So maybe maybe just a few minutes of sugya discussion before we switch over to the Rambam to follow up on what we were discussing yesterday a little bit here in the sugya. Let's see a little bit of the big Tosafot where they quote Rabbeinu Chananel and Rabbeinu Tam's girsa. If you see that after they branch out to the second time, the last one in the line is u'meihai. It's three lines underneath the parentheses of yud-zayin amud-bet, u'meihai. ומהאי דפריש דבשבעה עשר לא אפשר לצמצם אין לדקדק שום דבר.
Meaning that don't think that there is a machloket which Tosafot has been talking about whether efshar l'tzamtzeim or iy efshar l'tzamtzeim. Maybe we will come back to this. Tosafot says don't think that we have a stam de'gemara that we hold efshar l'tzamtzeim. Why? דרבנו חננאל גריס דאי אפשר לצמצם ve'iy efshar l'tzamtzeim. וכן רבנו תם ולגירסתו נמי אין ראיה. So maybe maybe according to that girsa there should be a raya if it can't... v'lahachi halacha kein. לא הוי כמו דאי אפשר לצמצם דבכל מקום אלא כלומר אי אפשר בשום ענין שלא יהא אויר משהו בין הכשר לפסול כדפרישנא לעיל בהכשר או פסולא נכנס ליוצא. דאינו דופק כל כך הכשר לקרבו אצל הפסול ולא יהא אויר משהו בין הכשר לפסול. ונמצא שאין הכשר מרובה על האויר ועל הפסול.
v'shamyi. Okay, so let's just... that's the line that we want to focus on. Fine. So the ikar pshat of in the girsa that iy efshar l'tzamtzeim, you can't... it's virtually impossible to totally fill a gap. You're not going to wedge it in so tightly that you fill in every last mashahu. Fine. But what's not clear in Tosafot is: so why does Tosafot have to say ונמצא שאין הכשר מרובה על האויר ועל הפסול? d'l'mai chazi ha'avir? You don't need the avir. If the mishna describes a case that המקרה סוכתו ושפודין בארוכות המיטה אם יש ריוח ביניהן כמותן.
And the Gemara in its kasha of iy efshar l'tzamtzeim is coming to say that you can't fill in that entire gap, so then the pasul is just meruba over the kasher without the avir. Then take a look at Tosafot haRosh. You have an Otzar haHochma? Yeah. So it's on amud yud in this pagination. The top section Tosafot haRosh around seven, six lines down at the end of the line is the abbreviation for hu hadin. הוא הדין נמי דפרק קמא דביצה דאמרי מותר דאי מוקמי לה במצמצם נמצא שהפסול מרובה דכיון דאי אפשר.
Wait just one minute please. I think I made a mistake, just one minute please. No, I think it's okay. So Tosafot Rosh also doesn't mention the avir. The difficulty that we're having in Tosafot, Tosafot Rosh also doesn't mention avir. It's not clear why avir is relevant. Why is it such a big deal? The point is like this. The question is, is there an indication in Tosafot, again I'll accept that the reading that we suggested yesterday in the Rambam is correct, that the Rambam holds that you're only metzaref avir to schach pasul to create פרוץ מרובה על העומד by sukka ktana, but you wouldn't do that by sukka gdola? The question is, do you see from Tosafot that Tosafot disagrees with that? So that's the significance of whether or not Tosafot is being metzaref the avir, right? I don't think there's any indication that Tosafot is talking only about a sukka ktana. Pshat in Tosafot is that Tosafot is talking about a sukka gdola as well. So if you have the Tosafot, I don't know, you just read it sort of without figuring out why you would need avir, but lema'aseh Tosafot is cheshbening avir as well, so then Tosafot would seem to be disagreeing with that mahalech we said yesterday in the Rambam, right? That you can be metzaref avir. But lema'aseh, the pshat in Tosafot is not clear. Tosafot Rosh doesn't have it. I don't know, is it a ta'os in our Tosafot? I don't know. Ayen sham. Maybe the whole thing is, I don't know, Ayen sham. The other point I just wanted to add to what we discussed yesterday in the Rambam, yeah. So maybe let's just review here, פרק ה' הלכה י"ג. Beginning פרק ה' הלכה י"ג. I think they say that when you learn to music it's easier to remember. דבר שסככו בו ודבר שאין מסככין בו, עירב זה בזה וסיכך בהם, אף על פי שהפסול יתר על הכשר, כשרה. סיכך בזה לעצמו ובזה לעצמו, זה בצד זה, אם יש בסכך פסול שלושה טפחים במקום אחד, בין באמצע בין מן הצד, הרי זה פסולה. במה דברים אמורים? בסוכה קטנה. אבל בסוכה גדולה, סכך פסול באמצע, פסולה בארבעה טפחים, ופחות מכאן כשרה. ומן הצד, פסולה בארבע אמות, ופחות מכאן כשרה.
