Zevachim 117

Today's staff is walking down your design. And we are 10 lines from the bottom of Duff Koof Tes Zion on the base Katchim Kolem Nacholen. Bechol Machaneh Yisrael. So, the Gemara is continuing to discuss the very long Mishnah in the beginning of Perek Poras Chatos. Specifically, the Mishnah said that when the Yidden were in the Midbar, Kotshe Kodashim was Nachal Lifnim Min Hakloim, had to be eaten within the curtains, within the area that would later be known as the Moyeh De'Azara. And Katchim Kolem was Nachal Bechol Machaneh Yisrael, could be eaten anywhere in Machaneh Yisrael. Says the Gemara, Omar Rav Huna, Rav Huna said, "What does it mean when the Mishnah says Katchim Kolem were Nachal Bechol Machaneh Yisrael? It means Bechol Mekomos Yisrael. It doesn't mean within Machaneh Yisrael proper, but it means wherever the Jews were. So, if a Yid was there, you were allowed to eat Katchim Kolem." Now, the Shita Mekubetzes takes out the next four words, Aval Machaneh Lo Havah. And we jump to Is VeRav Nachman Rav Huna. So, Rav Nachman asks Rav Huna, "It sounds like Rav Huna, you're suggesting that there was no concept of Machaneh Yisrael when the Yidden were in the Midbar. As a result, it doesn't make sense that Katchim Kolem should be Mesuyam to a place that doesn't exist. Therefore, when the Mishnah said Machaneh Yisrael, Rav Huna, you understand it means not Machaneh Yisrael literally, but rather what it means is Bechol Mekomos Yisrael." But Rav Nachman told Rav Huna, "Is that true? Machaneh Yisrael BaMidbar Havah, where there were no Machanehs in the Midbar, but how do you know there were no Machanehs?" Ki Shem SheMachaneh BaMidbar, Kach Machaneh BiYerushalayim. Just like there was a Machaneh, and there were these concepts in the Midbar, so too it was the same way in Yerushalayim. And the braisa goes on to delineate where the machnos were in Yerushalayim. MiYerushalayim l'Har HaBayis Machne Yisrael. From the border of Yerushalayim until the Har HaBayis was known as Machne Yisrael. MiHar HaBayis l'Shaar Niknor. From Har HaBayis to Shaar Niknor, that was the eastern gate into the Azara, Machne Leviya. That was Machne Leviya. And miKan v'eilach, anything past Shaar Niknor was Machne Shchina. V'hein hein klolim she had the midbar. Rashi says that the miKan v'eilach part, meaning beyond Shaar Niknor, that's Machne Shchina in the Beis HaMikdash is the equivalent thereof to the lifnim min haKlo'im that was in the midbar. The bottom line is, you see clearly from this braisa what everybody knows. And that is there were three machanos in Yerushalayim. There were three machanos in the midbar. The three corresponded to the three. But the point is there was a cheftza of Machne Yisrael in the midbar. If there was such a place, why would Rav Huna say that when the mishna says kodshim kalim nachalim b'chol Machne Yisrael, what it means is b'chol makomos Yisrael? That's his pishloim. If there's no place called Machne Yisrael, so you have to say Machne Yisrael is like a borrowed term. It's a little bit of a misnomer. But Amar Rav Huna, an Amora whose job it is to be mefaresh the mishna, you should know it doesn't mean literally Machne Yisrael. But if there was a Machne Yisrael in the midbar, then for sure Machne Yisrael means Machne Yisrael. So, what does Rav Huna mean when he said Machne Yisrael means b'chol makomos Yisrael? Ela eima, the Gemara says you have to say Rav Huna meant something else. What he meant was b'chol makom Machne Yisrael. What he meant to say was that every single place that was a {quote} unquote Machne Yisrael, it was okay to eat kodshim kalim. Meaning, every place within Machaneh Yisrael to the Machaneh Yisrael is peshita. Now, the ta'amei, I'll tell you why it's not so peshita. I would have thought if so be it, say, that maybe there's an opportunity for there to be a pesul yotzei. Kama shmalan na. Where would the pesul yotzei be? So, Rashi says that we know in the yedei when the midbar they were always traveling. All the masa'ei, the yisu vayachanu, they're always on the move. And once they had the Mishkan, when they were traveling, it meant taking the Mishkan down and putting it back up and again dismantling it and again erecting it. That's how the Mishkan traveled. As a result, there could have been a hava mina that in the event Machaneh Yisrael had to move, it had to shift places, ulai the new Machaneh Yisrael is not considered a hemshech of the original Machaneh Yisrael. And as a result, the viyad Kachin column, and I wanted to eat in the Machaneh Yisrael, and all of a sudden the Mishkan's moving and as a result Machaneh Yisrael's moving, the whole camps are on the go. Could be that new Machaneh Yisrael is not considered anymore the same Machaneh Yisrael. And in the interim, it would mean that the Kachin column left Machaneh Yisrael be pesul yotzei. Kama shmalan na. Bechol makom Yisrael, as long as I'm in a place that's Machaneh Yisrael, even if it's a different, quote unquote, Machaneh Yisrael, it doesn't matter. But the Gemara says that hava mina, that mau detei ma is so compelling to ve'eim lo chinami. What's takif shai? I don't know. To me it sounds like if everything shifted, everything moved, so there's this interim period where you don't have proper machnes. As a result, you would think the Kachin column should be in pesul yotzei, and therefore you shouldn't be able to eat when you get to the new place. So, the Gemara says, oh my God, it's really based on a pasuk. It says benasa ohel mo'ed. And we learn from here af al pi she nasa ohel mo'ed, even when the Mishkan is traveling, the Mishkan is still considered an ohel mo'ed, which means that even during the traveling, the same machnes were maintained, and as a result, it wouldn't be nifsul yotzei. Just explain this a little bit better and as Sacha when we get to the raid, we'll go through it even a little bit better. The whole concept of machanous when the Yidden were in the midbar was all related to the Mishkan. Machaneh Shchinah was the Mishkan, the fineman hakloim. Machaneh Levi'ah was the area immediately surrounding the Mishkan, which is where the Levi'im were encamped. And Machaneh Yisrael was the area surrounding that, that's where the Yidden were. There's no Machaneh Levi'ah, there's no Machaneh Yisrael if there's no Machaneh Shchinah, meaning if there's no oilam oyid, if there's no Mishkan. From the fact that the possuk says "B'nosa oilam oyid, af b'fisha nosa oilam oyid hu", that means that the Mishkan is a Mishkan even when it's on the move, even though it's the same method, but it's still a Mishkan, which means that the Levi'im that are traveling around the Mishkan are in the area of Machaneh Levi'ah, because the ta'itch of Machaneh Levi'ah is that area that surrounds the oilam oyid. And it means that the Yidden that are surrounding them are still Machaneh Yisrael. The bottom line is, when Rav Puna said "B'chol makom Yisrael", he didn't mean that there's no such thing as Machaneh Yisrael. What he meant was "B'chol makomois b'Machaneh Yisrael". So he's not coming to exclude the idea of Machaneh Yisrael, but forget it, he's actually coming to be more inclusive. What he's coming to say is that "Kodesh kodashim is Machaneh Yisrael, but Machaneh Yisrael, it's b'chol makomois Machaneh Yisrael". The Rabbis, even if it was vinosa, you would have thought maybe there should be a psul yotzei, but being that we know af b'fisha nosa oilam oyid hu, that means the three machanous maintain their shem even when they're on the move. As a result, it wouldn't be any psul yotzei. As it's written in the Tanya of Rice, related to what we're talking about. Rav Shimon bar Yochai said "Shimon bar Yochai said "Oida cheres oisa". We know there were three machanous when the Yidden were in Yerushalayim. We I'll mention the braysa that explained what the three machanos were. Again, Machaneh Levi was from the