Menachos 79

Today's is we will begin from the Mishna on the bottom of we're moving along in which discusses the of the carbon and as we've seen the carbon was a type of carbon what was unique about the carbon tida was two things number one it came with bread not just bread but 40 breads four minim one min three minimum of matzah each min was made up of thus together it was 40 breads another thing that was unique about the carbon is that it was so though the carbon was aim so that by definition it's ordinarily the was unique in that it was I think it's worth mentioning in the beginning of perils carbon just to get a little into the spirit of the carbon. The ram is talking about the carbon and the says the essay to bring and is made up of four. One of the four is the other three. What's the [ __ ] Says the rama that's the there was one. It was brought on together with it was extremely unique in that it wasn't like all but rather it was it was only regardless that's one of four types of it's the in addition there were three types of says the first is the classic and the ra gives examples And that's usually what's meant meant when throughout use the word they don't usually mean the which is the they don't usually mean the other two types of that the RAM is going to mention in a moment but rather they're referring to the that's two examples are the brought the type of is that's a that came together with bread. The second type of says the ra is the carbon the carbonid comes together with it's interesting that the ra refers to the carbon as we mentioned on Friday where says who brought the carbon we said it's that say that it's not only but really any person that wants to when he describes the carbon he says It sounds like the carbon is never it's never that you're to bring a carbon rather it's always the third type of that's the carbon naza used to bring when he completed his nazer when the naza completed his nazer he brought three carbonas he brought an aa he brought a schlamim and he brought a kas theim that the used to bring is the third type of it too came with saw that onra that's what's referred to in as regardless says the when you talk about a schlim you should know there's four types of there's the also known as the came together with there is the classic that had no it was the gives two examples the there was the carbon it was a type of schlam and then there was the nazer which was also a type of schlam. Regardless, we're discussing, of course, the carbon taida, which is one type of carbon schlams, as we'll see at the end of today's daff and really into tomorrow's daff. There are times that a carbon gets treated not like a carbon to like a carbon schlam. It's based on the fact that a to is really a it's a subcategory of schlam like the raam lays out very very beautifully in regardless one of the themes of shabas was that the carbon to which was made up of an animal and breads there was a connection a zika so to speak between the carbon and the breads in fact the the way that they became was that was in the carbon. So in the animal that gave the the specifically the Mishna said it was the it was the carbon that gave the kadusha which would mean that if there was some in the was done improperly the would not have kadusha and that is the topic of the first part of today's talk to what happens if the of the carbon was done with over is even though the wasn't possible and the is what gives the still nonetheless the going to have the what happens if the was done they found that afterwards that the animal was afad the difference between the two cases I mean in both cases he had in one case it was poss because it was stating that in the first part of the in the second part of the the difference is because in the first part the happened in the second part the happened before the now we didn't know that it was possible until after the it's hard to know an animal's a tra sometimes until after the animal it was only afterwards but once it was it was a mil that this animal was a tra in other words one entered the azor already possible the other entered theor of the made the carbon impossible. There's a rule that rule applies to this and being that in the ratio the happened in theor even though the carbon is possible now and you need to be but despite the fact that the still is going to be in the case where it was infl So it was the happened before the animal entered the a is not a at all. I mean that that is not a at all that is not going to have the ability to in other words the mission is saying a very big that even though the of the so you would think if the is possible how in the world is going to get it's possible for how's that possible if it's a that happened in theor that type of isn't enough to say that the isn't going to be kadesh it's enough to say the is not kosher this person is going to have to bring another carbon But at the same time the is in order to say that the is going to be it's only if the was notes that the is not going to be now what's the precedence to say very important in terms of understanding today's and that is the whole called what's the theme of you can have a carbon that's possible and still they could bear ordinarily if a carbon's possible there's no the first mission of What does that mean? that even though the carbon is is kasha but at the same time you can't go ahead and you can't continue to to do the avoidance with it because there's a concept there's a a concept that if possible can't put it on the there's no stating that the Mishna says there's an idea that the could take apostle and say that as long as it's on the put on but the If it is in you leave it on the but not have the of that if it's poss you can keep it on the one of the rules that governes is this rule if it's happened in theor you have the concept of if happened before it entered the such as it was then you're going to have that even if it goes on the so you see concept of between as it relates to is it a good or is it not a good so it's a similar idea it's whether it was or whether it was in all