. It was done in the what was left over was my what does that mean? said key is actually a letter in the Greek alphabet. So if you want to know exactly what it's supposed to look like, so it's the letter key aren't exactly sure what that letter is. Some say it's a U. Take a look at the Mishna is right here. Maybe it's a V. Some say it's an X. Regardless, it was done with the shape of this letter key. I saw Pasha the Mafarian quote unquote say that presumably the reason the Tan used the letter key is because there probably was no letter in the Hebrew alphabet that properly described exactly how it should be done because if there was a if there was a letter in of the then you would think that we would have taken one of the Hebrew letters. Why are we running to a to a Greek letter to explain the way the which is brought in the in the Bdish? But the truth is we've spoken out in the past that there were very often times that instead of using they preferred not to use they used a from the I think it's a not so long ago with the but either way that's what it was it was they didn't smear the entire it was very different than the blue and the she had to get in all of the over here it was just they it was like a little something that they put on top something a little decorative. There was a little bit of it was a U a V an X but it wasn't the entire that had the oil on top of it more regarding the what happens if somebody's making and it's now who holds you could do that because you have two choices with either or is that you could bring so going world that was Or at least it could be. That was the third option of how you bring the maybe said they brought that was the you needed and they divided into half with that's what you're supposed to do. That's what you're supposed to do. And what they did with the was they did it on the entire what they do with the rest of the she put it into the mixture with the so this over here with regards to the way the first sheet and this presents the mitzvah of Mashik versus the way we had it in the Mishna. Number one the Mishna said that the Mashik was done. So we're not sure exactly what that is but it's the key of it's this Greek letter here. Here the Mishna says no they did on the entire the what do you do with the leftover oil it's over here the the says in the name and he's the one is the who holds that there's even such a concept there's a that's going to be exactly what the Mishna says so this is not a corruption and this is actually that's finally so we had so much in the lake here that's that the mashik was not done on the entire but rather it was done what about the leftovers it was another maybe a third so here we're talking about a regular that's being brought Not you do not. But here's the is that you keep on doing it until there's no oil after who is the t of our says smallish. Don't miss it. every single mah that was prepared in a such as the and the marash. So they need piso after they were baked or fried they would break it up. from the previous when the talked about you put and then you do and then you do the said over here the is going to say something else they're referred to throughout as and they are considered that were not because they were baked in an oven again the oven was mean that the oven was then not considered and that's what the when it says only were not considered to be they don't have the mitzvah of it says in the that's the teaches me the mitzvah of is going to every syllable in this. We learn from here from the fact that the says the rabbis call. So not only the that this is describing which is the but all have this I would think to be no it says to tell me there's something that's excluded. So on the one hand the word is not only the now if I know I would know as well why because we had on the top of the but between the that's why I know and by the so again the says let's just go through this clearly and the terror says we're by the if the terra says it by the I know by the as well now the says the word that's the rabbis what's coming to be not it says about I don't need a replay for that not I know that from so what else is it coming to be it's coming to be which is by the way why even though the Mishna said and in the previous gar we saw that the maf was not considered a because it was prepared in a tanner and the tanner was considered but at the same time it's from the extra word is the if the word is being the even though it wasn't even though I don't have the say maybe as well for that the for the also says on the then it says that this is not only true for the but it's true for all I would think I would think maybe as well just like we were regarding the mitzvah of maybe regarding as well maybe just that's why the say so meaning it's the same that teaches me that the maf has piso teaches me that the maf does not have the maf has the word in the mid that's why when the mish says the maf is included but at the same time the is also talking about another mitzvah by the and here it says and is And it's it's and that's why when the Mishna said the first what was the maf did not have three mat it only had two mat which didn't it have the why doesn't it have the now you know the rest of the story it's based on this limo the and I know through the but as far as it's going to be excluded. Now Paul again has said that not only are we prepared but when it's prepared as well as asks an interesting question if I have a coming to maybe the we saw in yesterday's that the was very different than the right was and it was just it was prepared very differently. So maybe that's the right we said there's not just one in the two it says and it says he needs two doesn't need it's one it's a which needs two because it comes in two forms it could come so the is telling me two oh must be we're talking about the because only the would need to be How exactly was the pisa done? So we've heard so much about pissa how did it go? So when you conceptualize it, I think very often the picture that comes to mind is they crushed it. And there is one that says that that's exactly what they did that they would literally they would literally crush it, grind it again, do with it until it got to but that's not the if it was how was the done? They would take the they would fold it into two then they would fold it into four and then they would cut it so it wasn't just one big thing folded into four but they would make it into four pieces if it wasn't separated and that was brought every day by the folded at all says the said number one I believe didn't have at all and finally the concludes with another that the had to be at least a it wasn't right it wasn't just the opposite it had to be it had to be a if you remember this is one of the reasons that