Okay, then skip please to halacha Tet-Vav. ואיזהו היא סוכה קטנה? כל שאין בה אלא שבעה טפחים על שבעה טפחים. וגדולה? כל שיישאר בה יתירה על הסכך הפסול שבעה טפחים על שבעה טפחים סכך כשר.
The question is just how to make sense. of of of this din that in a סוכה קטנה סכך פסול is posel if there's ג' טפחים במקום אחד. So what will be the following scenario? Let's say you alternate bamboo poles with metal poles. You have a succah which is zayin al zayin. You make mesachech and you alternate beginning with bamboo, you alternate bamboo and metal, each one a tefach. So what's the din going to be in that case? Bamboo, metal, bamboo, metal, bamboo, metal, bamboo. Kasher. If you then re... if you shuffle things around so you have two bamboo, three metal, two bamboo. I think... no, no, no, two bamboo, three metal, succah ketana. It's gonna be... it'll be pasul, okay? It'll be pasul. So what's the p'shat? What's the p'shat? Because you need... you need seven tefachim of s'chach kasher. How can that be the p'shat? In the first case you don't have seven tefachim of s'chach kasher. S'chach pasul as is... I mean it's not arba'a tefachim, so why all of a sudden should we say that s'chach pasul is posel b'gimel? So itachan that the p'shat is as follows. Could be that this is gufa what the Gemara means on י"ז עמוד ב also. But itachan the p'shat is as follows. Let's say change the case instead of alternating bamboo and... and just remember, right, the Rambam says the definition of a succah ketana... of a succah gedolah is that you have שבעה טפחים על שבעה טפחים סכך כשר without the s'chach pasul, correct? But again, you don't have that in the one one one case. And if you change the one one one case from instead of metal, have it avir. Bamboo, avir, bamboo, avir, etc. Though that's also good. Why is that good? So apparently the reason that's good is because then... then you can say that you have seven tefachim of s'chach kasher because derech haschach is that you have... it's patchy. You have chalonos shel avir. That's the derech of schach. It's not a... it's not a ceiling, it's not a roof. The derech of schach or of a succah or of a diras arai is that you have air holes, that it's patchy, and... and then you have... you have chalonos shel avir. Which is why again if you think of the case as כשר אויר כשר אויר כשר אויר כשר. No, you do have seven tefachim of s'chach kasher because derechah shel schach that it has... it's not solid, that it has chalonos shel avir. Oh, so lich'ora from the fact that by a succah ketana the din of s'chach pasul is the same as avir... But lich'ora you can't say... you wouldn't have thought that you could say that if it's bamboo, metal, bamboo, metal, etc. then lich'ora you don't have seven tefachim of s'chach kasher. It's not the darko shel schach to be intermingled with s'chach pasul necessarily. Ella mai? So al korchach you see that the p'shat in this din is that in a succah ketana s'chach pasul is k'parutz nishchav. Oh, if davka in a succah ketana s'chach pasul is k'parutz nishchav, so then avir is mitztaref. Why not that's just... one is ke... that you have lavud where? In the s'chach pasul case? Yeah, the bamboo metal. Why? I think you can only say lavud if it's empty. You can't say lavud if there's something there. I hope so. I don't knowingly say beisa tosheches. I do, but not knowingly. Okay so maybe we'll talk some more about this mishnayos bli neder but maybe then let's now switch to the Ramban. So what we said yesterday maybe we'll do Ramban today maybe we do Inyanei Chanukah so the obvious kesher is to look at the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Behaalosecha so let's try to see that בלי נדר אם ירצה השם. Behaalosecha. למה נסמכה פרשת המנורה לחנוכת הנשיאים לפי שכשראה אהרן חנוכת הנשיאים חלשה דעתו שלא היה עמהם בחנוכה לא הוא ולא שבטו אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא חייך שלך גדולה משלהם שאתה מדליק ומטיב את הנרות בוקר וערב
