Menachos 90

Today's DA is and we are in the middle of the base the two dots. So the Mishna is discussing mid of the of that were that were and the very last line of the mission on the top of Pest said that the Kev the sheep that was brought together with the carbon. So the carbon was known as the but there was a ze that came along with the it was a and the when it mentions how much was supposed to be brought together with the says it was because ordinarily the amount of soilus that was brought with a that came along with an animal was one as it relates to the there was double says the even though the was double but was not. So what does that mean? It says that the that came together with the was to us rightly made learn from here that the sheer had to be double. It's double the ordinary. I would think that just like the amount of is double so too the amount of wine should be doubled as well. And we had on the Mishna on the bottom of Pas where the Mishna mentioned the different as it relates to how much wine was brought with different animals and when it's aval is it's supposed to be a re and you see that this also has reve but the wasn't I would think that even though Ma, the amount of soyus is doubled. The amount of wine is not doubled. And the reason that the wine doesn't get doubled despite the fact that the ma gets doubled is because there really isn't such a relationship between the wine and the wine doesn't get mixed together with the but maybe the oil should be doubled because it becomes part and parcel with the mean that the itself the is being doubled. It's not one and it's two. So maybe the y or the sheman that came together with the min should be doubled as well. Ordinarily the she that's coming with a that's coming with a is a maybe here it should be and we learn from there where do you see it in the word and really thear's question is that from vin we're learning two alas now we're learning number one that uh yen is not doubled and we're learning that the shemen is not doubled how could you learn both of those except Venisa because it says really in the vines the Korean of so this is a Korean except the way you read the word is Veniska the way you the word is written is thus we can learn not one but two so because you have a essentially you have two and the bottom line is that although the amount of was doubled for the hab But at the same time the amount of she was not doubled and the amount of wine was not doubled either that brings that was brought is it requires because if you're going to tell me that it doesn't require it's going to end up being apostle. So really in order to understand you need two number one is it's the first is not a it's not a thus an is not one of the exceptions to the rule the is the rule the is that if it was brought with even though it's so person bringing this carbon will have to replace it. he'll have to bring another carbon but at the same time it's kasher meaning you resume the thus if it was brought you don't say stop finish you can't beim you can't eat the baser no you could beim you could eat the baser you continue doing the but at the same time but at the same time it's number two is that an asham didn't have with the exception of an was an exception to the rule we'll see in the next and the mits Ra although it was an ordinarily an asham did not have the rule is that only a carbon that's has a not and as a result it was not but the did have said if was brought with it's should you bring your witness or should you not bring your witness on the one hand it's an on the other hand it's not really an because it's not fulfilling the obligation that the has he's going to have to bring another said is bring the and he gave a reason because if you're going to say don't bring the then what is it what kind of asham is this it's an or is it not an if it's an then you need if it's not an you shouldn't bring it at all the later is going to clarify why this of is unique to the and why you don't make this argument every time a carbon's being brought But at first asks a few questions that came together with carbon you should bring a with it and should be fool even though ordinarily the comes with a has x amount of soy but we know it's doubled when it comes to the and even if it's being brought the should be the same because if not what is it is it the then double If it's not the why you bringing it additionally if you should have a that you have to bring the which was brought together with every because if you're not going to bring then what is it that was it also had two but instead of it being brought by one was brought by and again the same logic. So why is pointing out this regarding the mask of has a as relates to the is what happens if it was brought it's cautious you're going to bring the carbon do you bring the do you not bring the say you bring the because if not what are you bringing so asked that was only saying this regarding the principle of this would relate to many that are being brought and the says you're right was just giving an example but takeon's principle cut it paste it apply it anytime you think it might be necessary so will still have to have and will have to be etc etc you're going to have to work out each one based on its but He said, and he said it for a reason. And the reason is because all the other that the asks from the they're all and as a result even if they're not to be brought as an because it was brought and it's