Menachos 58 מנחות דף נח

Shalom to all!

Today's episode of Noong Chesa, we are starting right at the top of the Ammo

and today's episode of Sponsor Lillian Ishmaz, Mars Miramsar, Bas Bjak Masha,

Hurnes, Shama, should have an oleon.

Now we're in the middle of explaining why it's so obvious that Byechner and Blasr

are a brice that stated that if one took an edible part of a carbon or a mince,

put it on the mizbech, he's chaiyiv.

That's basically a puzzle that any carbon or mince for that matter

that had part of it brought on the mizbech already,

the remaining parts those that are supposed to be eaten,

have an isser, have a love, they're not only put on the mizbech.

The question with Zen asked,

what about if it was put on the kevish of the mizbech, the ramp?

So, Byechner is my chaiyiv and Blasr is a potter,

and this is based off of a puzzle that uses the word,

oh you saw him, excluding these from the lava placing on the kevish,

and the only things that are included in this are the shteh alachem be kurim.

So we're now asking Byechner,

hi, oh you saw him at my abilite,

was Byechner doing this word, oh you saw him,

cleared to the limitation,

how does he explain it?

The answer is Byechner is if Byechner has a tiny needs of a falling brice,

so you might think that if you have Yachhan Masnadev

who may be killed by Nidava,

that if Yachhan is individual,

is able to Masnadev, he could donate,

meaning he could promise that he's going to give this to Byechner to his donation,

and that he would have to bring it because of a caron he bought,

I would say the following puzzle about him,

mights his Vasechatesh Marvassisa,

now which comes out of your lips, you shall guard it and do.

Namely, when a person makes a nether,

he promises he's going to do something he has to fulfill it.

So I think he's able to bring these as Nidava,

and therefore, time on with the puzzle says,

carbon-rich is Takrivu,

what do we learn from here?

Sibur Martilachov, la Yachhan,

I'm meaning the Tyra,

and telling you that only it's Sibur is able to bring this,

not an individual,

that's because the word Takrivu is plural,

you plural, shall bring this,

and that's a Sibur not Yachhan.

Now Yachhan, you might think that,

while you're Yachhan, maybe,

the reason why Yachhan's not able to bring it

is that he never has to bring a Khaib,

he doesn't have a Khaib, which is like this,

he never has to bring a Khaib,

which is the Sibur, for example,

but perhaps the Sibur, as a whole,

is able to bring this as Nidava,

because it does have to bring a Khaib like this,

the Sibur is brought as a Khaib,

so maybe the Sibur is allowed to bring Sibur as Nidava,

and therefore, time on with the puzzle says,

them, only these things are allowed to be brought

as a Sibur carbon, but not as a Nidava,

and for the clarification,

when you're going to have a sword,

is it that you do bring,

shite al-Akhaman al-Sahar,

who be crewman al-Dvash,

shite al-Akhaman is brought from Sahar,

and be crewman is brought from Dvash,

as we had explained this,

just refers to sweet things,

such as fruit,

their juice that comes through them is like Dvash,

and these are the only two things that are allowed to be brought.

However, now we're asking this,

so shite al-Akhaman like Runaidava,

shite al-Akhaman is not be brought as Nidava,

but then you have a Brysa.

Evenem al-Khalsaar,

Lominem al-Khaldvash,

evenem al-Khaldvash,

Lominem al-Khalsaar.

Why is the puzzle kept to say both of these words?

Khalsaar,

al-Khaldvash,

lois a crewman al-Isha'l-Ashem.

If it already says Khalsaar,

shouldn't that also include Dvash,

and if it says Dvash,

shouldn't that also include Sahar,

why have both of these?

And the answer is,

this is the right way,

shite al-Khalsaar,

shite al-Dvash,

shite al-Dvash,

shite al-Dvash,

shite al-Dvash,

something unique about Sahar,

that doesn't apply to Dvash,

and some of my Dvash,

it doesn't apply by Sahar.

Namely,

Sahar,

hotabash al-Ashem.