lashon Rashi ממדרש אגדה ולא נתפרש לי למה נחמו בהדלקת הנרות ולא נחמו בקטורת בוקר וערב ששבחו בו הכתוב ישימו קטורה באפך ובכל הקרבנות ובמנחת חביתין ובעבודת יום הכפורים שאינה כשרה אלא בו ונכנס לפני ולפנים ושהוא
Kodesh Lashem Kodesh Lashem עומד בהיכל לשרתו ולברך בשמו ושבטו כולו משרתי אלקינו ועוד מה טעם לחלישות הדעת הזו והלא קרבנו גדול משל נשיאים שהקריב בימים ההם קרבנות הרבה כל ימי המלואים ואם תאמר שהיו חובה ונצטוה בהם וחלשה דעתו על שלא הקריב נדבה כמותם לחנוכת המזבח גם הדלקת הנרות שנחמו בה חובה ונצטוה עליה אבל ענין ההגדה הזו לדרוש רמז מן הפרשה על חנכה של נרות שהיתה בבית שני על ידי אהרן ובניו רצוני לומר חשמונאי כהן גדול ובניו ובלשון הזה מצאתיה במגלת סתרים לרבינו נסים שהזכיר ההגדה הזו ואמר ראיתי במדרש כיון שהקריבו שנים עשר שבטים ולא הקריב שבט לוי
v'chulu אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה דבר אל אהרן ואמרת אליו יש חנוכה אחרת שיש בה הדלקת הנרות ואני עושה בה לישראל על ידי בניך נסים ותשועה וחנוכה שקרויה על שמם והיא חנוכת בית חשמונאי ולפיכך הסמיך פרשה זו לפרשת חנוכת המזבח עד כאן לשונו וראיתי עוד בילמדנו וכן במדרש רבה אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לך אמור לאהרן אל תתירא לגדולה מזו אתה מוכן אל תתירא לגדולה מזו אתה מוכן הקרבנות כל זמן שבית המקדש קיים הן נוהגים אבל הנרות לעולם אל מול פני המנורה יאירו וכל הברכות שנתתי לך לברך את בני אינן בטלות לעולם והנה דבר ידוע שכשאין בית המקדש קיים הקרבנות בטלים מפני חורבנו אף הנרות בטלים אבל לא רמזו אלא לנרות חנכת חשמונאי שהיא נוהגת אף לאחר חורבן בגלותנו וכן ברכת כהנים הסמוכה לחנוכת הנשיאים נוהגת לעולם דרשו סמוכין לחנוכת הנשיאים מלפניה ומאחריה לכבודו של אהרן שלא נמנה עמהם.
Okay so that's stop the... Okay so the Ramban very famously says that the semichas haparshios of the chanukas hanesiim to the end of Parshas Naso with the mitzvah of menorah the beginning of Parshas Behaalosecha Rashi quotes the maamar Chazal that the pshat in that semichas haparshios is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is telling him shelcha gedola mishelahem it doesn't mean the mitzvah of hadlakas haneros in the Mishkan and the Mikdash that Aharon is about to begin performing that they're going to do כל ימי בית ראשון no it's a remez to the fact that the Chashmonaim are going to come and they're going to make a new chanukas hamishkan in their days and all the miracles that will they will be. and their hadlakas neiros will be translated into a מצוות הדלקת נר חנוכה and that will be ledoros and that will be even בזמן שאין בית המקדש. Okay, that's the Ramban. Maybe just one or two comments. Yitachen that the Ramban's pshat in this Medrash is part of a... should be seen in a broader context. The Ramban has in Parshas Ki Seitzei on זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק and then the Torah says lo sishkach. I happen to be using a Shevel which is Devarim and also... no, yes. Great. Shekoach. Thank you. כבר שמעתי המדרש שדרשו בו בספרא בחוקותיי יכול בלבך כשהוא אומר לא תשכח לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמרו
u'minayin mekayem zachor shetehe shoneh bifecha וכן בספרי זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק בפה לא תשכח בלב ולא ידעתי מה היא הזכירה הזאת בפה אם לא משנקרא פרשת עמלק בציבור נמצאנו למדים מן התורה
bishniyah zachor. Right, the Mishna Megilla when it lists the dalet parshios it says that the second of the four... of the dalet parshios is Parshas Zachor. So then that would be a kiyum d'Oraisa. The timing is d'Rabbanan, but the etzem chiyuv is d'Oraisa. And then here's the phrase that's relevant to us now: ואסמכתא למקרא מגילה מן התורה. So what when you juxtapose these two Rambans, the one the famous one here by Chanukah in Behaaloscha with this Ramban in Ki Seitzei, so what it suggests is that itachen that the Ramban already has the yesod that we know from its fuller presentation from the Ritva in ראש השנה דף ט"ז where the Ritva says that the pshat by asmachta is that asmachta doesn't mean... again, asmachta according to everyone