so for example is going to have to bring another is going to have to bring another back. Same is true for the but at the same time this right now even though it's not the because we're going to have to bring another one. It's not the it's not the but it's still an because so there's nothing wrong with bringing it as a carbon despite the fact that it's not satisfying. But over here as it relates to the say there is no such thing as an either it's the or what is it? That's what even though it's but being that there's no such thing as an so this is that we could have had in the first parak. So even though it's but at the end of the day it being brought and there's no such thing as an asha. So how do you bring an as what? As an adva that's 101 is never brought the ter is you're going to bring it together with it's going to be brought this is a major this as an but at the same time it's not going to satisfy the that had as it relates to bring his own personal. So that was brought incorrectly either it was or the wasn't done in the proper way it goes on the this is the punch line it needs but at the same time it's you're going to have to bring another all the that we use in the mik and we're talking specifically the first part of the about The mid. So the peric began with said they were not two but rather three. Two of them were in. And the third one was it says all the use in the base of they were heaping mid which means that when you were going to fill up the mid of the is the only way to get the is what if you filled it all the way to the top it had to be heaping but if it wasn't going to be it wasn't going to be heaping you weren't going to get the full share. So the mida measured in is but it only measured in is if it was heaping. The mid measured but only if it was he with the exception of the mid that was used for the midesh was inside the cle itself meaning the cle was a little bit bigger. Thus the inside of the kali accounted for the fact that when you measure sometimes you heap it and as a result the way you got the full measurement of that mid was not by making it but rather by making it tomorrow we'll explain this a little bit better as it relates to the we had in the kadesh. So the foam that piles up on top on of the walls of the said itself was the phone was the itself was therefore the has nothing to do with that. the reason there's a difference between the of the and the is because liquid even the foam that ends up on the top of the kali at one point was inside the kali. So you're pouring it and what was on the bottom can go up to the top. It's a liquid. As a result the same is going to have kadusha as opposed to doesn't work that way. So whatever's on top was never really inside the ki and as a result it's not going to have kadusha. So you have really three in the Mishna theano and they're all saying the same thing. They're all saying that there's a between the as it relates to in terms of what the behind it is. They seem to be giving different reasons and that too the is going to clarify. But the Mishna began all the in the base they were all which means that when you measured it you had to make sure that it was heaping on top otherwise you were going to be missing in the share with the exception of the that was used for the says the who's the town of the mission mayor is the town of the mission mayor who's raor in the first mission of the per who said there were three mid there There was an is there was an is and there was a now if you remember the asked the cash mayor why do you need two mid that are in said one is the other one is the one that's was used for all the one that's was used for the and by the way the in the clarified was also used for the and as a result it too was but it comes out then according to there was a mid that was but how many one is again we're discussing we only have three to begin with according to the we know one of the and were which means you're left with one that's the Mishna says it's not true and if we're going according to theon according to the so certainly can't be the going according to the question is it's only one that is the Mishna says what does it mean when it says we had this earlier not mid but there were many different purposes that that midas of an isaring god served how Though there were certain animals that needed one is sorryari. There were animals that needed two iso. There were animals that needed three iso. And the mishna had said that they didn't have a special measuring cup for two and three. They would use the one and they would double it and they would triple it. So there were many that were going to be used with this one that was godish. That's what the mish means. all the that are being you done with the one that was either way. So we said there's a difference between as it relates to Beirut. So we've had now a lot here in the latter den of and basically means the foam or whatever is left on top of the mida. It's foam and a liquid. It's if it's a solid, it's just a little bit of soil that's on top. It's not within the walls, within the confines of the gali. Does it have kadusha? Does it not have kadusha? So the says everybody's of the same opinion. The tanakama and that there's a difference between tanakama saides agreed. But he added as far he says you want to know why theesh because the kal that was used to measure had kadusha the kum that were used to measure had no kadusha that's a big holds that the midh