Zevachim 14

Today's daf is Vochin daf Yud Daled. And we are about 10 lines from the top of daf Yud Daled amud aleph, the two dots, Reb Shimon Machshavah b'hiluch. So, the Mishnah on daf Yud Gimmel amud aleph expands a little bit on the halachos of lishmah b'katchin, and it mentioned one of the important shitos, shitas Reb Shimon. Reb Shimon says that if a kohen would have a machshavah shel lo lishmah while he's doing the hiluch, the korban would be kosher. And the reason is because it's possible to do a korban without hiluch. Now, it's impossible for there to be a korban without a shchitah, kabbalah, and azrikah, but a hakravas korban without hiluch is something that's within the realm of possibility. And it's for that reason the hiluch is not considered chashuv enough that in the event that a kohen had a machshavah shel lo lishmah b'shaas hiluch, the korban should be pasul. So, just to appreciate shitas Reb Shimon a little bit better because it is the backdrop of the entire daf today. In order for a korban to be kosher, there has to be daled avodos hadam. Shchitah, kabbalah, hiluch, azrikah. All the other avodos that were done in relation to a korban was extra credit, shiurei mitzvah, mitzvah min hamuvchar. These are all synonyms of each other. In terms of what's critical, it's the avodah that was done with the blood. The shchitah, the kabbalah, the hiluch, and the azrikah. Stating that it is possible, technically, for there to have been a korban that would be brought without there being a hiluch. What is hiluch? Hiluch is taking the dam and bringing it to the mizbei'ach. What would be if the shchitah and the kabbalah was done mamash next to the mizbei'ach? So that now that the kohen did the kabbalah, he's within striking distance to be able to do the azrikah. He doesn't have to walk it anywhere. Technically, that would be okay. Says Reb Shimon, you know what that means? It means that hiluch is somewhat expendable. It's not on the same level as shchitah, kabbalah, and azrikah. Meaning, not all the daled avodos hadam were created equally. Shchitah, how could you have a korban without shchitah? Kabbalah, can't have a korban without kabbalah. Azrikah, that is the ikkar avodah. Obviously, you can't bring a korban without azrikah, but hiluch is more of a logistics thing, pun intended. It's literally taking the blood from the makom of the shchitah and kabbalah and bringing it over to the mizbei'ach. But, lulei hatzuyar that wouldn't be necessary, well, then you didn't need a hiluch. Says Reb Shimon, and this is very important, that being that hiluch is an avodah that's expendable, it's for that reason anytime a kohen would have a machshavah shel lo lishmah b'shaas hiluch, even when the hiluch was critical, meaning even when it was something that was necessary, but being that you didn't need to do hiluch, it's for that reason the halachah is a machshavah shel lo lishmah b'shaas hiluch is not going to disqualify a korban. So, today's daf, again, is going to be a a peirush, a commentary, on the shitas Reb Shimon, and it begins with [snorts] a halachah from Reb Shimon ben Lakish, also known as Reish Lakish. Says the Gemara, Amar Reb Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish said, Modeh Reb Shimon b'hiluchos chatos hap'nimiyos shemachshavah poseles bo. Reb Shimon is modeh that in the event that a kohen would have a machshavah shel lo lishmah while he was doing the hiluch of one of the chatos hap'nimiyos, there the halachah is the machshavah would pasul. Meaning, we know machshavah shel lo lishmah b'chatas pasuls, it would be pasul also when it comes to chatos hap'nimiyos. And the reason is because hiluch when it comes to the chatos hap'nimiyos is not something that you're able to be mevutel. So, first things first, what exactly are chatos hap'nimiyos? So, ruba d'ruba of korbanos hadam was spritzed on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. That was the very big mizbei'ach that was in the chatzer that was in the azaroh when there was a Beis Hamikdash. That's the mizbei'ach that had a ramp that's where almost all of the azrikos were done. There was another mizbei'ach known as the mizbei'ach hap'nimi. That mizbei'ach was very, very small. It didn't have a ramp. That mizbei'ach [snorts] was inside the heichal. There were some azrikos that were done on that mizbei'ach. Namely, certain chatos. Now, what exactly the chatos hap'nimiyos were, that's in common