outskirts of Yerushalayim all the way to Har HaBayis. Machaneh Levi was from Har HaBayis to Shaar Nikanor, and anything within Shaar Nikanor was considered Machaneh Shechinah. So, Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai, I'm going to tell you the rest of the story. There was really a fourth machaneh, the cheil. Some have the girsa ezras noshim, some have the girsa ezras noshim here. So, there was an area in the Beis Hamikdash known as the ezras noshim, not to be confused with the azarah. Additionally, there was an area called the cheil, and that area of the cheil/ezras noshim, they were right next to each other, was a separate machaneh. It had certain dinim. So, for example, someone that's not allowed to be in the azarah, but's allowed to be on the Har HaBayis, could be would not be allowed to be in the area known as the cheil ezras noshim. Velo hayu onshin alav. Stating that that person who's not allowed to be there, if he was there, he would never be punished for it. So, for example, if a tumai would enter the azarah. So, that's the parsha of tumas mikdash v'kodshav. You could be חייב kares for doing something like that. You could have to bring a korban oilah v'yored. This area of cheil ezras noshim has a certain level of kedushah almost like the azarah, but at the same time, velo hayu onshin alav, which makes it sound like it's shem machaneh was only mid'rabanan. It wasn't even a d'oraisa shem machaneh. All it was was mid'rabanan. Next part of Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai's braysa, uv'Shilo lo hayu alah shem machanos v'lad. He says when the Yidden were in Shilo for those 369 years, all they had was two machanos. So, we know Machaneh Shechinah, Machaneh Levi, Machaneh Yisrael. We know was in the midbar, just brought the braysa. We know was in Yerushalayim, just brought the braysa. When the Yidden were in Shilo, it was unique. All they had was two machanos. So, the Gemara says, hay meina hu lo hayah. Which one of the three was not there? Says the Gemara, "Amar Rabbah, so Rabbah said, mistaber Machaneh Levi hayah. It's mistaber that Machaneh Levi was there. Now, Machaneh Shechinah for sure was there, cuz what's the definition of Machaneh Shechinah? Taiyov May'ed. Mishkan Shiloh obviously has an Ohel Mo'ed. So there's no question that there is a Machaneh Shechinah. So really, if we're trying to figure out which one was not there, we've narrowed it down to was there no Machaneh Levi'im? Was there no proverbial Har Habayis, right? If you've ever been to shul, was there a Har Habayis there? I'm not sure. So there's no proverbial Har Habayis, or maybe there was no Machaneh Yisrael. Idea Machaneh Yisrael is the Yerushalayim. It's sort of a Mishkan. So could be that in Yayin, you didn't have when you were in Shiloh. That's what the Gemara is trying to figure out. So Rashi said it's mistaber that there was a Machaneh Levi'im. These are what the Machaneh Levi'im are. Because if you can tell me there was no Machaneh Levi'im, Nimtzu what would emerge in this that Zavin Utmei Meisim Mishtalchin Chutz L'Machaneh Achas. That is Zavin who's tamei and a tamei meis that's tamei, who both have to be sent out of a Machaneh, would both be sent out of the same Machaneh. And that can't be. Because Rashi says the Torah says, "V'lo Yitamei Es Machanehem." And we learn from there "Kein Machaneh Was Zeh U'Machaneh Was Zeh." So let's just do a tiny little bit of an introduction to this. The pasuk says, and this pasuk is in Parshas Naso, it's Bamidbar Perek Key Pasuk Gimel. The pasuk over there is talking about the laws of tumah. The idea that someone that's tamei may not be able to go into a place where there's so much kedushah. And the pasuk says as follows, "Vayidaber Hashem El Moshe Leimor, Tzav Es Bnei Yisrael V'Yishalchu Min Hamachaneh Kol Tzaru'a V'Chol Zav V'Chol Tamei LeNafesh." That any tzaru'a, a metzora, any zav, or any person that came in contact with a meis has to be sent out of the Machaneh. Next pasuk, "Mizachar Ad Nekevah Tishlachu." It doesn't matter male or female. "El Michutz Lamachaneh Tishlachu." They have to be sent out of their Machaneh. "V'Lo Yitamei Es Machanehem Asher Ani Shochen Betocham." And make sure they do that because otherwise they're going to defile, they're going to make impure the machaneh that they're residing with it. Chazal were bothered with a little bit of a hora. Why did the Torah have to say Just say any person that's tamei. You want to know who's tamei? Learn say the Torah's or just be mavasadra, some of the harder parshas in the Torah and you're going to know who's a tamei. The Torah went out of its way to delineate who's tamei. But it's even more than that, the Torah mentioned everyone that's tamei. Torah just mentioned three categories of tamei. kol sarua, v'chol zav, v'chol tamei l'nefesh. So Chazal learned from here that the sarua and the zav and the tamei l'nefesh, who all are included in this idea of the shiluchim min hamachaneh, v'lo yetamei es machanei, they all have to be sent out of different machanos. And that's why the Torah mentioned that there's a concept of v'shiluchim min hamachaneh which is a asah and v'lo yetamei es machanei which is a lo sa'aseh regarding the sarua who has his machaneh he has to be sent out of and the zav who has his machaneh he has to be sent out of and the tamei l'nefesh who has his machaneh they have to be sent out of. Okay, so what are the chilukim machanos as it relates to these three tamei? So let's go backwards. The tamei l'nefesh, counterintuitively, even though he is the most tamei and needs the parah adumah in order for him to become tahor, he only was sent out of machaneh Shechinah. He wasn't allowed to enter the Azarah, that's the shita of Thomas Mikdash v'Kodashav. But he was allowed to be on the Har Habayis and certainly he was allowed to be in machaneh Yisrael. The zav, even though he was tamei relative to tamei nefesh, you would think is a lesser tumah, but as it relates to shiluchim machanos, he had to be sent out even further. He wasn't even allowed to be in machaneh Levi'im. And the sarua, who's the metzora was bothered the yishuv, we know he had to be sent even out of Yerushalayim. And the reason the Torah mentioned kol sarua v'chol zav v'chol tamei l'nefesh separate is so that you would understand that the v'lo yetamei es machanei are three Machanot. That's how we know this concept of the three Machanot as it relates to the Zav, the Tamei Mes, and the Lunatic. With that introduction, says Rava, it's that there had to be a Machaneh Levi'im when the Yidden were in Shiloh. Because if there was no Machaneh Levi'im when the Yidden were in Shiloh, so that would mean that the Tamei Mes, who has a din of Tamei Mes, would have to be sent out of just the Mishkan. Just go outside of the client. As long as you're not in the Mishkan, you're going to be okay. The Zav, who also has a din of Tamei Mes, would also have to be sent out of just the Mishkan. What do you mean? The Zav has to be sent out of Machaneh Levi'im, too? But there is no Machaneh Levi'im. Which means that they're both being sent out of the same Machaneh. And being that it says in the Torah Tamei Mes, and that is the this drasha of Machaneh Levi'im and Machaneh Yisrael. It's that whenever there was a Mishkan, there always had to be a Machaneh Levi'im as well. Because otherwise, you wouldn't be able to satisfy the Tamei Mes and Machaneh Yisrael. So Rava said that we have a from the holy Rashbi that says that there were only two Machanot in Shiloh. We're trying to figure out which one of the Machanot was and which wasn't there. There must have been a Machaneh Shechinah. That's obvious. But there must have been a Machaneh Levi'im as well. Because otherwise, it would emerge that the Tamei Mes and Zav in Shiloh are only being sent out of that same Machaneh. And we know that the Zav and the Tamei Mes always