wasn't a it was a it didn't have kadusha and being that it didn't have kadusha there is aina that plays itself out as it relates to bey and finally Clearly said, "No, there's a whole different reason. There's no question that both had kadusha." The reason is the difference between of and of the of were once inside the were never inside the explains. What's this three-way is holds that there's a difference between the in terms of their inside of the kali has kadusha and the outside of the kali or the rim the top of the kali has kadusha. So beam even though they're not inside the kali but they're on top of the kali they're touching the part of the kali thus it has kadusha inside it has kadusha but on the outside it doesn't have kadusha that's why the of the have kadusha theim of the do not have kadusha why very simple because is not they're not inside the k they're on the top of the k does the top of the ki have kadusha there's a difference between the ka agrees had that's why the of the not only is it not the outside part that didn't have it had no at all the third he says did not have why then because moves. So what was once on the bottom can end up on top and as a result even the we assume it was the where's it coming from it's coming from the bottom of the that's why it has but the is it sounds like from that the only reason that the does not have that is is because it was never on the bottom was on the bottom it was and as a result it does have kadusha who cares appears that it was on the bottom and now it's on top when the was putting the into the he never had in mind to be mad more than what was needed and if what was needed is what's ever inside the walls of the kali it's only that that he has in mind should have kadusha so what do we say really the beay are not needed but they ended up on top because they were once on the bottom and As a result, they now have kadushaur to the extent that the same doesn't have intrinsic kadusha. There's no reason really for it to have kadusha other than the fact that it was on the bottom. But even when it was on the bottom, the k never had in mind to bead cuz he didn't necessar he needed whatever he was going to need. So why then does it have to do the didn't have to be and this is an idea that comes up a lot in so this be another you don't need to bead but when you put something needs because the reason over here that we treat it with is not It's so to speak. This that was on the bottom and now it's on top. It's not a real. It's just a more as it relates to the optics. What people are going to think they're going to look and they're going to say, well, this was on the bottom and now it's on top. And we're dismissing it as if it has no kadusha. Doesn't look good. It looks like we're being it's for that reason said that understanding of it that once it's on the bottom it looks like it was really in a at this point you can't be you have to treat it as it has never went to the bottom therefore I'm not worried about it but you're right in theory even the doesn't have kadusha and the fact that it was on the bottom once doesn't concern me because the d is only to be mad what he's going to which means whatever is going to end up within the walls of the clay. The fact that you were once inside the means you were inside the of but you need in order for the kadusha to go into effect and we assume that is only whatever he's going to eat at the end of the day. So again why does it have it was once on the bottom so that even though now it's on top it still has only on him digressed a little bit. He said that we're worried we're going to make we're going to take something that really has kaduca and we're going to say you can't treat it with you have to assume that it it's it's an issue based on what people are going to think the optics I'll ask you see there so we know the changing of the guard of the changing of the guardon all happened on shabas what happens if the was not changed on shabas but it was shabas it happened on Sunday is and then the following is the were brought upon him you can't eat upon him the reason is because has to be on the for a week it has to be there for seven days so being that the was put on the on Sunday and the were burned on the on it was there for six days not for seven days it's actually looked at as like an animal could be too young to bring as a carbon. Now what what are you supposed to do? Leave the breads on the for the following. It's not a problem. Why is this okay now? I understand on a level it's okay. But doesn't it look like we're leaving it on the for a very long time and people are going to think you can leave in a for a very long time and we know you can't leave Kachum in for a very long time because you run into what's known as so that doesn't work. So doesn't it look like you're running into a issue? Now the truth is no on the but not everyone's going to know that not everybody's going to know that. Shouldn't we be concerned? If we're worried, why aren't we concerned? So the Gmorra says there's a fundamental difference between these two. One took place in the Azor. The other one took place in the was in the so whatever happened in the happened in the people didn't have access to what was going on in the people came to the so says everybody knows what's going on only reason we're not worried about the so the it's fine we can make eye doesn't it look bad yeah but to who nobody sees so look bad is a problem when