Sahar does have a hatter with his general issaar

in the base of Dvash,

which we'll see what that's referring to in a moment,

whereas Dvash,

lois a hotabash al-Ashem.

Dvash doesn't have any sort of hatter in the base of Dvash,

there's never an ability to be able to bring any sort of Dvash

in the base of Dvash,

and to the other side as well,

Dvash,

hotabash armenachahis.

Dvash does have a hatter,

the gong shiyari minachahis,

the left overs of a carbon minachah,

are allowed to be fried or baked in Dvash,

whereas Sahar,

lois hotabash armenachahis,

Sahar,

which is going to hum it,

that doesn't have hatter by Sahar minachahis,

as we know from the beginning of the parake already,

there's an answer to be made

to any part of a carbon minachah.

And the bars can include,

hotabash issaar,

mashaim minachahis,

yash minachahis,

mashaim minachahis,

since it was just showed

that there's something unique by Sahar,

that doesn't apply to Dvash,

and there's something unique by Dvash,

it doesn't apply to Sahar,

hotabash armenachahis,

hotabash armenachahis,

that's why,

as the beginning of the parake said,

we have to have two separate words on the parake,

kalsar and kalsar,

because each of them are unique in their own right.

Now here comes the question,

Sahar,

the hotabash armenachahis,

maynihu,

what did the parake mean when it said

that there's a hatter to the general isser of Sahar

in the base of Mekhdash?

What's this referring to?

Lafstea,

a lechlan,

the carbon dava,

doesn't mean that the stea,

a lechlan is able to be brought as a carbon dava,

and having me in a camper referring to the classic stea,

a lechlan,

the carbon which is brought on shfewis,

that's because it's not brought on the mizbeach,

as we know it's eaten by the kaihanim,

so it must be referring to

that stea, a lechlan,

is allowed to be brought as a nidava,

just a regular donated carbon,

and that would be put on the mizbeach.

As I've been saying the previous baisa,

the stea, a lechlan,

is not able to be given as a nidava.

However,

al-Mawra,

al-Mawra,

al-Mawra says,

that's not so,

that the wrong understanding the baisa,

is awesome,

the two lambs of shfewis,

and those, at least,

part of them are put on the mizbeach,

and that's what it means,

the hotra michlaloi baisa are.

You're right,

this are itself,

the stea lecham themselves

are not put on the mizbeach,

but the carbon which is connected to the stea lecham,

that is put on the mizbeach,

and that's what it means,

hotra michlaloi,

and so we can't learn from there

that the stea lecham are allowed to be given

as a donated carbon.

So more as a hach,

if that's really so,

that we're talking about the carbon,

which is connected to it,

will be krumnami.

Why don't we say the same applies by krumnami?

That there is hotra michlaloi baisa,

there is some sort of hater baisa,

and again, the dvash,

as we had said,

was referred to be krumnami.

Why is that?

Because we have a mishat,

it says,

the young birds that are on the baskets,

meaning when people would bring their be krumn,

they were placed in baskets,

and they would put birds on top of them.

So what were those birds?

How you eyeless?

They were birds,

carbonous ala,

and the baskets they were holding

were given as a present to the krumnami,

and so we see from here,

that be krumnami,

which again is dvash,

so it has carbonous with it,

and so why do the baisa say,

that by dvash,

there is no hotra michlaloi,

there is hotra michlaloi,

the carbonous that are brought with them,

the more answers,

no,

how do you allow it to be krumnami,

who the asu,

those birds were only there

as an adornment to the be krumnami,

but they're not actually part and parcel of them,

they're not part of the krumnami,

and therefore it's not considered hotra michlaloi.

We can discuss in his life

a placing something on his back,

which is not what we put there,

but there,

by rumour,

we have chesa,

he has his fellows,

and we can talk meat,

if the coin took meat,

from a chata saaif,

a bird chataas,

and he put that on his back,

what's the then?

We know that the entire chata saaif,

is eaten by the kaihanim,

and none of it is supposed to be placed on his back,

besides for the blood,

but in terms of the meat of the bird,

nothing's put on his back,

but let's say the coin did put it on,

is the overall live,

and he had the two different stod him.