have to have different Machanot. There's an issue of Tamei Mes and Machaneh Yisrael. So Rava told Rava the obvious follow-up, right? We set it up in a way that we're walking right into Rava's kasha. How am I Machaneh Yisrael? You want to tell me so which Machaneh wasn't there? Machaneh Yisrael? Well, if that's the case, Zav and Metzora are in the same Machaneh. Because the Metzora, who has to be sent out of Machaneh Yisrael, and the Zav, who has to be sent out of Machaneh Levi'im, but is allowed to be Machaneh Yisrael, going to end up being in the same place. Why? Because there is no Machaneh Yisrael. Which means that the metzora just has to be sent out of obviously machane shchina and machane Leviya. The zav has to be sent out of machane shchina and machane Leviya. Now, usually the metzora also has to be sent out of machane Israel, but there is no machane Israel in Shiloh, which means they're going to end up being in the same place. That p'shat is amoraic, and the Torah says now we could have said the Torah says lo yitamei machaneh, but the Gemara says I'll even tell you better, but the yeshivah is even a separate drasha. In the parsha of metzora it says yishuv tomei acharei machaneh, that he had to be by himself, and specifically his shiluach machaneh is unique to his form of tumah. There's no other tomei who has the same din that he should end up in the same place. So, the Gemara says really what we're left with is which one of the machanot wasn't there because there had to be machane shchina because there was the shchina. There had to be machane Leviya because otherwise nimtzu zavim utmei meis im shulchan kodesh umachaneh, machaneh achas, and there had to be machaneh Israel because otherwise nimtzu zavim umetzora'im im shulchan kodesh umachaneh, achas. Because of this the Gemara says you have to say that we misunderstood Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. We have to revisit it with a whole new blik. Elo Elo Elo kulam achas. I've heard Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai held that when they were in Shiloh they had all three machanot. They had machaneh shchina, machaneh Leviya, and a machaneh Israel. My way out do you understand machanot? So, what Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai meant when he said there were only two machanot, what he meant was liklita. He meant it as it relates to the laws of arei miklat. And this takes us to the second perek of maseches Makos, something that everybody knows, and that is that a rotzeiach bishgaga had to run to the ir miklat. But in addition to running to one of the arei miklat, he also had an option to go to one of the battei Leviyim. One of the arei Leviyim. The cities where the Leviyim lived served a dual purpose. They housed the Leviyim obviously, but in addition to that they were also a sanctuary. So, was the ir miklat for someone that was a rotzeiach bishgaga. What Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai was saying was that when the Yidden were in Shiloh, machaneh Leviya didn't serve as an ir miklat. And that's what he meant when he said lo hayu elah shnei machanot. He didn't mean that there were only two there was no of a third you had all three and with regards to let's say the notes that we mentioned a moment ago about that he had all the there's one component one hat that one of the wear that it didn't wear when the other were in which which had the fact that it has the ability to be says the one thing I would take out of this is the have I called the many times I can there might be a different ability to be called but all other times the place that the were the had the ability to be called and the says in yes that is in fact the case and it's foolish so this is the beginning right price that says that we're in the the had the ability to protect the person that was a so it's going to be a short price and that with a lot of it's very short it's only five lines and it's not hard but it's a little bit dense and it's all based on one it says something this is a in prices more people know this cuz it says but the end of the is that I say so it says the more the way we do this is cuz I was talking to I should give it to me and told the something meaning you yourself are going to have a place to run in the event that you killed somebody which was I could have told me that you should know during your lifetime there's going to be that additionally I'm not going means that the place that people will be able to run to be protected if they kill the Shai Gig will be your place. Moshe Rabbeinu was a Levi, which means that Moshe Rabbeinu lived in Machaneh Leviya, and we learn from there that Machaneh Leviya had the ability to be goyles. The next line is the punchline that we need. Asher Yonos Shammah, from there we learn Melamed Maglin be Midbar, that this took place even in the Midbar and the goyles where the Machaneh Leviya to Machaneh Leviya. Meaning without Asher Yonos Shammah, they would be mocking to say that this would happen during Moshe Rabbeinu's lifetime. It would be Arei Halvi'im, but maybe only in Eretz Yisrael during Moshe's lifetime. They didn't have to cross the Yarden and they didn't end up in Eretz Yisrael, which is of course not what happened. But the bottom line is there could have been such a have a minute, but from the words Asher Yonos Shammah, we learn that mamish right here you'll be able to run and Melamed Maglin be Midbar. Like goyles and again where it's LeChammah goyles, it's your place, it's going to end up being in the place that the Levi'im live. We count number from here we learn that Levi Sh'Harag a Ben Levi that kills goyles me Plach le Plach. He has to be goyles me Plach le Plach. Now where do you see that? Me can't Omru. So Rashi much as with this a little bit. So Rashi says that there's another drasha that's happening over here. And that is VeSamti Lecha Makom, that even you have to be goyles, even somebody like yourself who's a Levi would have to go to goyles, which clear was included in VeSamti Lecha Makom, that first drasha. BeChayaychem, so that's the taich of the drasha that even you yourself would have to go goyles. The in goyles le Pilchai, additionally we see from here that let's say the Levi killed somebody and he lives obviously in the Arei Halvi'im and he says, "You know what? Instead of me going to a whole 'nother Plach, I'm going to go to a whole 'nother zip code. Let me, I don't know, buy a different house within my plot. If he does that, that works. How do you know that? That even though you've already been living in this it's your I'm a boss here. I'm domiciled here. I pay taxes here. I feel that would be a place that you would be able to go and says that the biggest riot to that is is the mid part. Because if we're saying that there was really an in the midbar and the in the midbar would be the it was all one of so if someone that's a lady kills somebody and he's going to run, he's not going to a different plot. There is no different plot. So obviously it's going to be all within the same plot. The bottom line is we're not learning this now again it's a little bit of a nuanced but we just wanted one thing in and that is what? That when the in the midbar was and that's what was coming to be in his that he meant regarding that in the when they were in the midbar and all the other places always had the ability to be that was only then but when they were in that all you had was that of course is not going to be the the case. The truth is if you think about it's a it's a price right? We know that was made up of three said there's a concept of a fourth and there's a concept of only two obviously you have to read the fine print and see what that means. The fourth would be the when the were in and the concept of two is the second it's that the had the ability to be goaled, and she like either way. Moving along, bottle