Menachos Daf 102

All right, that's base. We are on the very bottom line of olive almond base. So we were talking about the two different sort of Asia and we were using the of Shimon who holds that there won't be a olive by Astoria unless there was an active and we were going through the braces and we brought the from the Duma where Shimon had said that the paraduma is going to be to my cycle because it had a and Shimon went so far to say that even if this the paraduma even after it's and it's about to be burned it's also considered a kosher. Now tomorrow the government culture culture been culture the middle of by and we're assuming at this point in the that the was Rica. So you had a and therefore there was a where there was a moving over to the and if he had done his Rica without it would have been kosher. So therefore it should be based on this but I don't but still the it's not. Now the is assuming my love the is Rica and therefore there was still a after the and it was shy to the cycle. So why wouldn't there be according to Shimon to which the says you're wrong with your the is we're talking about a case where the was the is and therefore it never had a but Shimon is Rica my what would be the is by this Rica okay now but that can't really be the case that it would actually be but then because we why do we switch from a carbon of an animal to a carbon as the alternative lift like but when does the take a carbon not to my cycle that'll be the is Rica. I will is Rica to my cycle but that same animal if you are by this Rica then it would be to my cycle doesn't that make more sense for the to talk about the same carbon and only make the difference when the took place. Why are we jumping over to to which the says no no the really does want to say something about a because there's a by the is why would we need to be talking about a case of the because the the when did the take place by its now the parallel of Kmitza a regular animal is the shrita and since the kaimates be mincha is kashrita dummy I might think it has the same halacha that since the behema if you're mefagel it be shasha shrita they had no shasha kasha it won't be metamei tumas achlin so if you metamei tumas achlin but the mincha will be metamei tumas achlin why is the shasha kasha meikar so yes there is this parallel between kmitza and the shrita it's still not enough in avada it's shasha kasha will be enough to say it will be metamei tumas achlin this is bothering that it doesn't really seem to be such a chidush and blimes shver in the gemara. All right so we're holding right now is the Kuntres of Shimon kol aimad liftas kapodri dummy is what we say by the para aduma and therefore it gives the para aduma a shasha kasha the gemara assumes that we can say kol aimad lizrak kizarik dummy in the same way that we're saying kol aimad liftas is kapodri dummy to that now we're going to say it's not so pashut amar Rav Ashi am reshalish meitsa kmeider of Nachman may not be Rav Nachman according to Tosefos we're going to have a historical problem that Rav Ashi was born after Rav Nachman died so it could be that it's Rav Kahana or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak but whoever it was Rav Ashi said when he presented this to whoever he presented it to after Rav Ashi had said a filo temalun lamish Even if you want to say that the bris is talking about that there was mamash alina before the zrika was done in other words there really was time remaining in the day to do the zrika but the kohanim just didn't do it for whatever reason a filo temei to pigel the zrika and even if you want to say that the case of the pigel was about the zrika not about the shrita still it's not going to be shver on Rav Shimon of kol aimad liftas kapodri dummy because the boy parek amar he was always saying about that but he boy have a zarek lamrin and he wasn't saying kol aimad lizrak kizarik dummy just because he said kol aimad liftas is kapodri dummy now the gemara doesn't say why there should be a chilik between pedia and zrika why would say kol aimad by one and not the other there's two pshatim we'll say though one is Rashi and one is the Sfas Emes Rashi learns is because one is more of a ma'aseh than the other pedia is just your dibur you don't have to actually do any physical action whereas zrika requires more because you didn't do the physical act of the zrika the Sfas Emes suggests perhaps that even a more lamdish idea that the zrika actually creates something it makes it into an achal pedia is not a creation of something it's just a siluk of an issur anything like that you're taking away the kedusha when you're poyel to something but when you're doing the zrika I'm shafing kashar of flesh. All right, but according to Rashi, we would not be saying kol hamid l'zrikah is k'zara dami. Prak d'gemara, base let's ask from the Mishnah right in the beginning of Seder Olam. Kol omer Rebbi Yehoshua, kol she heisa lo shas heter l'kehanim, anything that was ever mutar for the kehanim before became pasul, ein me'ilah bo. Because the idea is what's chayav me'ilah? Kosher Hashem. If it was ever mutar to the kehanim, it wasn't kosher Hashem anymore and therefore it's no longer shaiach me'ilah. And likewise, v'chol shelo heisa lo shas heter l'kehanim, me'ilah bo. You will have me'ilah. Beizehu she heisa lo shas heter l'kehanim? Give me an example of something that did have