cases the is not in the sense of course you have to bring another carbon it's a pos but there is an idea that even could have certain you find it in the that even though the was but now that the on maybe that is going to Here you have it too with regards to even though the but maybe the will become the rules are very very similar where you have you can have we have you can have that being that either way what happens if the was done and they found that afterwards that animal was never say that's already and at first glance what's the difference between an animal that was and an animal that was in both cases the happened before it enter the going to ask if or other animals that come together with breads we was not called and this is a very for two reasons. Number one, so it's a why is it different is that why should be any worse and besides we're dealing with a carbon is always so I can hear it a little bit better. But why should a have the answer is yesterday's says it's learned from that that's brought is not and as a result is the is going to bring now a long- winded bry and really the subject of the is and how to learn the rabbz and that was mentioned in our mission. So we don't have the because the is about to do that. any of the happened after and the BR gives examples the examples that our mission gave because that happened after it was already after it was already in the it happened at the time of the happened before the is not going to be what was found to be Again what our mission say mayor is again going to the if the was if the was that it was it's according to it's according to Yeshua it's like says I have a different version of what they never argued regarding is agreeing to what mayor said he's also agreeing to our mayor said I agree everybody holds this is where starts going off on his own he says that relates to if the was done with the they found afterwards was everybody holds because at the end of the day what's the difference There's no over there's no that says over there says in other words arguing on two points according to everybody agrees and emphasis on ish says according to according to according to everybody uh agrees that it was if it was like according to is going to be according to is going to be meaning according to Yehud's between said this is all in Yehuda's version of I said what should be the difference why because So how in the world could be any different? I'll tell you because in Rahuda's version and both agree that is going to be possible said you're right is possible is also possible. And if I'm comparing it to where it's and you're comparing it to which is let's sit down and let's see is more similar to more similar to if it's more similar to then we'll compare to now we're going to compare it to. Again, everybody agrees. If you sh the carbon become everybody agrees according to that if they carbon and they found afterwards that the carbon was the lesser is it going to be or is it going to be said it's going to be like said it's going to be it's going to be sitting down and they're going to sort this out. They're going to say, "Let's see. Who's it more similar to? Is it more then we're going to both agree to compare it to if it's more then we're going to compare it to started first." He said I mean to me it's pretty obvious is more similar come together throughout the learnation between the two and and and they're fundamentally similar because they're both and as opposed to there there's something wrong physically with the animal. It's not said I can hear it differently. have a similarity. They're both in the there's nothing physically wrong with the carbon but it's all in the but at the same time at the same time one has carus other doesn't have carus I think it makes more sense which also doesn't involve continued and he said you're telling me has to be there's precedence in that I'll show you a case in we And it's like the last line of the mission. Nobody argues with that. Says the he hasn't heard that. The second he said that even if you want to tell me that you're not going to compare it to but at the end of the day I can find you that's also the rebel came around and was version of the rebel and Yeshua. was actually a resolution and that is masking Yeshua. He came around and he he agreed that if the was brought was done with is going to be says the obvious question. There was a between if the was done it was and was done and it was we said it's not everybody agrees is just the opposite over there it was going to that's where it's going to be. So clearly there's a in the world to be between and what's the difference that both if the rulers but then is also notes says we're talking about not an ordinary we're talking about a that was in the of the animal it's really based on throughout the is that if an animal has a so what oh if it's then you see that with we look at it as a on some level it has a with regards to the like we spoke out right at the beginning of the that there's a parallel between this of being and the allowing of so being that there is a type of mum that has this that's the was referring to when he said that it's right an ordinary where it's you see it's not a at all and such a wouldn't have the ability but one who holds that type of it's going to Yeshua. What about Rab Yeshua? Raish Yeshua agrees to the premise argues the parallel between the right here. So if Yeshua agrees with that and it's only then the rea as much as it's true there is a similarity between the two but it's not the same only meant with regards to he never meant with regards to meaning in Yeshua's world there's three majas there's a that's so ple that it does absolutely nothing. Then there's a a that's possible that can at at least be and then there's a that's possible that can't be but it could create with what it was says. says, "So this is a nice what does it have to do with our because again the theme of the first part of today's daf is is that there's a similarity between the of the and its ability to be and its ability to create the of the of. So if we