kam was so difficult because if you're doing kam with a ores or a that was prepared first then they did the pisa then you did the kamitz so we know the k had to perfect. It couldn't be it couldn't be and each piece had to be so exactly how you going to get that inside your cognance is very difficult. That's why it was anyway that's the from the word I would think all right cut into two maybe pieces keep on folding it and breaking it and folding it and breaking until that so number one fold it into two what you folded into two make but that's it once you made what you folded into you're not making anymore Kate said you divide it that they folded but they didn't break says the B says They folded in the same way they folded the fold at all. When the Mishna says that they didn't fold the doesn't mean they didn't fold it at all. What it means that they didn't make it into four but they did fold it. They made into two. That's what the Briab said this if it sounds familiar is also so there's a dish that's called and we show them exactly what was but what we need for our is it was a dish that was cooked wasn't baked it was cooked and they would take bread this is bread that was baked and they would put it now and cook it together with this tapel so essentially you're going to have cooked bread. If the pieces of bread are the then that you're supposed to make is if the pieces are not the you make is so clearly the in this was considered the grain. It was the bread. The question is being that this bread in here is a or is a bread is always but over here it was b it was cooked. So being that it was cooked after it was baked but now it's cooked. So maybe the changes. So what's said? I'm going to tell you how this works. If the pieces of bread are a you make if the pieces of bread are less than a then you make I know this from he makes the which obviously we're talking about a that hasn't brought a carbon in a little while. So it's the first time this year he's doing it. So not every time you bring a car make so it's his first time doing it or first time he makes the if he wants to now eat he makes another he says so what do you make on you make but now we learned in the that we just learned the konaz that these had to have piso and the piso had to be a kazayas and what brought Is he making he's making and the say they were fried they were they weren't baked they were fried. So you see here that cooked bread that's a make first glance is only bringing to the first half of what he said two things said that has cooked bread if it's a if it's less than a make is bringing to the first thing that he said stating that told there was another meaning it's true in our mishna the tana holds that had be at least a but there's also who said they used to literally make it until it was it was silus again. So according to are you gonna tell me you should make because then it's a that's telling me that's yeah who said that he says but I bring you right from a bryer that you're wrong the is talking about where somebody had little pieces of bread I think the bread over there was we're not even talking about bread that was a that was and he was ate these breads and he ate it on. He did this on PES and it was if he did it on PE and was you could be of now if you could be the matashi that means that it must be that it's bread and you see over here that you're being leaked. So what does that by definition mean? It means that each piece is said from this even you still make so we're talking about we're at it's true each piece was he was but then he added something to it and he turned it into one piece and that's when he ate it. The point is that by the time that he was eating it, it was already one piece. That's why and you're right. In that case, he would have to make but says the price over there continues and says you have to eat all of it. What's the right now it's one piece? Why say it's a mash it's that it's it's many pieces and still you see if I was asking from this said there's a whole different case there was a big piece of bread and now from this bread there were little pieces that came off you were eat the little pieces you made it so although it's true each piece that you have now is but being that it comes from and the was still intact. It's for that reason that in this case you're going to make the ordinarily if it was you wouldn't make but here being that it's from you would make what's the bottom line even still make but it's only if it has a pass if it doesn't have a pass in that case you're not going to have so we went through this quickly there's really a lot here just the and the we're leaving a lot on table. So I am bish incidentally just one real life where the discuss you have bread that's being cooked or fried and now each piece could be you have a sh you make you make and that's matzah. So a lot of people eat matzab and pes but you're taking matzah which is and now you're breaking it into pieces each piece but you know what a kazay matzah looks like. So you know it's so you have these little pieces and you're frying them. So the question is right now do you make or do you make or do you make a mat? So some say that maybe there's a between the of the Ashkanaz and the right make on matzah the whole year the make on mat only on but the rest of the year they make and the truth is we're not learning now but if you go through the is really really you should make the reason we make those that do is because being that I'm matzah is the and everybody holds that for the you have to make a because there's no bread on thus it becomes the gives it to make a so once it's so the whole year becomes the is not that way no it's because it's the rest of the year it's not so it could be there's a mat or mat is really a is just because you're eating matzah so now you're going to go ahead and make but maybe in the case of matzah it would be a little bit different is different hogen but the bottom line is just one real life application as far as this goes. But just just to end today's d with one and that is the discuss he was bringing what does he make? He makes he sits down to eat. Which does he make? He makes sim. So we spoke out part of the night. So has a whole shear on on the that made when they ate kch and that asked the you only make when you sit down to eat what happened to the mitzvah as a mitzvah of course it's a mitzvah and the garra says in the end of that when you sit down to eat the carbon pes you had to make twoas you had to make the and then there was as well and that's it that it's not only true for mitzvah for true for all the whole flying back and forth but the bottom line is of course he made so the price addresses which is only he hasn't brought in a little while we talk about what happened