Call shami menu li ishi mamra khmanu,

of a high aimi menu li ishiam,

do we go with our original drosha,

the way we've been understanding the entire time,

and the posit says,

we menu, and we learn from here,

that if some of the carbon was already put on the fire,

so you have a live,

we're putting other parts of it on the fire,

but this doesn't have any menu li ishiam,

as we just said,

a chata saaif,

doesn't have any part of it,

which is part of his back,

a Dilma,

call shami menu karbon,

maybe the drosha is,

anything which is considered a karbon,

and a high nami shami karbon,

this is also called a karbon,

a chata saaif is called a karbon befarish in the poshuk,

so I'm really told him,

call shami menu karbon,

it's anything which is called a karbon,

that has this real live,

a part of his back,

and a high nami shami karbon,

this is also called a karbon,

and actually says the gamaro katanoi,

this comes from a chakas tanoiam,

a rebelizer,

a rebelizer says,

call shami menu li ishiam,

that there is a live,

a putting something on the fire,

is only if some other part of it was already put on the fire,

has a chia ddu put on the fire,

so the edible parts are not allowed to be,

which is what we keep on him,

he says,

call shami karbon,

that's if it's called a karbon,

and maybe now what's the nauf community

between a rebelizer and a vikiva,

or maybe a chia ddu,

he says,

a chata saaif is called a karbon,

there would be a chata saaif,

a chantra bikiva,

one would be khai for putting it on the msbach,

because it's called a karbon,

or is a chantra blazer,

one wouldn't be,

because anyway, there's no part of a chata saaif,

which is put on the msbach,

so if he does,

he's not going to be over alive.

Now, Rav,

on my rav says,

like shami shami shami saaif,

there's another nauf community between them,

this is the lug oil of msbach,

that has none of it put on the msbach,

the tiny levy levy teaches,

the pausak says,

call karbon,

what do we learn from here?

This includes the lug shami no msbach,

that's given to the khaihanim,

and so here as well,

we would have the saaifach like us,

since it's called a karbon,

a chantra bikiva,

there would be an isr lav,

putting some of that oil on the msbach,

or as a chantra blazer,

since none of it's part of the msbach,

anyway, there's no lav,

of putting it on the msbach.

Okay, team, discussing this lav,

of saaar,

and dvaash,

tonneurban, we have a brysaat,

the pausak tells us saaar,

bautaktiru, really,

it says saaar,

loisaktiru,

and what do we learn from here?

Ailee ala koolai,

Ailee no from here,

that the entire thing has a lav,

msbach 7.9, what about part of it?

Tomalai no msbach says,

kool, and a ruviminein,

how do we know if we mix it with msbach,

meaning part of the mincha,

that's na khamates,

and it's all mushed around together,

and you can't even see the khamates,

how do you know there's still an isr,

Tomalai no msbach says,

key kool,

and so the kumar is micomire,

what exact is going on this brysaat?

What does that mean?

koolai, msbach saai,

ruvai,

So if I'm not going to ask Amarai about it,

he says,

how could the kumar is what's being said?

saar about acti-ru,

this again the possic that tells us

that saar is not going to be brought on msbach.

Now Ailee ala kizai-is,

Ailee no from here,

a kizai-is of saar,

kizai-is of khamates is a assert to put on msbach.

ratsi-is minain,

how do I know?

Half of the kizai-is of saar-is

is also assert to put on msbach,

Tomalai no msbach,

kool, that's what the kool teaches us,

and a ruviminein,

how do we know if we mix saar

with the msbach itself,

meaning with the part of msbach,

that's not khamates,

it's still msbach,

and indistinguishable,

you can't tell that there's khamates here,

how do we know that there's still a love?