people are looking but there's nobody that knows what's going on and as a Oh, so who are we worried about? But in theory, you have to be much more careful when people are looking then you have to be sensitive and it's over there that it was in the again. Now we go if there was leftover. So there was and the Gizbar is not sure what to do with the what you do is you use it. You sell it, you take the money, you buy the purpose of those, if there was ever a time that there were no carbonas being brought on the you would take those and you would be m of it. It's based on a premise that the is never supposed to be idle. There's always supposed to be action on the what happens if there's no carbon being brought right now. So there was special carbonas that were designated. They were known as and their purpose was to make sure that there's always something going on. How did you fund those carbon? Where did the money come from? So there were different sources of those funds. One of them was and this is what exact means. So if somebody brought so for example or she or wine to the misb to the bas so he would fill up his container and he would bring it is he would have to overflow it would always have to be heaping there were always be roots there was a little bit extra what was done with those he would skim it the gizad put into a special area sell it that's the is referring to whose proceeds went mean something may if somebody is a seller of and he has an arrangement is a good account he provides the to the mikdash. So as much as it's a good account but at the same time he had to read the fine print because as we're going to see in a minute and it was very possible he could end up losing out financially anyways from the arrangement that was inherent to every single hectish contract. So the hectish contract read something like this that if he advanced money they gave money to this person they gave him a seller and based on whatever the going rate at the time for was he was going to be giving of and then the price of soil went up. So right now for a salah you're not getting four son but you're only getting three son. Now he received the money in advance. What does he have to do? He has to give what was originally agreed upon. He's going to have to give four. Even though right now based on the going rate, you'd only have to give three. It doesn't matter. You agree to a contract. At the time the price was four for a seller, that's what you're going to have to get. What happens if it was the reverse? What happens if the price went down? That's already because what do you mean? We agreed at a certain time. Now, because the price went down, I have to provide you more. You gave me a seller. At the time, it was three for the seller. Now, it's four for the seller. Why should I have to give you four? Yeah, that's and the reason is because that's the way it works. You do business with heftish, you have to oblige to that. But what that means is that there were times in the latter case that he was going to end up getting more than they paid for. They paid for three. That was the original arrangement. Three son for the now they're getting a fourthman with the extra that's in we have two. The mission says was sold and it was used the kites on his back. We weren't sure what that means. Either it means the Beiruten, the theme of the DA or it's referring to a case where somebody had an arrangement with he ended up providing more than what was paid for him. Says the a price that supports each of the respective opinions. What did they do with if there was another carbon to be brought? If they ended up being left at overnight, they become possible. And if there's nothing specific right now to use the for sell it what exactly was this like everybody took upon himself that he's going to provide and the arrangement was for the And now they went up. So it's three for the seller. He still has to give four. That was the original deal. What if he agreed three and now it went down in price? He has to give four. The price concludes like this is the definition of whether it's a carbon. They required to come along with the it's a long list of exceptions. So all right no not all we'll see more in the like we had earlier in the that even though the is but at the same time the mitz had and the mitz hadim as well. So the para of is in paras and the says as follows and it is a very long andar is going to dash in this pos now you have it on the side exhale. So it's a very long p clearly talking about carbon and the context over there is there's a to bring the wine together with the carbon that are being brought what carbon exactly so in this lies the answer to that question how from the words the introductory words of this it sounds like every single carbon Even a has wine. It says, "No, not a fact that it says, you would think maybe only." How do you know is being How do you know? Now, it's a type of, but it has unique. It has breads. It's only eaten for a day and a night. So maybe it's not included in how do you know the word is maybe just everything the uses the words and it teaches me only a carbon that can be brought as a needs so that even if it's not being brought it still needs but it's only a carbon that has the ability to be brought Any could be brought in could be brought in. Now sometimes you have a to bring sometimes you have to bring but the point is it can be brought only such a carbon has as opposed to a carbon that