what the word means... what the word means is it's something to lean upon, it's something to rest upon. So the Rambam seems to have understood... still complicated, but in one place he certainly seems to have understood that asmachta means it leans or rests upon in the sense that Chazal used it as a mnemonic device. That really it's d'Rabbanan. It's not in the pasuk, but it's a... it rests on it in a sense that this is a mnemonic device to remember תורה שבעל פה kishmoh kein hoisoh. So it wasn't written down, so this was a mnemonic device. Okay. Lav davka that's the Rambam's reasoning there, but this is a mnemonic device. So the Ritva says no, the Ritva says he thinks it's assur to say such a thing. It's assur to say that Chazal used a pasuk in a way that the pasuk doesn't mean just as a mnemonic device. So he says what's pshat asmachta? Pshat asmachta is that how do you have a mitzvah mechudeshes mi'd'Rabbanan? How can there be such a thing? Toras Hashem temimah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's Torah is perfect. You can't embellish a perfection, you can't improve upon perfection. So how can it be if there should be a mitzvah... if there should be a mitzvah of krias HaMegilla, so the Ribbono Shel Olam should have ordained the mitzvah of krias HaMegilla. He didn't, so there shouldn't be such a mitzvah. Now clearly that question... But it doesn't arise when it comes to syagim, because there the Torah said that it's being left to Chazal to introduce syagim, ushmartem es mishmarti vechulu. But in terms of mitzvos mechudashos, krias hamegillah, vachanuccah etc., how can you have such a thing? Hayala al hadaas? How can you have a mitzvah mechudashah miderabbanan? So the Ritva answers that's what asmachta means. Asmachta means that mitzvos de'oraisa the Torah commanded, the Torah legislated, and the Torah's metzaveh. Mitzvos mechudashos miderabbanan, the Torah provides a remez, האירה את עיני חכמים, but it left it to the chachamim to be koveia es hachovah. But the Torah prompts them, the Torah, the Torah hints to, to Chazal, indicates to, to Chazal, that this is something which is ratzon Hashem to be introduced, but was left to Chazal to introduce, and that's what pshat in asmachta is. Now the context of the Ritva is that the Gemara uses the lashon of Rachmana amai itka. The Gemara uses the lashon Rosh Hashanah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu instructed us to say the pesukim of malchiyos zichronos veshofaros. But the Gemara says meforash in Rosh Hashanah lamed daled and malchiyos, saying the pesukim of malchiyos zichronos veshofaros is only miderabbanan. So how do you attribute miderabbanan to Hakadosh Baruch Hu? Says the Ritva, because ultimately everything is Rachmana amai. Mitzvas haTorah is Rachmana amai bederech tzivui, mitzvas miderabbanan is אמר רחמנא בדרך רמז, האירה התורה את את עיני החכמים.
Italken the Ramban's openness to say pshat in this Medrash and then and then I don't know what comes first, what comes second, but lema'aseh this mahalach and recognizing that these Midrashim are taking at face value that these Midrashim are finding a remez to vachanuccah in the pesukim, so italken that that's a reflection of the be'emes the Ramban already had this approach. And that's what the Ramban means when Ki Seitzei, when he says ve'asmachtum mikelay haTorah, means there has to be a smach somewhere and this is it, we found it, if this pshat is correct. Not just that, oh, incidentally there would be a smach. No, this we knew beforehand that somewhere there has to be a smach. Also relevant to this whole again approach, which also again it's not you could separate it out, but italken me'od the pieces are supposed to go together. Tosafos in Rosh Hashanah asks, Tosafos in Rosh Hashanah asks again the same daf in Rosh Hashanah when the Gemara says there למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין.