Gilgal. So, just to set up the remainder of today's daf, and it's also the first part of tomorrow's daf. The Gemara now is going to bring a braysa. A braysa that's going to discuss one of the core topics of perek parshas which is the laws of bamos. And it's going to focus on two very fundamental ideas. So, these are not If someone is mephagal bashashis, and he had one foot in dark. No, these are very, very, very fundamental ideas. Number one, bizman heter bamos, during those kufos, what type of carbon was a person allowed to be makriv on a bama? Sounds like a good question. Olah, shlamim, chatas, asham. What kind of carbonis was a person allowed to bring on a bama? Question number two, bizman heter bamos, was the mishkan different than it was bizman issur bamos? Or was it not different? Meaning, you would think that the heter bamos is a tosa of something being different about the mishkan. We spoke about this during the achi cala barichas and chover shul and achi cala, right? This was one of the themes, that the heter bamos is a result of the fact that Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have his bias, and therefore, if you want to bring a carbon outside of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's bias, it's not really chutz, because chutz implies that there's a plan. If there's no proper plan, then the mailo, there's not going to be an idea of a chutz either. Which means that during all the kufos that there was a heter bamos, and by the way, Gilgal, Noiv and Givon, so during those the suggestion seems to be that the Mishkan was an under assault Mishkan and if that's the case yesh yesh were the dinner of what you could even bring in the Mishkan different than when there was a Mishkan in the midbar or whether it was Mishkan Shilo and of course during bias reason and bias chain. So two questions. Number one what carbon is we able to be brought on a bomb question number two is mine had their bombers what carbon is we able to be brought even on what's known as the bomb ass see boy even what was brought in the Mizpah either way these are the two questions that are going to be discussed we're going to mention a bunch of different sheet of satanam and the Gamora is going to do we're going to follow the lead of the Gamora what it always does when it goes through a price and that is first you bring the price you're not supposed to understand the price 100% and then the Gamora is going to fire away with Omar Myers so we'll see some of the Omar Myers at the end of today's staff the Gamora is going to go back and analyze the price and the rest of the Omar Myers is a sham will see tomorrow either way all the Gilgal turn around here's the price so it's going to take us all the way to on the base call me to be needed for your carbon Obama any carbon that could be brought but neither or another was able to be brought on a bomb ass any any carbon that can't be broken out of the any carbon Obama was not able to be brought on a bomb means of an azirius as relates to carbon mincha will be in a mincha right a mincha that's been broken in the mincha all all the carbon is that the Nazir used to bring craving the bomb were able to be brought on a bomb the mayor as always help the mayor so the mayor holds that you want to know the rule of what kind of carbon you allowed to bring on a bomb ass it's any carbon that's bought neither or another so what's broken out of another so the two big ones are the oil and the schlemmer. Additionally, R' Meir throws in the mincha and the n'zirus. Now, why did he throw in the mincha and the n'zirus? It's cuz the chachamim are about to argue. The chachamim might have the chachamim held like karvu yochid oilos v'shlamim d'oraisa. The chachamim agree with the premise of R' Meir that it was dafka korbanos that were brought b'nedavah d'oraisa that you were allowed to bring on a bama yochid. However, the chachamim added to that and they said that it's dafka the oiler and the schlemmer as opposed to what? As opposed to the mincha even a minchas nedavah and as opposed to the n'zirus. What's the cheshbon of the machlokes of R' Meir and the chachamim? That's going to be the first amora. It's going to be the Gemara's first deep dive into this braysa. Next part of the braysa. R' Yehuda omer, R' Yehuda said kol sh' tzibur v'chol yochid makrivin b'ohel moed sheb'midbar any korban that the tzibur or the yochid was allowed to bring in the ohel moed in the midbar, meaning on the regular mizbei'ach when the year they were in the midbar, makrivin b'ohel moed sheb'gilgal. They were allowed to bring in the ohel moed sheb'gilgal. So, R' Yehuda says that as it relates to the ohel moed of gilgal, so as it relates to the mizbei'ach at the time of heter bamos, you were allowed to bring whatever you were ever allowed to bring in the ohel moed. Kol sh' tzibur v'chol yochid makrivin b'ohel moed sheb'midbar, which was during the zman issur bamos, makrivin b'ohel moed sheb'gilgal during the zman heter bamos. What's ma bein ohel moed sheb'midbar u'vein ohel moed sheb'gilgal? What then is the difference? Meaning, was there any difference between ohel moed sheb'midbar ohel moed sheb'gilgal ohel moed sheb'gilgal hayu bamos mutaros? Yeah, when there was an ohel moed in the midbar, the bamos weren't mutar. Ohel moed sheb'gilgal hayu bamos mutaros. Meaning, there's no nafka mina b'etzem mitzad hashulchan aruch of the etzem ohel moed. The only nafka mina is did it beget an Isur Bammah or did it not beget an Isur Bammah? Now, when the was in the Google, Rabbi Yehudah continues and he says, "If a person should be gagged." If the person had a Bammah we always say in his backyard. If the person had the gag you remember from the Ervin was the proverbial backyard. So, as it relates to the Bammah should be gagged, the only thing the only thing that you were allowed to bring were the Olah and Shlamim which is the sheet of the who with as well. Now, one point that's going to be a little bit more manifest in tomorrow's sheet makes a big deal about it over here. So, probably means we're supposed to speak it out over here. And that is if you follow the flow of the Bammah a little bit. The first part of the Bammah wasn't talking to the second part of the Bammah because we gave a so we set it up a little bit for it flow. The Bammah is talking about two different things. It's talking about what you're allowed to bring on the Bammah and then it's talking about what you're allowed to bring on the Bammah and the Bammah is the head of the Bammah, right? But just the flow. Rabbi says you could bring an Shlamim and an on the Bammah. The say only an and Shlamim. Rabbi Yehudah says that any carbon that the or the were able to bring on the of the they were also allowed to bring on the of the Google. The of the Google nobody said anything about that. The of the is very specifically with regards to the Bammah. Nobody said a word about the of the Google that it would be socially appropriate for Rabbi Yehudah to say, "Oh, by the way, as it relates to nobody said a word about that." It almost doesn't have a so Rabbi says it's from here that Rabbi Yehudah understood in the sheet of Rabbi and in the sheet of the that when they were saying their sheet of the they weren't just saying the sheet of the with regards to the bama syokhin. They were also saying a halakha with regards to the bama sibur. And when Reb Meir says, "Kol nidvei nedav hayu korvim bama she'ein nidvei nedav ein korvim bama." You ready for this? He doesn't only mean bama syokhin. His ikar halakha was bama syokhin. But Reb Yehuda fashtanen that he also means bama sibur. He also means the mizbei'ach shebe gilgal. Which means Reb Meir really said two things. He said that a yachid that wanted to bring a korban could only bring a korban benedavah uvenedavah. That's it. Hard stop. That's the only thing he's allowed to bring. On a bama