that shas heter. Shelana, v'shinishma'is, v'shiyatz'ah. Those things all had their shas heter l'kehanim before they became pasul. Beizehu shelo heisa lo shas heter l'kehanim? It never had the chance to become mutar for the kayan. That's she nishchatah l'zmanah v'chotz'ah l'makomah v'shikbul pasul l'zrikas damah. Because in all those cases, it was always pasul. Now, k'tani me reisha, but what's the nafka minah? Ask k'tani me reisha that shelana, v'shinishma'is, v'shiyatz'ah. That's all considered a shas heter l'kehanim. So me'ilah l'na mamash? Aren't we talking about where it was actually overnight both the basar and the dam? Meaning that the dam was never nizrak. V'ha achad d'boy havei zorek uv'k'tani ein me'ilah. So it sounds like he could have if he wanted to do his reekah and yet we're saying there's no chiyuv me'ilah because we're going to look at it as if it was already nizrak. K'neged what we said b'sheim Rav Nachman or Rav Ashi. They were saying you don't say kol hamid l'zrikah and here we see you do say it. So the Gemara says not lo the Mishnah is not talking about a case where even the dam was lan. But it's a case of r'ui lo tzei for r'ui l'tumei that there was only a lina after this reekah had taken place. But in Hanami, it had a true heter to the kehanim throughout that night before there was the isur lina and therefore it was really heter l'kehanim. Aval lina mamash, my what would be the halacha if the basar and the dam takah was mamash lan overnight? Achina ami d'me'ilah. You're telling me that there would be isur me'ilah? But then the lashon of the Mishnah doesn't seem to fit right. Because the lashon of the Mishnah is high kol she heisa lo shas heter l'kehanim v'chol shelo heisa lo shas heter l'kehanim. That whole lashon of our of anything that had no heter to the kayan or did have heter l'kehanim. It's not right. It should really be lashon chayavah of kol she yesh lo shas heter l'kehanim ein me'ilah bo v'chol she ein lo shas heter me'ilah bo me'ilah. It should be talking about what's going on right now, not about what happened. So it sounds like from the mission that we're talking about a case where the current was never really to the it's only Roy that it could have potentially been. So even if you didn't actually do this Rica, there's a of dummy. Sounds like it's going to be a whole new now it's up to me you're trying to compare me asking a question from to what we're saying about two different kinds of The whole idea of whether or not it's called and once it's no longer which might be only because of dummy. That's enough to say that there's no more because once the leaves it but my with what would it ever come back again but the whole idea of is because the definitional characteristic of being an this is not food and the takes out these next three lines but the idea is that there's a between and whether something is practically that true may say they all ask you from the following in maybe somebody brings because they might have been turns out you didn't do anything wrong. So now what do I do with this carbon? It goes back to being again no no harm no foul. That's all different turning over to you got to wait till that gets a and I can you still bring the carbon I found that I didn't do the because she may not already but I heard say you did something else wrong. Somebody's always doing an don't worry about it they'll be enough coverage to to bring the carbon anyway. And that holds that a person could be because you can always bring an continues the mission mission let's say after he the carbon but he's done the already now he found out he didn't do the so the is you you sorry let's say let's say you already did this Rica and now he found out he didn't do anything wrong. So what do I do with this meat? a The should eat the busser because it was done properly. Even if the dam is still in the case that it was from the shita is still go ahead with it, finish it out, do this Rica and then you can eat the busser. Why does he say you could do this Rica even though now you know there's no that he's doing this carbon for because we should do as soon as that dam is in the case it's already I mean and therefore you should finish the job because of this because of it but this is we do say this is because of it. Is that the reason that said that the dam should be and you should eat the busser? I'm reading my because he said the reason why he said you should go through with the process and finish this Rica is because of it. Once that dam is in that well now it is hooked dish to be actually finish the job. So even though the dam might be because you found out that there was no of Vera it was made into kosher to do this Rica by virtue of the fact that it was in the of Vera. With the of Vera of Vera should also say in which case which have to be burned and we know they are but why after who since they have to be burned so it's dummy and therefore it'll have the status of and not be considered anymore and shouldn't have to of Vera back of Vera as we mentioned already yesterday is kind of a rule breaker because of this extra status that we give hey yes we should apply the of Vera we're going to give it the status of so it should still be of Vera to of Vera I get it that you could apply the rule of about something itself but to to call it also to me to give me v'sheini to give it the status of a rishon a