have a we may be able to trace the source of that in our right here and says the we very easily can very Yeshua holds like Yeshua Yeshua that holds according to Yehuda's version of the like this Yeshua and Rebaz that uh is that would then mean it doesn't have a at all as it relates to the said whereas that says that is like it has the ability to be if it has the ability it's also considered with regards is going to be a very said like that says holds like says why was heer says the rebel because really predicated and the said at the end of the price what happened was and hinges on then obviously rabbi must have been as well some Even wasn't and say has a nice because what was the reason that was Yeshua was arguing that should be because they're both said I think should be like because they both don't have a chorus. So what did says I'm going to resolve it because I'll find you another case of where is and it was because of that reason as what's the regards to so although it's true that is it's not a regards to but at the same time it is a with regards to so Yeshua's checkmate that cause is a it's not a says over there the argument was even if you're going to compare it to what's going to be it's going to be a therefore even though but at the same time was exhale. This concludes a pretty difficult again it's it's a test that really it it mirrors and it parallels very much a whole paras one of the more difficult and again what's the takeaway from this that not all were created equally not allo are the same that's an idea that features very very prominently when you look there are times where an avoid is such a bad aid such a parcel of that even if the go on there's no of you put on the even though it doesn't matter it's such a bad it's so pel it's so from that it should even have the ability for the then you have times where you could do an could be And there is a concept of which means it's a it's a wed that is a it's not just all right it's leave it there. No, it's a it's a it's a and there's so there's an idea within sometimes it's all possible completely from and sometimes no even though it's possible you can't do with it etc etc but at the same there is an idea of there's an idea of that is something that's important in the carbon because in carbon you need the what about is is do you treat it like be itish maybe that's possible but you treat it like or do you treat it now like again it's the same whatever would be considered a with regards to would be considered with regards to whatever would not be considered with regards to would not be considered as it relates to the of some differences but either way that's the one of the one of The interesting things that came out from this is that the way understood and the it comes out according to the between very interesting that if the was done with then is going to be if the was done with a then is going to be like and this is a good trivia question because it's from the very few places really that you have in in a real between usually the is the is there or is there no and here you have where there's a fundamental difference between that was done with again what does that mean to eat the to or usually the is that both the same they're both called piggle one is carous one is not car but you have A VERY BIG ACCORDING to it's going to be like and the question is why what's why should there be a difference between but really the answer is in the in the very basic lumbness that we've spoken at many times one of the themes of such one of the important fundamental principles you have to have to understand some of these and that is is that when you talk about piggle there's a a called carbon which means the garra says In order for a carbon to have piggle in the sense that if somebody eats from the boss, you'd have to do a with this carbon. And now first glance is when you bring a carbon. So you want to reach from a carbon. You have to do you need a in order for the carbon to be in order for carbon to be piggle. You also have to do avoid as if to say carbon can't just become pigle. You need dollar to make it pigle. What do you mean dollar? It's a possible carbon. True. But in order to have this type of you'd have to do the same you need to make a carbon beza in the kasher sense you need in order to make this carbon mirat in the sense in order for it to be a a mach's pigle if that's the case if if that's the case every piggle really needs a needs a kabalo it needs a it needs a if it wasn't a wouldn't be able to be pigled that's why There's another issue with the carbon. It never becomes pickle. Right? The only time a carbon becomes pigle is if the only problem with the carbon is the isle. But let's say there's another issue. You also had by one of the other. It's not pickle. Why not? It's a difference. I had because you need that the should have one of the other then by definition you didn't have. So there's no way to make the the carbon pickle. If that's the case, you see clearly Obey in the par of that between the is the otherwise it couldn't be you need it for the so by definition if the carbon is going to become it means so once the but there's no anyways of the of the has no chorus. So if it has no chorus, you don't have this that the was that the is so maybe it's going to be. So really the the premise to understand this complicated regarding whether it's really boils down to the most basic fundamental in understanding's piggle. pickle isn't just a this a carbon pickle and a becomes carbon pickle which means that by definition a with a is a because if it wasn't a then the carbon wouldn't have there'd be no way for it to be big if it's a there's no reason that it shouldn't be able to just to go down memory lane for a second and that is we always speak out to brings in that one of his master says whether that says even if you can't see the still it's it's so they're going to have to now pay the because the B is going to have to bring another carbon they were even though it's you don't see anything they didn't physically cause any damage but thus they're