cannot be brought it's only brought such as they don't have the continues should I therefore say that any carbon that's brought because of should also be excluded. So that even though we said we're being maybe the only time should be included is when they're actually being brought. But let's say you're bringing an because you're obligated to bring an let's say you're bringing because you're obligated to bring a such as you bring and even though the but being that right now it's being brought as maybe they should be excluded meaning you tell me you're excluding the because they're being they're not maybe even when they're should be excluded. Now what's the answer? The answer is no. It's different. the the can never be brought as opposed to the can be brought. Thus, even when they're not brought, they still have a but says I need a for that to add that layer of the that nuance that shouldn't you need a source for that? Yeah. And we have one obvious once I have a that says any should be included into the and maybe even the that was born the the goats that are featured very prominently in the beginning of maybe they too although they were being that they were brought on maybe they should be included as well into that It says and we learn from there can be brought it can be brought as a for example can be brought as an so too anything that can be brought has a it's but a goat can never be brought no such thing as being a goat. As a result, it's considered that was brought every single is not included from the words it says. What do we learn from there? says I would think that even is included says that's why the said that's the last line of the Pass. What is that teaching me? We seem to have worked it all out. No, we didn't work it all out. We know that has maybe also has clearly it excludes. So very often when you have you're going to have to say right in the beginning it says is not actually says because the word comes from the that's what means it's doesn't have it has so by definition means a it means not an so I don't to be if so why then did the Torah say the words so says then teach me a completely different says and this is right in the beginning of the So if somebody decides that he wants to bring a carbon, how do you bring that's the way you bring it? Says I would have thought maybe you should have to bring both. read the doesn't say it says what are you supposed to do so maybe it should have to be so this tucked away is coming to be it's the commentary to a right in the beginning say B is a little bit misleading because it sounds like if someone's you have to bring bucker and signs two animals after the story of the it says and the talking about and it says it's coming to that the way you read a paral is explaining a parag but regardless That's what says you want to know why it says it's not to teach me that the word took care of that for me. It's to teach me something else maybe. But they want to ask a nice in light of another is why does two explain the when the says it doesn't mean you have to read both means one or the other isn't the one who said that in general if the mentions two things it doesn't mean both unless it says The context of was regarding someone that's so the says if someone's the question is or is it says that had the said then it would mean that it doesn't say it means argues says no means both who holds then unless it says the word it always means one. So why do I need a to tell me that when it says it means one? It doesn't say and if it doesn't say then by definition it should mean what I would have thought it says is a little bit of a connotation similar to thus you need a to clarify and tell me that that's not the flips argues within as it relates He holds that even if it doesn't say it if it said if that's the case the inf is a misleading when it says it's misleading doesn't clarified it inv that's to tell me that doesn't need if that's the case he says you don't need because it says meaning says that if you go through the beginning of even though right in the beginning the says so so far it sounded like it could be misleading but really if you continue the it's not so misleading because then the says you do it this way you do it that way what's misleading about it you're right the first p sounds a little tricky but go little you'll see that it it's not so misleading bleeding. So, okay, good point. So, why does why is it misleading world? Why do you need this? Well, is true. The Torah clearly later talks about maybe that's when he specifically said what if he didn't specifically say what if he said maybe there the misleading is real and maybe over there you would have to do both. another P that you don't have to do. So before we end speak out some raid part two of the of so the other day we spoke a little bit about what was the context we're discussing the mid one of the mid was the ra means re there's also something called the rein but ra always means a re and we mentioned that the re is important in the sug of kachin but really it's something And it's something that's very much for example if somebody drinks a he has to make a if you drink less than you don't have to make a kdish Friday night all require a if it's less than a ra you're not y additionally when you make kdes although you don't have to finish everything in the cup but you do have to drink a lug which usually in most cases is a So it's very important to know exactly what a ra is. So how