comment. But the point is there were certain chatos where the dam was not spritzed on the mizbei'ach hachitzon, rather it was spritzed on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi. Now, as it relates to shchitah, all shchitah was done in the azaroh. The question is was it b'tzafon, kodshei kodashim, shchitasam b'chol makom mafkidim b'darom, that's katchin kalim, but the point is shchitah and kabbalah then was always done in the azaroh, as opposed to azrikah almost always was done in the azaroh on the mizbei'ach hachitzon, but there were some exceptions to the rule, the chatos hap'nimiyos where it was done on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi. By the way, the azrikos that were done on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi were also done on the paroches. Pasul is right here on daf Yud Daled amud aleph, which by the way is a huge Yom Kippur thing because on Yom Kippur the chatos were chatos hap'nimiyos, and therefore there were hazos that were done on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi, there were hazos that were done on the paroches, and there were even hazos that were done lifnei v'lifnim bein habadim on the aron itself. But the bottom line is, says Reish Lakish, being that the whole premise of shitas Reb Shimon of why a machshavah shel lo lishmah b'shaas hiluch would not disqualify a korban is because, like Reb Shimon explained in the Mishnah, it's possible to do a hakravas korban without a hiluch. Well, that's only true if the korban that's being brought's dam is going to be spritzed on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. How's it possible to do without a hiluch? Do the shchitah and kabbalah next to the mizbei'ach, and then you'll throw it on the mizbei'ach. But in the event that we're dealing with chatos hap'nimiyos where the azrikah has to be done on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi, well, then you can't do the shchitah and the kabbalah right next to the mizbei'ach because the shchitah has to be in the azaroh, which means the kabbalah is going to be in the azrikah. And in the azaroh, the azrikah is going to be done in the heichal, you're going to have to walk, you have no choice, the dam into the heichal to get it to the mizbei'ach hap'nimi. Being that over there the avodah is ein yochal l'vatel, it's not something that you can be mevutel. So, therefore, modeh Reb Shimon, says Reish Lakish, b'hiluchos chatos hap'nimiyos shemachshavah poseles bo. In other words, if you understand the ta'am Reb Shimon, if you dareish ta'ama d'Reb Shimon, right? That's a pun because Reb Shimon is always dareish ta'ama. So, if you dareish ta'ama d'Reb Shimon, says Reish Lakish, you're going to appreciate the fact that there is a time that Reb Shimon would be modeh that it's possible to have a machshavah shel lo lishmah when it comes to hiluch. But the Gemara asks a a general kasha on Reb Shimon ben Lakish. It says, I don't understand how Reish Lakish could possibly make this count from Reb Shimon. Reb Shimon himself said, Kosher in al mizbei'ach hachitzon k'shlamim in chayavin alav mishum pigul. That if a kohen was doing an avodah, an avodah where the dam goes on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi, not the mizbei'ach hachitzon, and he has machshavas pigul, the halachah is in chayavin alav mishum pigul, it would not trigger the laws of pigul. Now, what would be the reason for this? The reason is, cuz we saw this already, what is the makor to the laws of pigul? It's learnt out from the korban shlamim. The korban shlamim was brought on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. It's only the chatas that was sometimes brought on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi. But the korban shlamim, like all korbanos, was brought on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. So, Reb Shimon is a little dareish here, and Reb Shimon says that, oh, if the whole makor to the halachah pigul is the shlamim, and the shlamim was brought on the mizbei'ach hachitzon, the only time there's ever going to be a halachah of machshavas pigul is if it's exactly korban that's being brought on the mizbei'ach hachitzon. If it's brought on the mizbei'ach hap'nimi, no. So, what's the Gemara's kasha? The Gemara's kasha is that if Reb Shimon holds that there's no pigul when it comes to the mizbei'ach hap'nimi, then who then there should be no machshavah shel lo