syokhin, cuz on a bama syokhin you cannot you could only bring a korban that's benedavah uvenedavah. And even on the bama sibur, on that that say Reb Meir and say the chachamim seem to be saying, because the machlokes is only with regards to minchas nezirim. Zog Reb Yehuda, "What? You're taking a little bit too far. You take a little bit too far." I agree as it relates to the bama syokhin, like the chachamim, that you're only allowed to bring a korban that's benedavah uvenedavah. And by the way, I don't even think you could bring a minchas nezirim. But as it relates to the bama sibur, the ander bama, the mizbei'ach the oil mo'ed shebe gilgal, that already I think is different than any korban that you were allowed to bring in the oil mo'ed in the midbar you would be allowed to bring the oil mo'ed in gilgal. I think that a yachid was allowed to bring a korban chovah in the oil mo'ed bemidbar. So too a yachid would be allowed to bring a korban chovah in the oil mo'ed in gilgal as well. So really Reb Yehuda is very much talking to Reb Meir and the chachamim. Again, something that's going to play itself out more in tomorrow's stuff. Either way. So, that was the shita of Reb Yehuda. Reb Yehuda the third tanna that's mentioned here in this braisa says, "Kol shatzibur v'hayachid makrivin makrivin beoil mo'ed shebe midbar, makrivin beoil mo'ed shebe gilgal." As it relates to the bama syokhin, he holds like the chachamim. The chachamim say in my room the chachamim are now commenting on Reb Yehuda. So, the first khakhamim were commenting on Rabbi Meir, this khakhamim is commenting on Rabbi Yehuda. Anything that the tzibur was allowed to bring in the oil that they had in the midbar, the tzibur can bring in the oil that they had in the gilgal. However, they can they can However, as it relates to when the Yidden were in the gilgal, like Korvu Yachid al oil that they had in the midbar, they were only allowed to bring the oil and the shlamim. In other words, what are the khakhamim saying? They will see it better in the Gemara. We're just going through the braisa high level now. But, what the khakhamim are saying is is that I disagree with you, Rabbi Yehuda. You're saying that the Yachid was allowed to bring any Korban that he wanted in the oil that they had in the gilgal. I don't think that's true. I think just like on the Yachid, he was only allowed to bring the oil and the shlamim. So, too, as it relates to the tzibur, he's also only allowed to bring the oil and the shlamim. At first glance, it would seem that this shita of the khakhamim is the identical shita of the previous shita of the khakhamim, right? The way we explained the original shitas of Rabbi Meir and the khakhamim that they weren't only talking about the Yachid, but they were talking about the tzibur as well. And they're saying that a Yachid can't bring a Korban however, not on the Yachid, not on the tzibur. All they're arguing about is on the Yachid and the tzibur where they could bring a Korban that's in the midbar. Does it include the oil and the shlamim? It doesn't include the oil and the shlamim. That is the shita of the khakhamim. Kor tzibur by oil that they had in the midbar, Kor by oil that they had in the gilgal. However, they can they can tzibur and Yachid, like Korvu Yachid it's the shita of the khakhamim. That's why if you look at Rashi, Rashi says the command of the khakhamim and the command of the khakhamim. Rashi already foreshadows the Gemara saying it goes to this price is going to ask this very question. Either way one last sheet in the price of this article even that we're not in the year we're in Google and they would not bring the carbon Pesach and different that were such as the carbon right and the Thomas and the But something that was not the man that's what's an example of something that's not the man that's a carbon like the that's a perfect example. It's a carbon but at the same time it's not to any that's not a so she has man either way that is the last sheet that's so again so we have a noisy over here in the which will pre cap is tomorrow's because it's going to segue very much into tomorrow's with regards to two discussions. Number one what kind of we able to be brought out of number two this man had their bombers what kind of were able to be brought on the in the oil either way taking it from the top what was the first that's what we're going to focus on now to the bottom of the young first was the main that's that on the young kid the young kid was a lot of carbon but only a carbon that was brought in the name of the other what's a carbon that's brought in the name of the other the two classics are the and the remainder argued what about a but that could also be brought in the name of the other or the going to remain there included and according to the coming they're not included and really what we need to figure out is two things. Number one we have to figure out what is the even to this whole in the first place like what's shot in this whole thing in the first place why would it be that why would it be that only a carbon that's brought in that of in a dollar could be brought in a bomb of the first thing I have to figure out. And number two, what is the Hesber in this Machlokes between R' Meir and the Chachamim? So it's up to Gemara. My time with R' Meir and again, my time with R' Meir means two things. It means number one, what's the P'shat in this Ikra Halacha? Additionally, why are we including Mincha? Why are we including the Ziz? So the Gemara says on my cry, it's based on the following Pasuk. It says Lo Sason K'Chola Asher Anachnu Oisim B'Yom HaYom. Ish Kol HaYoshev Bahem. Now this is one of the many Psukim that are mentioned in Parshas Re'eh that are mentioned in the context of the Halachos of Bamers. And Chazal understood what this Pasuk is coming to say is that even when there's going to be a Z'man Heter Bamers and you're going to be allowed to bring Korbanos outside of the Makom Hamikdash. You're not going to be bound by Vayikra Perek Yud Zayin. You're not going to be bound by Perek Acharei Mos u'Perek Parah Adumah. But at the same time, Lo Sason K'Chola Asher Anachnu Oisim B'Yom HaYom. It doesn't mean you can stop bringing a Korban Tamid every day. Doesn't mean you can stop bringing any Korban you want. Rather, Ish Kol HaYoshev Bahem. The only Korban you can bring is a Korban that's Asher Yoshev Bahem. What does it mean Kol HaYoshev Bahem? Something that if a person is Yoshev Bahem, he says I want to bring a Neder, I want to bring an Adavah. I have this Hargasha that I want to bring a Korban. That type of Korban is the Korban you can bring. So again, critical. Lo Sason K'Chola Asher Anachnu Oisim B'Yom HaYom. By the way, this is the P'shuta Shel Mikra d'Pasuk. You can't just go ahead and bring any Korban you want. Rather, Ish Kol HaYoshev Bahem. So says the Gemara, this is the Makor d'R' Meir. That being that it says in the Torah Lo Sason K'Chola Asher Anachnu Oisim B'Yom HaYom. When Moshe Rabbeinu Moshe Rabbeinu was telling Klal Yisrael, "Okay, I'll be Sulam Eretz when you're going to go into Eretz Yisrael and there's going to be a Z'man Heter Bamers. Lo Sason K'Chola Asher Anachnu Oisim B'Yom HaYom. Don't think you're going to be to be able to bring any carbon you want but rather you should always but as it relates to carbon is that you're not going to be allowed to bring. Now why does also because those are right even in is right the spits is is that comes from us is a form of matter and as a result being that it's something that's brought but not you don't have to be a if you want to be a you're another it's a quintessential example of a thing that's it's included in the Indian of it's and it's for that reason the agree with the they agree with any carbon but rather only stating that they hold as it relates to in why so we went through this already in some of the that's