Why do we have to blow sitting, why do we have to blow standing? כדי לערבב את השטן. So Tosafos asks why isn't it bal toseif? Why isn't it bal toseif to blow more kolos than the Torah required? So Tosafos answers it's not bal toseif to repeat a mitzvah. It's only bal toseif to expand the mitzvah. If a kohein expands birkas kohanim from three brachos to four brachos: yevarechecha, ya'er, yisa, and nachas min hagemar, so that's in a different context, that's a very very nice vort, but not in the context of birkas kohanim. So then he's expanding the he's expanding that, that's bal toseif. But lo shamanu that a kohein can't duchen more than once, that a kohein can't go to one shul duchen and then go to the next minyan which would be a half hour later and duchen there. There's no bal toseif in repeating a mitzvah. That's what Tosafos says, that's why there's no problem with למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין תוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין. So the Rashba there in the chiddushim says that what Tosafos says is correct, but lema'aseh they didn't need it over here. Because kushyei me'ikara leisah. What was Tosafos's whole kashya? Why isn't it bal toseif? Bal toseif doesn't apply to Chazal. Chazal are not governed by bal toseif. Why is that? Because again because according to this whole approach again explicit in the Ritva. was suggesting perhaps implicit here in the Ramban is that Chazal are supposed to add mitzvos. Because that's what the whole idea is, Hakadosh Baruch Hu said I'm going to be metzaveh so many mitzvos explicitly and then I'm hinting to you that you should be metzaveh some other mitzvos. So how can hayala al hadaas that the issur bal tosif applies to Chazal? Bal tosif applies to yachid, bal tosif doesn't apply to Chazal. It's even possible that our Ramban, the Rashba there in Rosh Hashanah Taz-Ayin with the Ritva there as well, are all of a piece. One interesting line just to maybe read for a minute Ali, you see from אבל ענין ההגדה הזו where he begins giving his p'shat. You see that inyan hahagadah hazo? אבל ענין ההגדה הזו ויש בו רמז מן הפרשה המשנית נרות
bayis sheini על ידי אהרן ובניו וצריך לומר חשמונאי כהן גדול ובניו.
Okay, again, what do you mean על ידי אהרן ובניו? So the Ramban says, well, so the Ramban says good question, I'll tell you what I mean. רצוני לומר חשמונאי כהן גדול ובניו. So what do you mean? It's not Aharon uvanav, it's zera Aharon. What do you mean Aharon uvanav? So you think I think the Ramban has an I think the Ramban says in Parshas Acharei Mos. When you look at the beginning of Parshas Acharei Mos, the parsha of avodas Yom Hakipurim, it's very strange. דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש, בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש בפר בן בקר לחטאת.
Right? So we know it's avodas Yom Hakipurim because on Yom Kippur the ba'al korei starts reading it and he's reading it with the Yom Noraim-dikke trope. So we know that it's avodas Yom Hakipurim. L'maiseh if you learn Chumash, you learn the whole parsha and it's only when you get to the end of the parsha that the Torah tells you I think about Yom Kippur. It's you would have thought the Torah would begin on Yom Kippur this is what you do. Torah doesn't say that. Torah says בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש. So the Ramban writes that the emes is that Aharon was allowed to go into the Kodesh Hakodashim. Moshe Rabbeinu is אהרן אחיך בבל יבא ואתה אינך בבל יבא. Moshe Rabbeinu could enter, Moshe Rabbeinu could enter, Aharon could only enter with the seder ha'avoda. Not davka Yom Kippur. If Aharon HaKohen wanted to go into the Kodesh Hakodashim, so he could enter the Kodesh Hakodashim with this seder ha'avoda. That's what the p'sukim say, בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש. Then the Torah says and this same seder ha'avoda is the seder ha'avoda of Yom Kippur. This is avodas Yom Hakipurim. But b'emes, b'ikker, b'ikker, this seder ha'avoda was given to Aharon. There are two versions, well there are so many versions but two accepted versions more or less, not entirely breakdown to Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sefard, but it doesn't break down quite as neatly as that in terms of which text you say for the avoda in Musaf of Yom Kippur, whether you say Amitz Koach or you say Atta Konanta. So in the Atta Konanta you say the following line, תיקנת כל אלה לכבוד אהרן. You, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, introduced, instituted all this l'kvod Aharon. And then soon thereafter, Tachas... תחת אהרן יעמוד מזרעו לשרת something like that. And when you put those two together, that's also a Gur and an Aderes Elyon. I think that the Rav used to comment that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, the pshat is not that the Kohen Gadol is the avodah. The pshat is that the Kohen Gadol is עומד במקום אהרן הכהן. Aharon is the original