Tomalai no msbach,

kikool,

such a wise understanding,

over ruv Amarai says,

how could the kumar is what the brass is saying?

saar about acti-ru,

that's the possic,

Ailee ala kumat,

I only know this referring to putting

the entire kumat of the msbach

on msbach,

if it's khamates,

that that's a love.

ratsi-is kumat minain,

how do we know,

kumat is khamates,

and he just wants to put that half on,

that there's a love,

Tomalai-mer,

kool,

and he ruv Amarai,

Tomalai-mer,

kikool,

so the question is,

what's the msbach?

the answer is,

by server,

byhold,

yash kumat's pochuspsi-is-is-im,

that the kumats of a karm-mincha

couldn't be less than tuk-is-is-im,

it doesn't have to be tuk-is-is-im,

and so therefore,

the base love of saar about acti-ru,

tells us that even just a kizai-is has a love,

because again,

the kumats doesn't have to be tuk-is-is-im,

so the kumats is technically able to be even just one sa-is,

so that's the base love,

and the josh-au-kals-ar,

tells us half of the kizai-is,

because that's referring to

half of the kumats,

which is we had just said,

the kumats itself could be a sa-is,

so that means that half of the kumats would be half of the kizai-is,

and what is a bai-hold,

and what is a kizai-is,

and what is a kizai-is,

is that there is a love of being mocked

or less than a kizai-is,

or is ruv Amarai-s-is-is-im,

he explains differently,

there's no kumitsa less than two-za-is-im,

and therefore, when we have our drush-au-of-half,

that means it's half of two-za-is-im,

which is at least a sa-is,

and we're in actor Prus-mi-kizai-is,

there's no actor less than a kizai-is,

and that's a ruv-au-yuz-alosion of kumats,

because the kumats has to be two-za-is-im,

and so half of the kumats is one-za-is.

Now if you continue to discussion about this,

it's more of stated,

Let's say somebody was mala,

a mixture of sa-ar and d-wash on the miz-b-ach.

How many lavin is he getting at mal-kiz-for?

So I'm a ruv-au,

according to some of your su-is,

actually ruv-au-yuz-b-ach switched around over here,

so he says,

like a mish-um sa-ar,

but like a mish-um d-wash,

like a mish-um-e-ru-ve sa-ar,

mish-um-e-ru-ve-d-wash,

he gets four sets of mal-kiz.

He has the two main lavin that he uses over,

these are the base lavin, sa-ar and d-wash,

they don't be macrophs sa-ar,

and then he's also over on a mixture of sa-ar and d-wash,

because the sa-ar that he has is mixed with d-wash,

and the d-wash that he has is mixed with sa-ar.

So he's actually over on four lavin,

and he gets four sets of mal-kiz.

However, by him,

or by him, he says,

ain't like an alive shib-a-chlaw-us.

We don't give mal-kiz on a generalized lavin,

and as we just learned before,

this is a lavin shib-a-chlaw-us.

We have a base lavin of sa-ar or of d-wash,

and then we have our added rasha of a key-call,

and they're all fits under the lavin of le-sak-tirus,

that's called a lavin shib-a-chlaw-us,

so you don't get a separate set of mal-kiz for each of those lavin,

and therefore he's only gonna get mal-kiz for the main-lavin,

not for the additional one that's learned from the d-wash-a.

Now, ikadami-sum say,

Khadami-alaki,

Rashi actually adds into the gear-sa-ar that,

Tartiloy-laki, Khadami-alaki,

is not gonna get two sets of mal-kiz,

rather he's gonna get one,

namely he's only gonna get mal-kiz for the main-lavin of sa-ar and d-wash,

and if ikadami-sum say,

Khadami-alaki,

he's not gonna get even one set of mal-kiz,

because this lavin is not individual,

it's not specified like the lavin shib-a.

What's a lavin shib-a?

This is a classic drush that we find all over when discussing mal-kiz,

there's one positive that discusses that a person's gonna get mal-kiz for being either,

and then right afterwards it tells us,

Loisach-sum-shib-a-d-shai,

Dom-muzzle-an-axe,

when it's threshing,

that's called the lavin shib-a.

So it's a very specific clear lavin,

as opposed to over here,

when discussing sa-ar and d-wash,

it doesn't fit that same model of lavin shib-a,

so actually he would get no mal-kiz,

working on sa-ar for the day,

and pick up tomorrow with another missioner for now.

Everyone should have a wonderful day!