learned that from even though it's true really should be there no reason to assume that it's not up in the as a in the bubble and as it relates to the carbon is are the size the of the is but the carbon is when another becomes another what he's doing is he's taking upon himself another but once he becomes a another now the obligates him to go ahead and bring carbon the carbon is themselves are viewed not as they're viewed rather as a to this the between the main with regards to the is the carbon and the ocean that the Nazar would bring. Now we don't have to hazard all the culture of the Nazar, but we know every single Nazar used to bring a carbon additionally every Nazar Tommy used to bring an ocean. So small said that the whole Shiloh of whether or not the carbon is Nazar were brought on Obama is negated because we know that and the ocean themselves are carbons that are not even though they're coming from something that's hefts of nether and another a few walking the mold you won't be able to breathe. The mayor says no it's sure is new because it traces so back to a new vessel as relates to the that the Nazar sometimes would have to bring side the Nazar Tommy side the Nazar to be a call you sure is new that everybody agrees is the sure is the car V and you'd be able to bring it to a small with a very nice addendum to the price said that the whole machlokes is only regarding the carbons Nazar that are not the carbons of the Nazar that are not I'm certainly going to be included. I've asked the kasha from a price of kasha the the true Muslim no again the Obama of a no again the Obama so the kasha of a Sheikh what's the kasha of a Sheikh that was a part of the carbon Islam and that required to move the true Muslim the true Muslim component of the so there were 40 to either we had to give 10% true Muslim so the true Muslim which also required to move no again the Obama it true Muslim was done the Obama they know again the Obama it wasn't the Obama so essentially what this price is saying is is that to move was only done on Obama right it was done in the oil night obviously and even in Gilgal when the was proverbial Obama there was a to move but on the Obama there was no to move so made a good idea it sounds like the price is coming to tell us that all the times that that find in the tire there's a mix of to move by a carbon. You should know it was not noig by Bava Metzia. And what were the examples where you have tenufah by a carbon? Oh, I have the Chazon Ish and after Maseches Meilah. I have another one, Tana d'bei Eliyahu. What happened to the Zera BeShela? Which is a chelek of the Shalmei Nazir that also required tenufah. It doesn't say that. The Zera BeShela Sha'ar says I'll grab a fist. Eliyahu BeShlomo by the BeShlomo Pli'i. BeShlomo, if you're going to tell me that the machlokes remained the chachamim is even regarding the oil and the shlamim. Hamani Rabbanan Eliyahu I'll tell you why he didn't say the Zera BeShela. You know why? Cuz in Bava Metzia there is no nazirus at all. So you have to tell you that you should know that the din tenufah wasn't noig. The whole chefetz of the carbon is dead on arrival wasn't there. Eliyahu BeChasda Sha'ul Pli'i. But if you're going to tell me that even the chachamim am oideh that the oil and the shlamim of the nazirus, specifically the shlamim of the nazirus, was brought even on the Bava Metzia. It was only the Chasda Sha'ul that was not. Hamani. So why then did the braisa omit the Zera BeShela from the Shalmei Nazir? Eliyahu because it is Rabbi Said Yehuda If Seder Masores that Shmuel made a qualification. They didn't say that the remainder chachamim argued by all the korbanos nazir, but some yes, some not. You would have to tweak it a little bit differently. Amar Shmuel Shmuel said as well. Pli'i is by the BeShlomo. The machlokes is in Seder Dafka by the oil and the shlamim. Aba BeChasda Sha'ul Everything really carried. But as it relates to Chasda Sha'ul they did the opposite. Everybody holds it's not kores. The whole machlokes is dafka with regards to the oil and the shlamim. But the bottom line is there's a shitas chachamim that holds that there was no Shalmei Nazir. Oh, if there's no Shalmei Nazir, that's the time of that braisa who when he listed the examples of tenufah that was not noig by Bava Metzia he did not list the Zera BeShela. And the reason is because it's a moot point. Because if there was no Shalmei Nazir, then obviously there was no tenufah there with the Zera BeShela either. Exhale. So as it relates to raid going back to the The of the daf, the very beginning of the daf, like the first words of the daf. The Mishnah had said kodshim kalim ne'ehalin bechol machaneh Yisrael. It's referring to the time that the Yidden had a Mishkan in the midbar. And the kodshim kalim had to be eaten davka bemachaneh Yisrael. The Gemara brought a comment that Rav Huna made. Amar Rav Huna, Rav Huna said, what does it mean bechol machaneh Yisrael? It means bechol mekomos Yisrael. It means bechol mekomos Yisrael. Now, the Gemara says that Rav Nachman heard what Rav Huna said. And he understood that what Rav Huna was trying to say was that although the Mishnah says machaneh Yisrael, the Mishnah doesn't really mean machaneh Yisrael. Rather, what the Mishnah means is anywhere that there's Yidden. And his interpretation of that was probably because Rav Huna holds there's no such thing as machaneh Yisrael. And if there's no such thing as machaneh Yisrael, then machaneh Yisrael can't be machaneh Yisrael. So, what then does it mean? What it means is bechol mekomos Yisrael. And on that, he asked a kasha. He says, how could you tell me that there's no such thing as a machaneh Yisrael? But Tanya, k'shem shemachta b'veit El kach machaneh Yerushalayim. You see clearly that there were the three machanos in Yerushalayim if I carry it, they mirror the three machanos in the midbar. So, for sure there was a machaneh Yisrael when they were in the midbar. Ela, the Gemara said, aim, but you have to say that what Rav Huna meant was something else. Not bechol mekomos Yisrael because there was no such thing as machaneh Yisrael, but bechol mekomos machaneh Yisrael. He was coming to ramify that as long as it's a machaneh Yisrael, even bechol makom but he's coming to be meyariv but let's say machaneh Yisrael moved, there would have been a hava mina, maybe they should be up so ya'aseh. It's such a good hava mina that the Gemara even asked eema l'chanami, but the bottom line is what Rav Huna was coming to be mechadesh was that as long as it's being eaten in machaneh Yisrael, even if it's not in the same machaneh Yisrael, that in and of itself would be okay. The truth is, if you think about the hava mina of the Gemara's understanding in Rav Huna, it's a peladig hava mina. Right, Rav Nachman hears Ravhuna say and he interprets that what Ravhuna is trying to say is there's no such thing as Machnes Yisrael. How could that be? I have a first surprise so that says that there is such a thing as Machnes Yisrael. If you think about it, it's it's paladic that Rav Nachman could have even thought that Ravhuna meant that. Why? First of all, we have to have a conversation if there was a Machnes Yisrael or there was no Machnes Yisrael. Everyone knows there was a Machnes Yisrael. Besides, how could the words Bechol Machnes Yisrael not mean Bechol Machnes Yisrael and instead mean Bechol Mekomos Yisrael? Just in title of Mishna, it's very very dark. It's very very dark. So, you tell me Ravhuna felt that he had no choice to learn it that way because he held there was no such thing as Machnes Yisrael. But then why did Mishna say Machnes Yisrael? Mishna should have said Bechol Mekomos Yisrael. But even more, this is more subtle, but I think this is the punchline of the kashas. And that is if the halacha is that there was no such thing as Machnes Yisrael, and as a result you would