Kohen Gadol. So the subsequent Kohanim Gedolim, the subsequent Kohanim Gedolim are in loco Aharon Hakohen. We've seen that line befairush in the piyut. Tachas Aharon. What do you mean Tachas Aharon? Not Tachas Aharon. Aharon is in Olam Haemes. The din is that a Kohen Gadol should do the avodah. Somehow this is the kohen. What do you mean it's not? No, it's Tachas Aharon. Isn't that what this Ramban says here also? Says u'rtzoni lomar, he says, שנעשה הישועה על ידי אהרן ובניו. What do you mean Aharon uvanav? Aharon's not there. No, Aharon is there. Because in the days of מתתיהו בן יוחנן כהן גדול, right? מתתיהו בן יוחנן כהן גדול, right? He's a Kohen Gadol. So he's omed bimkom Aharon. He's omed bimkom Aharon. Ad kan the Ramban. Moving away from the Ramban, using the Ramban as a point of departure, but not to saddle the Ramban with anything we're about to discuss now. So clearly the Ramban says, you couldn't have, you can't say such a thing without a makor. You'll find it in other mekoros as well, but you couldn't say it without a makor. But the whole mitzvas Chanukah is be'etzem, be'etzem a mitzvah of mikdash which you have bigvulin. And that Chanukah is be'emes, be'emes is a Yom Tov of mikdash. yitachen and that's the pshat that the Gemara, as you remember, has the two possible ways of explaining the מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, whether mosif veholech or pocheis veholech. So one suggestion for Beis Shammai is that it's kenged parei hachag. So the shaileh is, okay, parei hachag, taka pocheis veholech. But מה ענין פרי החג אצל חנוכה? So yitachen that the pshat is that be'emes Sukkah, Succos, also has this dimension of being a mitzvah, of being a Yom Tov of mikdash, which you also have bigvulin. Shavuos, okay, korbanos musaf, but it's not, you wouldn't define it as a Yom Tov of mikdash. Even Pesach with the Korban Pesach, it's not that it's a Yom Tov of mikdash. We'll בלי נדר אם ירצה השם if we learn Lulav Hagazul we'll have occasion to talk about this. One view, the din d'oraisa is that Lulav bayom harishon is d'oraisa all over the world, even bamedinah, and then bamikdash is kol shivah. One take on that is that be'etzem Lulav is a mitzvah which belongs to mikdash, but אף על פי כן you have it bigvulin yom rishon. Which would be a very, very similar phenomenon to what the Ramban is telling us is pshat by the Chanukah licht. Tzareich iyun, חול שם שמים על הסוכה וכולי, not על דרך הלכה על דרך אגדה. So yitachen that that's the reason there's a connection between Chanukah and Succos, that they share this singular feature of that it's a Yom Tov. The Ran uses the lashon Yom Tov. it's a Yom Tov of Mikdash which you which you can observe even bigvulin. Maybe a little bit more of the maybe to be-ma'amek a little bit in what Beis Shammai means by poches v'holeich. What what is one one sort of vantage point on on Kedushas Mikdash, on what Mikdash represents? So we know in Mikdash they used to pronounce שם י ק ו ק ככתבו. Outside of Mikdash is זה שמי לעולם וזה זכרי לדור לדור, לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא.
What's reflected by the disparity between the the kesav of י ק ו ק and and the kriya of Adnus? What's reflected in that disparity is that we don't perceive the reality of Hashem Echad, we don't perceive that that true reality. We we don't see, we don't experience the world of Ein Od Milvado, we don't experience that reality. And that's what's reflected in the din of לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא is that you can't say the שם י ק ו ק if if that's not the reality that is the ultimate reality but it's not the reality that we perceive, it's not the reality that that we experience. But in Mikdash you do say. Because in Mikdash there was much more of a havana in that, again, reflected in the fact in the Mishnah in Avos, the Beraisa in Yoma about the Nissim which were commonplace in Mikdash. So what's the significance of Nissim being commonplace in Mikdash is that is that Ein Od Milvado, not that there's anything about the fixed set things which sort of have their own standing. No, it's Ein Od Milvado which is why in in Mikdash, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's house kavyachol so everything everything is can be overridden, everything can can be suspended. So the Kedusha Mikdash is a Kedusha because in Mikdash the reality of Hashem Echad, the reality of Ein Od Milvado is is much more is perceived to a greater degree than outside of Mikdash. So Sukkos and and Chanukah we said Yamim Tovim of Mikdash. Again that's the zechus that we have that even lacking a Mikdash that that we can participate in such Yamim Tovim. So the poches v'holeich again the Parei HeChag but by Chanukah so you end up with one. The pshat is you end up with that's what the poches v'holeich is right? The poches v'holeich is to arrive at a hakarah b'Echad. That's what the pshat in in in the poches v'holeich is.