lishmah when it comes to the mizbei'ach hap'nimi either. So, how could Reish Lakish say modeh Reb Shimon b'hiluchos chatos hap'nimiyos shemachshavah poseles bo? You know Reb Shimon's shitah is when it comes to the chatos hap'nimiyos, forget about hiluch, even shchitah, kabbalah, azrikah, which are avodos that you can never be mevutel, even then there's not going to be a halachah of machshavah shel lo lishmah cuz there's a machshavas pigul, and the machshavah holds if there's no machshavas pigul, so too there should be no machshavah shel lo lishmah. But the Gemara is doicheh. The Gemara says, Amar Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi ben Kisma, Kisma said, Modeh hoyoh l'fisul miklal v'chomer. That as much as it's true that Reb Shimon holds that in chayavin alav mishum pigul when it comes to the chatos hap'nimiyos, but at the same time Reb Shimon is modeh as it relates to the psul of a machshavas pigul, that the psul is going to be there. Just to explain the words of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi ben Kisma, going to talk a little bit, but just to hit the pause button for 1 second. Says Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi ben Kisma, you have to be medayek l'shonei azav of Reb Shimon. Reb Shimon said, Kosher in al mizbei'ach hachitzon k'shlamim in chayavin alav mishum pigul. What does it mean in chayavin alav? Chayavin, chiyuv? We're dealing with chiyuv, and we're dealing with kosher pasul. We're learning katchin now, why are we talking about chiyuv? We learn in Yodayah, you learn other sugyas, you talk about chiyuv. Why are we handling chiyuv? Right, that's the wrong word when you're learning katchin. You want to know kosher or the pasul? Chiyuv, that's b'havai d'kasha d'Rachmana l'olam lo yehei. Right, what what I'm handling over here is whether it's kosher or pasul. Teretz says, because pigul, we know in addition to the fact that the mash over the piggle disqualifies a carbon. But if somebody eats from the bus of a carbon that had a mash over the piggle the terrorist says he's going to be high of chorus. So the seder of Rab Chanina when Rab Shimon excluded the mizbecha from the laws of piggle he only meant it with regards to the chorus. But as it relates to the underlying here already it is going to be included and had it Rab Chanina another Rab Shimon holds that me calvo because he based it on a calvo mash over madach mash over shloi mash over shlomin. What if a coin would have a mash over shloi mash over when he's bringing a carbon shlomin. That law is the carbon would be kosher. That although the same but that's not the point. The carbon itself is going to be kosher still possible but a mash over shloi mash over despite the fact that it's kosher by a shlomin it's possible by a carbon so it's mash over the piggle should possible which is possible by a shlomin in addition to the kosher toys. So certainly it would be possible when it comes to a a kosher as well. So based on a calvo Rab said Rab Chanina it has to be that Rab Shimon is going to be that in as much as there's no piggle when it comes to the kosher Rab Chanina here piggle in terms of kosher but as far as the kosher money that you're going to have and now he knows that he knows the calvo Rab Chanina from shloi mash over kosher shloi mash over kosher by a shlomin which is possible by a kosher and when we say it's possible by a kosher it means kosher Rab Chanina so certainly kosher money which is possible by a shlomin would have to be possible by a kosher as well. But either way what's the terrorist the Rab Chanina's kosher on Rab [ __ ] Rab [ __ ] said Rab Shimon by law of kosher Rab Chanina because it's not in Rab Shimon Rab Chanina Rab Shimon by law of kosher Rab Chanina Rab Shimon she do we know is that there's no piggle when it comes to kosher Rab Chanina why not because it's not shlomin that was brought in the mizbecha so forget about the law you wouldn't even have mash over shloi mash over when it comes to the other as well. The terrorist is the terrorist is there's a hillock [laughter] between what Rab Shimon meant when he said kosher Rab Chanina kosher Rab Shimon in Rab Shimon Rab Shimon piggle and what Rab Shimon is talking about which is a mash over shloi mash over Rab Shimon holds in Rab Shimon Rab Shimon piggle as it relates to the piggle that you're not going to have but even by piggle even by piggle there's going to be the shloi of the mash