sheini of tumah. Mim ba'al hilulei, will that also work? And that's actually a shaila whether or not chibbus hakodesh can actually give it those extra statuses of tumah. Tipshas d'beura Rashi should be able to be poyel Rashi's shaila because Rashi had a shaila of tzarid shel minachos, which Rashi teaches as a lump of unbroken up flour that was never mixed in with the oil of your korban mincha and that comes into contact with tumah. Mainin be rishon v'sheini, do we count rishon and a sheini in it? Or ain mainin be rishon v'sheini? Because the question that Reish Lakish is posing is does chibbus hakodesh make that tzarid, that lump of unbroken up flour, even though it never really had a liquid in it, maybe it should never achieve that status. Or maybe it does because of chibbus hakodesh. And now if you're telling me that chibbus hakodesh can give it that status, maybe we should be able to apply it. But answers the Gemara, kim li ba'ila Reish Lakish. When Reish Lakish was asking this shaila of whether chibbus hakodesh can make a rishon and a sheini statuses of tumah, that's d'oraisa, that's only l'gabei dinei d'oraisa. But key amrinan d'rabbonan. When we were saying that the parah adumah and the na'aser are going to be metamei tumas ochlin, we're only saying that on a d'rabbonan level. But in any chanam Reish Lakish's shaila won't be nogea to the parah and to the na'aser. Zog dem Mishna. You may remember this Mishna from a hundred blatt ago. Ha'omer hareini la'av machvas, if someone says I'm going to be mekabel to bring a korban mincha in a machvas, v'heivi b'marcheshes, and now he brings it in the wrong keili, in the marcheshes keili, or b'marcheshes v'heivi b'machvas, mashiv heivi, but v'dei chayev asah l'yotzei. So it's not a posul korban, but he's got to do it again to be yotzei shiv neder. But if he said zu l'havi b'machvas, v'heivi b'marcheshes, or b'marcheshes v'heivi b'machvas, then hareini posul. Because then you're saying it's not about what I was mekabel myself. You're saying that this will be brought in a certain kind of a keili and you didn't do it, so it's not going to be kosher. Ha'omer hareini alai shnei isranis l'havi b'chli echad. Let's say I'm going to bring two isranis of a measurement in one keili, v'heivi b'shnei keilim, or b'shnei keilim v'heivi b'chli echad, so mashiv heivi, but v'dei chayev asah l'yotzei. But eilu b'chli echad, if that's the way he made it sound, v'heivi b'shnei keilim or b'shnei keilim v'heivi b'chli echad, hareini posul. It's very similar halacha as the reisha. Now hareini alai shnei isranis l'havi b'chli echad. Let's Let's I'm going to bring two isranis in one keili, and now behave yourself, kayli, brought it and broke into two different kaylim. Omru lei, and there were people there who said to him, "A kli echad nadarta. Dude, you said you were going to bring it in one kayli." If he ignored them and he krivem bishnei kaylim, pasul. But, b'kli echad, if he then listened and brought it in one kayli, ksheirin. But, the opposite, "Hareini l'shnei isranos l'havi bishnei kaylim." I'm going to bring two into kaylim. B'heivi b'kli echad, and he brought it in one kayli. And omru lei, the people said, "Bishnei kaylim nadarta. Buddy, you said you were going to bring it in two kaylim." Hekrivem bishnei kaylim, if he takka listens to them and now puts into two kaylim, it'll be ksheirin. But, nothing will be kli echad, but if he puts it now into one kayli, kishtei minochos shnei sarvu. It'll be like two separate minochos that got put together into one kayli, which we talked about back on chof gimmel amud aleph. If you can see the difference between one and the other to allow for a kmitza to be done on each one separately, then it'll be okay, but otherwise it will be puzzled. Zok the Gemara, we have two different examples of when you didn't do your neder properly, and they're both really similar. So, it's like the Gemara, "B'tzricha, I need both examples." Di ashmenan hakmaisef the tan would only give me one case where you switch the machvas to the marcheshes, or the marcheshes to the machvas. I might have thought that's when you're not yotzei to your neder. Bishum d'amar b'machvas, we come icei v'marcheshes. Aval hacha by the case of when he had two isranis and he put in one kayli, or one isarin and two kaylim, didi v'didi b'machvas, or didi v'didi b'marcheshes. Eima I might have thought you they nidrei nami yotza. The end of yeshmenan hacha, if the tan only gave me the second case where you switched the larger to the smaller, etc. Mishum d'kapola glu, because the two isranis are actually distinct and therefore you brought the wrong mincha. Aval hacha by the case of the machvas and marcheshes, still they poleg bei, because you have the same size, it's just a different kind of kayli. Eima I might have thought it's not the same and therefore it's tzricha. Tanna Rabbanan learned in the braisa, meaning our mishna, "Mash'heivi heivi, b'yedei nidrei l'yotza." Rabbi Shimon omer, "Af yedei nidrei nami yotza." According to Rabbi Shimon, the super meikel, you are even yotzei your neder, and the fact that you didn't do it exactly the way you said you were going to do it is still okay. It's not significant enough to break your neder. We don't pasken like Rabbi Shimon, it's not even mentioned by our mishna. We're going to stop here, and we'll pick it up with the two dots in m'tzo shem tomorrow.