let it kosher and colon anywhere there's a Jew, so then just say Bechol Mekomos. Meaning, if you're there then by definition there's a Jew there because who else is eating it? So, why are we even saying Bechol Mekomos Yisrael? Just say Bechol Makom. Bechol Mekomos. So, by the way, go back to the Mishna. There's certain times where the halacha was to give it a Bechol Makom. Because Bechol Makom is the same as saying Bechol Mekomos Yisrael. So, why would the Mishna even say Bechol Mekomos Yisrael? Just say Bechol Makom. And really, at first glance, these first few lines Gamara that we, you know, glossed over, we made it look all perfect when we went through it. Really, if you think about it is ainay omer el adarshani. So, I found a mar makom to flaw. And I found this in the safer Mishnah Levi from a guy in Ramat [ __ ] Soloveitchik. And it's in Madura Kama. There's two Maduras. At the very, very end of the safer, obviously, we're holding at the end of Maseches Zevachim. He has several simanim on this India. It starts with Kuf Samech Aleph, Kuf Samech Bais, Kuf Samech Gimel, Kuf Samech Daled, Kuf Samech Hey, Kuf Samech Vav. It's pages of pages of ray. And it's all based on a Torah from the Rogatchover Gaon. That's in Sofness Paneach. It's in Parshas Naso. And I think it requires a little bit of an introduction. And this introduction is mamesh yesode. So, the topic of the first part of the daf was the idea that when the Yidden were in the Midbar, there were three machanos. There was Machaneh Shechinah. There was Machaneh Leviyah. And there was Machaneh Yisrael. So, what exactly were the three machanos? Again, when we went through the daf, we talked a little bit about it. Rashi in Parshas Naso. And this Rashi is in Perek Ches, Pasuk Bais. Um a pasuk that featured probably in today's daf. When the Yidden were in the Midbar, there were three machanos. Toch hakloi, anything inside the curtains, anything inside the proverbial Ohel Moed Azarah, he Machaneh Shechinah. Chaniyas HaLeviim, sof if. The area that the Leviim were encamped, which was surrounding that area, Kamo shem mefurash Parshas Bamidbar Sinai, he Machaneh Leviyah. That was Machaneh Leviyah. Gaon. And from there until the end of where the Degalim were, lechol arba ruchos, to all four sides, he Machaneh Yisrael. That was Machaneh Yisrael. So, Machaneh Shechinah we know. Machaneh Leviyah is where the Leviim were, that we know. What was Machaneh Yisrael? Like, where did it start then where did it end? So, Rashi, it started where Machaneh ended and it went at Sof Machaneh Had Golam. Until the end of the area where all that Golam was. Now, we're all familiar with the the Golam. A Degel means a flag, right? High level, the the Golam is the formation of how the Yidden encamped and how they traveled when they were in the Midbar. The Torah goes through it in in very, very great detail in Parshas Bamidbar, right? It's one of the big topics of of Parshas Bamidbar. It's something that was so nuanced. So, l'havdil elef alfei havdolos, if you see a a melech basar v'dam and he has his army where you have soldiers that are literally walking and breathing in formation, that's exactly the way the Yidden were all the years that they were in the Midbar. In fact, all the Shvatim were divided into four Degalim, or also referred to as four Machanos, right? Degel Machaneh, it says in the Torah. There was what was known as Degel Machaneh Yehudah, Degel Machaneh Reuven, Degel Machaneh Efraim, and Degel Machaneh Dan. 12 Shvatim divided into four Degel Machanos, which means with three Shvatim per. Everything was with a cheshbon and everything had to be exactly punctlich. But, the bottom line is, like David Gerstein, that if you want to know what Machaneh Yisrael was when the Yidden were in the Midbar, so it started from where the Levi'im lived and it went all the way until Sof Had Golam. Truth is that Lashon that Machaneh Yisrael goes at Sof Had Golam, Rashi says over here in today's daf as well. I am sure in one of the long Rashis, Rashi says such a Nusach as well. That the patch of Machaneh Yisrael was it went at Sof Had Golam. That's the first Hakdamah. The second Hakdamah is, we're all familiar with the Erev Rav. And by the way, if we're not all familiar with the Erev Rav, we could wait until next week's Parsha b'ezras Hashem in Chumash here cuz the Erev Rav are introduced us in Parshas Bo. The Torah says that Yisrael may Ramse Sukoisah, 600,000 men, with the exception of the children, they left Ramse, that's Goshen, that's where the Yidden had been, and they all started traveling. Vayigam Erev Rav ohlah eetam, and the Erev Rav went along with them. So, who were the Erev Rav, or better, who were the infamous Erev Rav? If you take a look at Rashi, Rashi says Erev Rav tarovis umoshul ger. They were a mixture of people that came from different nations that were ger. If you look at the Ibn Ezra, may anshei Mitzrayim, these were Egyptians she'as avohu imom, that intermingled together with the Jews, and that's who the Erev Rav were. The Erev Rav were chevreh that jumped on the bandwagon. They saw the Jews were winning, and they said, "You know what? All of a sudden, I'm a fan, and I want to be a part of whatever it is you have, and obviously after the makkos, things are looking pretty good right now." They're borrowing money. The chein of the Yidden is very much b'einei haMitzrim, like the pasuk says, and as a result, who doesn't want to be a follower, right? So, the Erev Rav jumped on the bandwagon. They're called Erev milochin taruvois, there was a lot of them, and the bottom line is the Erev Rav are these tarovis umoshul ger. Now, it's interesting, the Erev Rav get another very prominent shout out later in the Torah, and this is in Parshas Balak. In Parshas Balak, the Torah says vo'asafsu asher b'kirbo, there was a group of people known as the asafsuf. They were amidst the Yidden, hisavu ta'avah, they had a ta'avah, right? And they wanted different food, vayashuvu vayivku, they kicked Mosheh, they cried, and the pasuk says "Gam benei Yisrael." Do benei Yisrael as well. Vayamu, they said, "Mi yachilenu basar?" Who's going to give us a little bit of flesh? So, who are the asafsuf? Look at Rashi and Rashi and Baal HaTurim. In this perek, it says possuk dalet, "Eilu eiruv rav shenesfu aleihem bitzeisom miMitzrayim." They had gathered together with the Yehudim at the time that the Yehudim left Mitzrayim. If you look again at Ibn Ezra, "Va'asafsuf shenesfu al Yisrael, ve'einam mehem." They ain'am eiruv rav. And they are the eiruv rav. And truth is, you see it in the possuk mefurash. Cuz the possuk says, "Va'asafsuf asher bikirbam yisavu ta'avah vayashuvu vayivku." And then it says, "Gam benei Yisrael." So, what does it sound like? I don't know the asafsuf part, but they're not the benei Yisrael. Because we mentioned the asafsuf, and then we say, "Oh, in addition to the asafsuf, you have the gam benei Yisrael as well." So, it's not only the asafsuf, it's the asafsuf plus it's the benei Yisrael. Truth is, the eiruv rav in Terumah Parah get another shout-out. It's a few pesukim earlier. The possuk says, "Vayihi am kimesonenim rab oznei Hashem." "Vayishma Hashem vayichar apo, vatitbar bam eish Hashem vatocheil biktzei hamachaneh." Right? There were people that were complaining. The possuk doesn't even say what they were complaining about. Possuk, they were just kvetchers. "Vayihi am kimesonenim" very bad in the eyes of Hashem. Kadosh Baruch Hu heard, Kadosh Baruch Hu got really angry, and Kadosh Baruch Hu made a fire happen biktzei hamachaneh. If you look again in Rashi, Rashi says, "Biktzei hamachaneh bal muktzin shebehem." Biktzei means the muktzin, the people that were, right? Cast away. The shiflus, because they were nidderim, cuz they were lowly. And "Eilu eiruv rav" it's referring to the eiruv rav. So, the eiruv rav get mentioned so many