much is a re? Let me mention a ra is alo is made up of six which means ra is a quarter of six which means a beta and a half. We assume a a beta bony come up with some sort of median number that's a number that's consistent across the board. If you use modernday metrics, you're going to end up with a beta being 1.87 ounces based on the displacement method. One and a half times that is approximately 2.8. Thus, it should come out based on the one and a half should be approximately 2.8 eight stating that stating that it's in his and he said it's not so and really based on the gives another way to determine the shear of and the does it based on using your which in that means the width of the joint of your thumb you take the of your and based on that there's a way to figure out the sh and the comes out that it's two by 2x 2.7. That's the essentially what the number is. It's 10.8 cubic. But there's another way to do it. And the Garra says that based on that formula, you can apply it to a mikvah and you can figure out what the sh of a mikvah is. So a mikvah has to be 40 saw. 40 saw can be figured out using bates because 144 bates to the s. So one way to figure out the size of a mikvah is using this displacement. It's a tedious process, but it' be 40 * 144. That's one way to do it. Another way to do what the Gumar says is using it is talking there's another way to figure it out based on that the paragraph of says is that when told us that the kala is bates based on the gamatria of the word you applying the principles of the which is that bates and b and can somehow interchange there's a there's a ratio there's a formula of how they correlate so you can figure out the based on it as B. So the point is is that there's another way to figure out there's another way to figure out the re and that is not using bates but rather using it. Huda says that when he came to Prague he was working on determining exactly how much dough was needed in order to be and he says he used both methods of he used 43.2 two of the word and then he used the bas and he came out with two numbers in fact the number that he got using his was double the number that he got or the amount that he got using the B and said what's going on these are two roads that are supposed to lead to the same place so how's it possible that one sheer one amount was double what the other one was and concluded one of two things must have happened either it got bigger or eggs got smaller And he says it's your dua. Nobody's getting bigger. And as a result, it must be that the eggs got smaller. And said if that's the case, we have a problem because so many of the shur based on eggs and people will sit down. They'll be mash the eggs old school instead of just having a chart and they're going to have to they're going to have a problem because the shurim are going to be off. So for example, he said raas is one and a half bim. It's not one and a half bim. It has to be doubled because it was one and a half based on the amb. But today's B are half the size. So it's going to be one and a half times two. It's going to be three B. The is 43.2 B. No, it's not. It's going to be 86.4. And then the most said that a is a half of it's not a half of it's double that. Theas is actually going to be the and the wrote this in his and he wrote it as that we have very big problem and we need to quickly inform the world that we have our completely wrong stating that there are many on the says that the as it relates to the reve that's the context is that says one and a half. That's the state that etc etc says. So it says that as it relates to Friday night which is there's nothing to talk about. You're supposed to be for the big he says the same is going to be true for which two is today in other words says the real is not like but and therefore it's pretty soft when it comes to so for example Friday night and as it relates to stating that is printed in And the held that the wasn't just it wasn't just a and it's not just he felt that it's 100% he was very much and he argues with the so whereas the hel that it's and the bru himself and the and the say that when it comes to for sure you're supposed to be m but when it comes to the raon you could be that without a question. It's something that you're supposed to do. So last time we spoke about this, we mentioned an anecdote of an exchange between fleckless the Yehuda's and the and the Yehuda where fleckless thought that the Yehuda was he thought he was because he accepted what he had told him and that is that the Yehuda was larger than the average man. He was that's what he referred to him as. and he felt that his experiment was flawed. But the bottom line is the didn't accept that and and most did not accept what fleckless held which was a total game changer and that is that even but regardless this is the basic background for this. So just a little bit of part two and that is I thought it was to go through what as it relates to this. So the was somewhat of a contemporary of the and he tumled about this as well. So what was the opinion of theamifer as it relates to so it's interesting wrote two chuvas as relates to it and the two chuvas contradict each other the first chuva that we're going to speak out is so it's and the asked the a beautiful question he said that if you do that that the are all 50 cents on the dollar today so anytime you find any share that's related to a beta you have to double the [ __ ] so he asked him