going to have to reimburse the B so asked he said that if did. It comes out wasn't a real we know the who is the big gets because the head shot. If you're getting malus if you're getting malus you don't pay because we know 101 the first 101 you never like I don't understand the whole of if they were comes out they never did the wor once they get they can't pay because they're like so the stencils they bring the said the cash is the toys. He says why? Because when a does a mash is piggle, he is doing the cuz if he wasn't doing the would it be it has to have a because if it doesn't have it couldn't be if it's so when the says wasn't at all but to the extent that it's an a bad but at the end of the day and being that it's an that's why is he's not going to be But again it's this that the avoid that are done in a carbon pig are avoid this is a good for this idea Mishna had said if the of the carbon was done and then he gave other examples of a that comes together with breads where the was that the breads don't become that the breads don't become these are not only true It's true for other schlammans that come together with breads. What two examples number one that's brought and you have also the you want to give examples of that comes together with breads. So what's your example? The example is that was a car that was brought one time. It was a one-time event. I have a much better case something that's actually once upon a time. So says the answer must be that that was the first that ever came along together with pres. So as a result the time of the of course the is true for every as well as the Mishna is going to digress now and it's going to go. So we're talking about the relationship between the carbon toida and the toida and this concept that if there was something wrong with the avoid that was done in the carbon toida it would impact whether or not the become or don't become says the on that note we know that there were many that came together with there was a there was the says the what happens if you put the it was all in a cliche and they found out afterwards that the carbon that it came together with was possible. If there's another then you can bring these together with another carbon that's the right if they had they were out overnight they're going to become possibly soar is going to explain this Mishna but the point is you see right away a similarity that just like so the carbon that can come along with that to the carbon therefore even if it But there was something wrong with somehow going to impact the laws of how exactly is it going to impact it. So just like the beame so the says so the entire is so the says we learn from there is what gives Our mission said the Mishna said that if and now we found out that the was so if there's another meaning the don't become possible you could take the and bring it together with another garbage says the my isn't it talking about where the soul happened in the meaning there was never a so if there was never a then why are these even if it's what does the Mishna say either tag it along with another carbon or if it becomes if you don't have another carbon it's going to end up being possibly both of these suggest that it has kadusha the fact that you need to stick it at to give it to another carbon that means it has kadusha additionally the fact that it's possible means it has kadusha because doesn't become possible only becomes possible. So it says to that if we're talking about and said that if the becomes possible if the was it never got its why do you have to put it together with another why would it become possible enough says it was when the says it means the happened after it happened says the command is this going according Omar. So who's this rabbi? So sends you to there. topic was the one of the more complicated Goras in the zik between the you need the in order to be there was over there between and when you say you need the ins does it mean the and without the alone be enough the gammor's timing that the same sh you have regarding the kips should relate to this as well Meaning if you're telling me that the is according to that holds that the and the it's probably the as well that is probably not unique it's probably not exclusive to the it's probably true for all that come allas that come together with something ancillary with something tough such as a ze and a so the tiny bishim according to rebi that told by the so as long as he had even it's already and if not it's going to end up becoming possible the point is it's but according to that held in that you needed the it shouldn't work to tell me that it was because it was you need could be just that it's thus and why should it be possible at all because what happened was it became possible during the but there was a good and there was even a good cababala who cares it was a good cabala is what's m together with he like his father holds. You see it's true. need. But once you do a thus it says if you did that's enough already for it to be again we're talking about when you have a carbon that came together with and now the zak became possible but it became possible after the or after the so the wereades are ready and now there's something wrong so you can't bring the anymore together with this carbon. This carbon is possible. So if there's another carbon, bring it together with the other carbon that if you set aside shem for a particular and then something happened to the you can't bring it with another. So why then could you take these and bring it with another carbon? What's the difference between the that's tough to a carbon that if it was set aside for this carbon and then something happened to this carbon you can bring it with another carbon whereas the she that was set aside for one then something happens you can't bring another said must have I mean that our is that isd must have made it said that when you're doing it a lot tonight that if something's going to end up happening with the carbon. You're not going to be able to bring it together with this carbon. You'll bring it