over and if that's the case when it comes to shloi mash over you're going to have the shloi mash over as well. In short the kosher what is the terrorist the terrorist is it's true that Rab Shimon Rab Shimon it's only with regards to the chorus as it relates to the mash over Rab Chanina mash over shloi mash over possible by all kosher and now it does it possible by all kosher toys even when it comes to kosher money it's going to possible as well. Now there's a very obvious kosher in this Rab Chanina that Rashi by marriage he doesn't ask it Rab Shimon because Rashi almost never asks a kosher Rab Shimon Rab Shimon this was a Rab Shimon would be Rab Shimon then like but Rashi says it the way Rashi as of the way Rashi says everything and that is that really in short what's the Rab Chanina terrorist the Rab Chanina terrorist is that there's a hillock between the law of Rab Shimon of Rab Shimon Rab Shimon piggle and a mash over shloi mash over mash over shloi mash over is going to be possible even by kosher Rab Chanina there's not going to be a piggle when it comes to kosher Rab Chanina why did the Rab Chanina just say that? The Rab Chanina should have just said that you ask me a kosher from Rab Shimon Rab Shimon piggle to mash over shloi mash over just say that. What did the Rab Chanina say? It said something similar. It's not that Rab Shimon Rab Shimon by a mash over kosher money that it's going to be possible. I mean that's very nice when you're learning the of piggle and if you want to really have a full comprehensive study of Rab Shimon it's good to know that Rab Shimon holds that there is a mash over kosher as relates to possible the carbon even by a kosher Rab Chanina but that's not what we need. What we need is that there's a hillock between the law of Rab Shimon by piggle and shloi mash over he said it by piggle. He didn't say it by shloi mash over. If the kosher doesn't bother you let's ask it a draw better. How does the Rab Chanina know that that the mash over is going to possible by kosher he knows a calvo from shloi mash over that means you somehow know that a mash over shloi mash over possible by kosher Rab Chanina because if you didn't know that then you don't have the calvo Rab Chanina to make the hillock in piggle between the piggle and the mash over shloi mash over. So somehow you know that so if you know that then what are you even asking then that should be the answer. Right? Here it's a it's a another words the Rab Chanina's terrorist really is that yeah Rab Shimon said Rab Shimon piggle what does that have to do with shloi mash over? Granted even in piggle Rab Chanina it happens to be that Rab Shimon would be Rab Shimon when it comes to the mash over Rab Chanina so then certainly it's not a kosher because if Rab Shimon is Rab Shimon by the mash over Rab Chanina by piggle certainly Rab Chanina would not be Rab Chanina when it comes to the mash over of shloi mash over but the point is shloi mash over the point is not mash over the piggle. I mean that we only know mash over the piggle from shloi mash over. So if we know already that Rab Shimon is Rab Shimon by shloi mash over if you knew Rab Shimon is Rab Shimon by shloi mash over then why are you us? So just say that Rab Shimon when it comes to a mash over shloi mash over there's no kosher the piggle. So Rashi is saying the Rab Chanina could have said that but the Rab Chanina just wants to really work through because today is the day to do it and it's for that reason the that you should know that not only is there a hillock between regarding piggle and a mash over shloi mash is like partial because for sure Rab Shimon is Rab Shimon when it comes to shloi mash over but once Rab Shimon is Rab Shimon by shloi mash over even in mash over the piggle you can have the concept of a mash over Rab Chanina but either way going along the theme of the Rab Chanina we're trying to fully understand Rab Shimon as it relates to kosher Rab Chanina says the Rab Chanina kosher money kosher money what would be Rab Shimon as relates to mash over of kosher would kosher money be a problem when it comes to kosher Rab Chanina or would it not be a problem when it comes to kosher Rab Chanina in other words we're saying that a mash [snorts] over shloi mash over kosher Rab Chanina for sure Rab Shimon holds of. As it relates to mash over kosher even though Rab Shimon holds of but at the same time the mash over is going to disqualify the