to the should you have to make a exactly what is going to be but shouldn't you have to make a he it's not sure he doesn't know but that is clear there was definitely a mitzvah you have to know why it's not mentioned there's two regarding the number one just the nice speaks out means but the speaks out that any time would sit down to eat the that's where he's discussing it but really all that only was allowed to eat said his what was or he says no it was he says we know that the when he goes when he say he says it wasn't only when he single time a did a mitzvah that was totally he would preface it with that so if he sat down to eat the he would again exactly what the would be one other he speaks out very nicely is that we've spoken at raid many many times regarding that the mitzvah of is fundamentally different than an ordinary mitzvah and really just the the background to the raid not to go through the whole again but mentioned the gar again remember discussing The difference between the 40 years that Shimatic reigned as the beginning of versus what took place after Shimatik passed away and and Shimatic was no longer the Shimatic was but after Shimatic passed away the Gmorra. We're going to learn it soon at the end of Makis. It's it's an it's an impossible Gmorra to learn, but we're going to learn the Gmorra tells the story about Shimatic's sons that took over his his kohuna and you see the the the spiritual situation devolved very very quickly. Immediately after Shimatic passed away, there was a a phenomenal read. But the bottom line is the Gmorra says that it played itself out. It was very much manifest in the BD and the goes on to to describe that was always the always turned white was the was the didn't even have to add to the but other than that they didn't have to to do anything etc etc then there was always in the carbon so there was in the there was and there the would go to divide the we had earlier in the week you're not let trade mas but when they sat down to everybody got a good share everyone had a they could feel good about it there was there was so there was so much in the in the after passed away when divided upon him each would get he would get even less than as a result they would say you what it's fine. It's such a small I don't need it. They would go ahead and goes on to describe again different stories and what went on after passed away. But the bottom line is is that after passed away when they would divide these areas when they would divide the there was so little for each person to get each person got kapo and as a result it said it's fine. I'm not going to fight over it. I don't need it. asks we know that even though when it says in the means stating that is that that's only with regards to the but as it relates to the is but as it relates to what would be regarding mitzvah is there an idea to do a mitzvah so it's night and you don't have a kazia You know the gaz is there an eating a half a what about do you have as well because the gammorra says that when they divided the upon him and they divided and there was less than a for each so what did the kayam do they said that's we're not going to eat because they didn't have a gaz they didn't have they weren't going to be able to the mitzvah but if there is it's true they couldn't be the real mitzvah but what about the mitzvah that's why why is that akite it's a nice but you're walking away from a mitzvah because there was no but if then aren't they being the of so why would that's the all say it everybody in their own but all is from here from ordinarily the mitzvah is a mitzvah let's say that's there's a mitzvah for me to eat matzah how much that's my mitzvah the mitzvah for me to eat there was no mitzvah on the to eat the mitzvah was on the mitzvah was on the that it has to be it's a little bit of a hard lumbus but the mitzvah wasn't and go eat. The mitzvah is to make sure that it's eaten. And as a result, if I'm a cyen and I'm in charge today because it's my mish, it's my b and this kum in front of me, I don't necessarily have a mitzvah to eat it as much as I have a mitzvah to make sure it's eaten. So if you're going to eat it and you're also so I can be the mitzvah by you eating it. We'll be mim the mitzvah together by making sure that it's eaten. But there's no mitzvah to eat. If the mitzvah is to go eat that each person is only the mitzvah if he actually eats. If the mitzvah is for it to be then it doesn't really matter that it doesn't really matter exactly how it's going to be eaten. Bottom line is it says and all the true inherently. So of course maybe if it's all you have is one side of his maybe there would be an idea to eat the half his eyes but there was no point in eating it. Why? Because it was anyways going to be eaten. People were capping it the were taking care of it. they were going to make sure that it was going to be eaten. Being that they were going to make sure it was going to be eaten, there was no inion. The point is is that when it comes to just to look at it from another angle, there's no difference really between eating it eating less than a kaz and not eating at all. What matters is that it should be eaten. So ordinarily when you talk about is there but when it comes to even if you're going to eat you can eat less than a or it's all the same. Why not? Cuz at the end of the day, the mitzvah is to make sure it's clear. He says that's only true with regards to the but as it relates to the whatever is going to be when it comes to that says then already it's going to be different. And then you're going to need a and invokes the famous rash the rash is discussing and the rash says that has to be and why you say I don't know you have to be and the rush says and many rushes were said on this rush and there's a lot of raid that that's been said on this rush but the reason is it's an being that the said that you have to make a when you eat. It's for that reason that it's for that reason you have to eat a because means that you're eating and the is of the says you wouldn't have to eat a You have to eat is a famous for but you wouldn't have to eat a you know why you have to eat a cuz you're making you're saying is it says that the when it comes to you don't even have to eat it and if you're going to eat it you can eat it could be as long as it's in the even with it's not it's there's no there's no share there's no idea of eating But that's only if you don't want to make the but if you're going to make the now we're ready. You're going to have to eat a kazayas because you can't make an alilas unless you eat a kazayas. Just like the rush said the m really doesn't eat a kazayas. But being that you're going to make a and you're going to say so the of that will be a beautiful and adopted.