a question that discusses the shear of an how big or how small can an be says if it's small it's possible meaning the minimum shear of an aster is that it has to be a bay so the asked if that's the case if the bates of today are half of what they really were so to come out that the shear of an aster is double what kazal told It's not a bay. It's the size of two b and the told it's very hard to find an answer that big. It's very hard to find an aster that's going to be the size of two eggs. But he said if they said the reve is not one and a half b, it's three. And the is not a half a ba, it's a full beta. And the is not 43.2, it's 86.4. Then the she of an aster is not one bet, it's two beta. It's the same formula, right? So if that's the case, he told I'm not sure how we can even IT'S VERY HARD TO FIND SUCH an asteric. we're going to have graces. That was the question that he asked. So told him a beautiful love. This he said that there's a fundamental difference between all that are related to and the sheer that has to be said of the says in many places and in other places in all. So we know that the were really he said this is how much you have to eat. This is how much wine you have to have Friday night when you make when told us 43.2 This was all a march so to speak. It was just a way to describe to the exactly what the she meant in practical terms. But the was an absolute amount. That's like the says the of the is not the sim to use a yeshiva term. It's it's not the sa it's the simmon. The shir is not the bay. The shir is whatever the sh is. People how do I understand what the sh is? Oh, it's like it's like a kaz, but the kaz was just the description of an otherwise absolute share. That's true. Says the share of the aster is different. Says why? Because the says what's the basis? How do we get from an aster to a reason is because the refers to an aster as a pre? It has to be a pre and what kind of pre a small pre an aster a small bait. that's considered already a pre. So if it's going to be the size of a small egg, then we can look at it as a pre. If it's not going to be the size of a small egg, then it's not going to be a pre. The criteria for the is not some absolute esoteric sh that was given from etric. If it's not a peri, it's not going to be an asteric. SO SAYS THE WHAT DO I hear that the went up and down? It's irrelevant. WHAT'S RELEVANT IS RIGHT NOW THIS aster that I'm taking is it a pey? Look at an egg. If it's the size of an egg, it's a perry. If it's not the size of an egg, it's not going to be a perry. If it's the size of a egg, but it's not the size of an amigga egg, who cares? We're handling today. We're not handling what once was. So says the if the she is an absolute number has nothing to do with the egg. Has nothing to do with the has nothing to do with the has nothing to do with 43 eggs. It's a number. Just told us the way for us to determine that share is by using eggs. Well, now the size of the egg change. So I have to readress how I'm going to figure that out. That's because there's an absolute share. There's no absolute share of an aster just has to be a double has to be a perry says pre. We always emphasize here. The emphasis is on perry. It has to be a it has to be a perry meaning like a small egg. Now it's already considered a perry. As long as it's like a small egg today, it's a perry. You can't tell me it's not a pey. I based on a mulus standard, who cares what we're discussing today. We're not discussing what once was. That's the lumbness of the but then the ratchets it up and he says, I'm going to take this lumbus one step further. You know something I'm not sure I agree with the whole premise of the night of Yehuda. The night of Yehuda understood that when the were given there was no shir of aas but there was a sh the sim of the way to know the sh was measure the kazayas. So what happens if the kazum change then the weight to figure out the shar is going to change as well. So if the bum are half the size everything's half the size. So you have to double whatever the mar was says like does that is it so posh that's the case maybe not maybe was maybe that is the and if the zas changes so then the changes so maybe the amount of matzah that the dahbar ate is different than the amount of matzah that we have to eat you know why cuz the shir is a kaz AND WHATEVER THE KAZAYAS is that's what you're going to have to eat and says it makes sense because it's reasonable that the kazayas is relative to its surroundings to the person that's eating it to the size of the person. So Kazay is considered. So if once upon a time Kazay was a relative to that world it's you're talking is still the relative to this world and says a beautiful punchline. He says that the truth is kazal say that when the yuden entered so the payun right the mira came back with a report did not look like the gaz that we have these were monsters sized fruit he quotes two garas one gar that he quotes there says it says in parishes one of the is and gives two of what it means brings in the beginning What does it mean? It's going to rain on Tuesday night and it's going to rain on Friday night. It always rained on Tuesday nights and Friday nights. And when it rains on those nights is a special that's and you know what happened then? The kernels of wheat became as large as kidneys. The barley were they were the size of olives. The adash the lentils were the size as says what happened certainly existed