different times, so many different ways. Who are the eiruv rav? The eiruv rav are not benei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The eiruv rav are not descendants of Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, Zevulun, etc., etc. The eiruv rav are people that came from the other umos. They jumped on the bandwagon. They said, "I want to come along." That is who the Erev Rav were. Now, if you look carefully at the Even Ezra again, we're not learning Chumash now, but if you look carefully at the Even Ezra, the Even Ezra seems to say that these were any Yehudim that might have even remained any Yehudim, right? The words of the Even Ezra by the Asaf Sufi nest for all Yisrael the in may have. It's not clear. And also the Bnei Yisrael, right? At that point, Bnei Yisrael means Jews. So, it sounds a little bit like they're not uh Bnei Yisrael. But, Rashi is mefurash not that way. Rashi says in Parshas Bo, Erev Rav taroyvis umos shol gerim. Truth is, there's another Rashi. This Rashi is very, very sharp. Rashi is in Parshas Ki Sisa. The pasuk says, "Vayidaber Hashem el Moshe, lech red." Ki shicheis ki shicheis amcha asher heileisa may Eretz Mitzrayim. So, in Chumash here, last week, we talked a little bit about lech red. Red mikdoloscha bnei Yisrael bnei Yisrael bnei Yisrael, right? The next Rashi, ki shicheis amcha. It's talking about the Rashi. Shicheis ha'am lo ne'emar. It doesn't say shicheis ha'am. Elo, what it says is shicheis amcha. What shicheis amcha? It's referring to Erev Rav. Shekibalta me'atzmecha. Kodesh Baruchu tells Moshe, "You on your own were mekabel the Erev Rav." It's a very important Rashi. You have to know this Rashi. V'gi'yartem, and you were megayer them v'lo ne'em lach to be. You never asked me if I would thought it was an idea. V'amarta, you made a cheshbon toyiv sheyidb'ku gerim bishchinah. That it's good for these chevreh to come and attach themselves to the shchinah. Hein shicheis u'veheichsheisu. Backfired on you. And that's ki shicheis amcha, dein volk. Klal Yisrael is my am. The Erev Rav, the gerim, that's your am. Nobody asked you to do it. Had you asked me, I'm not sure I would have told you this is a good idea. You made a toyiv sheyidb'ku gerim bishchinah. half of the garage. But it's the we're getting, right? The The were getting. Where did the live? So the part of the equation, right? The us up so Where exactly did they live? So the going said it's a free. The is in by It's on the of the that we mentioned a second ago is referring to the area. We need to see it's referring to the area because the says it started by the and she brings but and the also says that the with the area and the also learns it from the fact that it says from the fact that it says but the this is a well-known says it a little bit differently says the it's to the area it's referring to the Who were the They were the area and the area and where did they live? They lived by the area and being that they lived by the area so therefore when it says when it says in the but you know what it's referring to? It's referring to the It's referring to the area said the going and it's possible to me that when the said the area he said that when it says in the area it's all it means the area didn't mean what everybody thinks he meant and that is not area it's really area it can't be because number one that would be predicated on there being no such thing as a area knows there's such a thing as a area how could he not know that? Additionally, if the missioner wants to say area this becomes Israel, then it should say Israel. It shouldn't say Israel. And if it means to say that wherever Jews are, then he should say the whole because wherever you are, a Jew is there. So what's this commission said the kid with his he said was Israel. And Israel was the place that the hidden will live. But said the yes what about the the who live they didn't live together in the area that was at the golem like he says which is the type of Israel. So if that area with the of all that tents it's an of it's a big over there. Are you allowed to eat and are you not allowed to eat when you when you learn the missioner the missioner says the whole of Israel. It sounds like it has to be Israel. And he says in the and he says in what's the type of Israel that's so that the of the is not included. On that that even though it says the whole of Israel, but what it really means is the whole of Israel. What it means is not Israel with the of live. I'll be yet the place not that there is a right now. For that you would say the whole but any place that there were that lived even though it's not Israel proper that would be included. The missioner said Israel because it's Israel, but you should know that the type of this Israel is not limited to the textbook definition that quotes everywhere and that is the whole of golem. But rather what it means is is the whole of Israel as if to say Israel is not even so much because of Machaneh, but because of Makom Chaniyasom. Or the entire area where the Yidden were encamped. Where Rabbis, even the Makom of the area Rabbis. That's where Rav Nachman was coming to say. Now, what was the Isur of Nachman? So, Nachman didn't have that's what Rav Nachman meant. So, Iyun B'Mishnah Leviya as a whole Arichus. For that already Iyun Sham, but either way it's half of a fellow. The Taisah Machaneh Yisrael M'vorah Rashi is at Sof Ha'Golam. The area Rav lived B'Ktzah Machaneh. That means they didn't live in the area of the Golam. So, Yesh L'Chalkem. Could you eat kosher and call him in that Makom of the area of such such a classic Rogatchover Digah Hakirah. In that area could you or not? Said the Rogatchover that I believe that was the Havah Minah in the Gemara's understanding of Rav Nachman. It was Davka that area that he was coming to be Marbeh in Dos Ada Gemain. That even though the Mishnah says Machaneh Yisrael, but really what it means is B'Chol Makomos Yisrael. Just then in the long Arichus of Rav Shulzinger I saw he brings that somebody once asked Moreh Nachris. He said he heard this M'Pi Ha'Shmuah that somebody asked Moreh Nachris. He said, "I understand the Erev Rav were Gerim. We have a Mitzvah of V'Ahavta Es Ha'Ger. How's it possible that the Yidden told the Gerim you live B'Ktzah Machaneh? That's the antithesis of the attitude the Torah says we're supposed to have to the Ger. Now, the truth is we know the Erev Rav were not good guys. They were troublemakers. First of all, does it mean every Erev Rav was a troublemaker? And besides, just because he's a troublemaker doesn't mean he's not a Ger. At the end of the day what happened to the Mitzvah of V'Ahavta Es Ha'Ger?" And the Brisker Rav said like only the Brisker Rav could say. He said, "Fuss. You think that the reason the Erev Rav were B'Ktzah Machaneh is because they were Shveilim and we didn't want to have anything to do with them." He said, "The area that the Yidden had to live was very very orchestrated. Like we mentioned earlier, it was nuanced to a science. I'm going to breathe here and you're going to look here and you're going to stand there and you guys Shlufin Darten." The Torah said exactly how the setup was. There was a Mishkan and Soviv La'Mishkan Yachanu Ha'Leviim. And around that area had the Degel Machaneh Yehudah, and the Degel Machaneh Reuven, and the Degel Machaneh Dan, and the Degel Machaneh Ephraim. He said the Erev Rav were Gerim. They didn't come from Yehudah, they didn't come from Reuven, they didn't come from Dan, they didn't come from Ephraim. Remember they had no Machaneh in the Galil. If they had no Machaneh in the Galil, maybe they had to be B'tzeil Machaneh. They weren't B'tzeil Machaneh because they were being cast away. They were B'tzeil Machaneh partially because there was nowhere else for them to be. Either way, this is the Charifus of the Rogatchover, the Re'uyin Hadvarim L'Mishnah.