together with another carbon. So why would we assume that there's a when it comes to there's no when it comes to the she'll tell you the she is part of the I mean that it's it's part of the so it's different. Why is it part of because it's and even though we're talking about where it was only set aside the didn't happen yet but it's it's made to be and as a result it's exactly it's and as a result the says why didn't they make a different tonight why didn't they make a that if they don't need and it should go I understand why if it was set aside for this you can't go use it for another and the reason is because It's considered part of this. But make a different tonight. Why don't you make a that if you're not going to need it can go? We're afraid that people might think that you're allowed to take something if you're worried about. So why do you make why are you saying that could be used for another carbon? Why aren't you worried that people are going to say that you could always do it? they're not going to realize all the information already dressed that cuz he said the only time it works if there was a carbon sitting around. Meaning you see you can tell right now it mean the the the innocent bystanders aren't going to realize that the were for this animal that they were for another animal. If it's going to be that yeah what happened? It was part of a carbon now it's but if there's two for this and instead we end up using it if you sit you let it wait for 5 hours. So again, maybe there is people are going to think that it's indiscret. You could just go ahead and and move from one carbon to another. But if it's there's no way any is going to come from this. But we know what happens if there's no then it's going to be possible. Meaning you're coming out now. You're telling me that the only time it works in this case you had a carbon and something happened to the carbon after the after the cabala. Something possible came to the carbon. So what do you do with those? If there's another right then and there, you can attach it to that. But if there's no what's coming out is is then there's nothing you can do with it. It says what did say that if there's no if there's I mean if there's no other carbon to attach it to, it's going to end up being possible. If you want to give me a case of where it's possible, you could have given me another case. What was the miss case? case if it ends up being possibly then it's going to be possibly this could be possible in a much quicker if there's no so why do we have to jump to where it was to present a case of where it became possible if there's no already became possible so that's the way you have to read the mission not if it became possible and it's possible but rather if there was It's already and therefore it's going to be possible says. So what came out was is that says what was that based on? It was based on meaning the fact that you're allowed to transfer it from point from carbon A to carbon B really shouldn't work. said that you can't take the she that was set aside from one and now attach it to another the only reason it works is because it's a mash is that there's no it doesn't work and as a result how could the have said that this the is predicated on doesn't that's the we're about to learn but really before we learn the gum just to understand the gar ties into something we've spoken about a few times recently. It's so ag but at the same time it's very profound and that is where is where do you have in today's we didn't have I mean the first part of we had we had we had we had all the all the we had we had and the said that who holds ordinarily that with regards to the that you need a good and a good in order to be mad the So the same would be true as it relates to that come together with a and at first glance the wasn't sure how to reconcile our and the said you can make our with how we say holds like his father who holds so that although you need a and to bear thus you need a and they come together with his but as long as he did and now it's it's already that would be enough. So we said that the Mishna could not we can make it work as long as he holds like his father had and that's already had a but says is going to hold the problem is the Mishna is predicated on and doesn't hold but you holding It's very because again the gar is not the just said would have to hold like okay so he holds like and he holds not like these complicated who holds that you don't say it's again that to say would argue rebel would argue apparently was a big to the clear that's what the Because knows we're not discussing shim. The knows we're discussing. And just because we use shim to make the Mishna work with because of a whole different doesn't mean the mission is the Mishna is who said the Rim says the mission is but was son was. And it's always av to assume that a argu it's a very big even though you find you had it in today's you have arguing with and and the right was but they're allowed to argue is allowed to argue with brings it brings it says you find it throughout but one one of these ideas that we've seen a few times recently is that it's always a it's not to assume that is not like is a big how could nobody talking about and it's that he held like his father so you wanted to make the work of you were able to address one point but at the end of the day after the mishna hinges on doesn't hold. How do you know that? What happens if the leftover leftover animals He can't be paid. Why did you be when they buy these these animals that if they're not going to need it? So become if our mission is predicated. That's the case. How could the be there's another is you could always be those animals. Let them get them be po the animals take the money buy different carbonas. There's a way out. If there was no way to use it for another carbon, it would end up being possible. We don't want it to be a possible. So, does hold a mass and it depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At the end of the day, this Mishna withita and as a result, the Mishna with Corruption.