when the enter but the bottom line is says the wasn't either though the way we think of it as these were monstersiz. So let me ask you a question says if you didn't enter right now and they have to be says you want to know what a kazayas is a kaz you want to know what how much you have to eat a kazayas they pick up a kazayas it's the size of a watermelon so what are you supposed to do one time and you need three kazim or right how you going to do how am I going to do this it's going to be impossible so you can tell me one of two things either go now to your gentile neighbors and ask them you know maybe they have there's a supplier maybe from India who's sending in olives and go find that's what happened. He says not it's that the original information of was given for this d by the way the says that even though there's an something so the parish ARE IN A PERFECT WORLD THAT'S it's completely irrelevant. So it says that if you're going to tell me that today's B are not no gay as it relates to determining and today's kaz is not no as it relates to determining that means the kazayas and the head had when they entered was also not neg and he says I find that very hard to believe the was not an absolute shir and the kazayas and the cab is just the way to know the shir but rather the shir was the kazayas it was the now dom change of course they change do bumm change everything changes is with time things change things get says things get small he says by the way things get bigger too things change with time and being that things change it must be and if they gave us a shar the sh was supposed to be an absolute share says I vehemently disagree with the whole premise premise was it was an absolute share we're just using the ba to back into figuring out what the share was if the size of the bum changed then we need another method to back into the share the method is no longer a useful method besides the I don't think that's true. I don't think there was an absolute sh I think the sh was kaz the sh was which is a if the bates changed and the sh is going to change and you're right today our sh is based on today a thousand years ago maybe it was something else 2,000 years ago maybe it was something else the are not but rather they are so just to read the punch line of he says everything is based on the time and if felt that at the end the day I still want to be but to go ahead and and tell other people that it's going to be for them and not just that to be of because the is asking a good question maybe what can come from it so there could be kas that are going to come about from the now parathetically it's worth saying that the tr when he brings it if he writes it that His rebu never meant a lulu even only meant a lumbra. So as much as himself had the self-confidence in the sh but he understood he was not saying a lulu he was. So for example let's say somebody really is making baking bread and he has 43.2 but he doesn't have the 86.4 for it doesn't have to be a sh you shouldn't be mafala never said that just said don't be mafish with a another would be another would be so you have a oner for example you had to give it to eat so you try to give it so you can eat a much bigger share maybe never said that he only meant he didn't mean it but the bottom line is concludes he says never you don't say unless you're 100% sure and I don't believe this who this theory is 100% that was the previous in that case I think even the is going to be to what I said so again this is just some excerpt of this the problem is there's one other we won't go through the other cha but there's one other wrote another chuva as relates to and this is in over there he starts with the slacks experiment and he says refrain margles also made the experiment and then he says he himself also made the experiment and he feels bad he says don't think that I don't trust the huda and the zyra molas he apologetically says why he did it as well but the bottom line is is he says he did the experiment and he found what the found look what he writes so like You have to be only he said only if it's 86 and a half then you do what not and this is where the says a major that requires a whole that is my you know somehow set to distinguish between the re and the so although it's true with regards to you have to double the sh like but as it relates to the kaz you don't have to double the sh but the problem is we have a steer in the infu with lumbus and that we spoke out it's to see it inside we spoke out so in this beautiful chuva the goes and he says I disagree with the whole premise from a Lond perspective and then he says so so which one is it so really the way to figure it out I mean there's one way to do it you have to know when the two chas were written chronologically so was written the last line of the gave us the date that he wrote the truv it was written y so it was written in 1821 one on a Thursday. When was written? So it was written also on a Thursday. So they were both written in the same year. They were both written in 1821. One was written. The other one was written. But the bottom line is is the one that was written in was written first. That means where the vehemently dis opposes was the first cha that he wrote where he comes out like was the second cha that he wrote. So just based on the chronology it would seem that at the end of the day held he came around maybe that's when he made this experiment. He came around to he was masked.