carbon. What about a mash over of kosher so kosher is like the step brother of kosher money right it's not as because there's no is there kosher if somebody eats the bus over from a carbon that had a mash over of kosher but the question is what will be the law? So the Rab Chanina says let's see if we can figure it out right at this point we have two good pieces of objective information that maybe we can learn from. We can learn kosher maybe from kosher money which we learned calvo from shloi mash over or we can learn kosher directly from shloi mash over. So the Rab Chanina says let me say kosher money you're going to tell me that you learned it from kosher money I'll tell you kosher money you can't kosher right kosher money in the world of you know is way more kosher than kosher money because you have and in shloi mash over you'll tell me you learned it from shloi mash over there's no kosher by shloi mash over or shloi mash over is is a good old fashioned mash over Rab Chanina which is kosher is. So Rab Shimon when it comes to shloi mash over then it makes sense that Rab Shimon also when it comes to a mash over of kosher money and by the way it's not just that you can learn kosher money from shloi mash over the Rab Chanina means say the same calvo that we said to prove that Rab Shimon by kosher money that it's going to be possible. What's what was the calvo mash over? Mash over kosher money mash over shloi mash over which is kosher by a shlomin is possible by a kosher Rab Chanina kosher money which is possible by a shlomin certainly should be possible when it comes to kosher Rab Chanina you can make the identical calvo mash over shloi mash is kosher by a shlomin is possible by a kosher Rab Chanina so kosher money which is possible by a shlomin right? >> [snorts] >> Certainly it should be possible when it comes to kosher Rab Chanina. So when the Rab Chanina says in kosher money it means Rab Chanina. When the Rab Chanina says in shloi mash over what it means is calvo you know says the Rashi in shloi mash over or by calvo not even a new calvo it's the identical calvo Rab Chanina but the Rab Chanina says there's a there's a you have in the calvo Rab Chanina of learning kosher money from shloi mash over that we didn't have when we learned kosher money from shloi mash over. How so because in shloi mash over you have the money. When it comes to shloi mash over there's actually a over kosher and that is a carbon that was brought on a money right so today is not the day to give the background for money but when we brought on money those carbons also regulated by a whole set of laws not the same laws as the laws that we're learning right now that discuss primarily in park park very end of the long mission that goes through all the differences between a money and a but the bottom line is there weren't many different that many different one of the were that a mash over shloi would create a problem. You can't have a mash over shloi mash over if you're bringing a carbon on a money just like you can't have a mash over shloi mash over if you're bringing a a carbon in the mizbecha. On the mizbecha as relates to kosher there's no kosher when it comes to a money and the reason is says the Rashi it's the first wide line because Rab Chanina money at so far you want because when there was I had the money you were able to eat and bring carbon and do and whatever you wanted right there was no so being that there was no so comes that there's actually a in the mash over shloi mash over that you have that you don't have by a mash over kosher shloi mash over you have a concept of even applying by a money when it comes to kosher money not. So find this that what would be the law of kosher to learn it straight up from kosher kosher is definitely more kosher because you have to learn it from shloi mash over the same calvo that you learn kosher no kosher you were able to learn with a calvo but you can't learn coming with a couple of them cuz that's relates to there's a period that you can ask as opposed to now what I came to mind there wasn't a question. You know why because there was a concept of even one of my books mocking there's no concept of but there is a concept of so it's for that reason time is the tomorrow what would be the regarding coming and the says two roots in. The first Terrace is middle doesn't look like this next word is a beginning of a Terrace looks like it's a continuation of whatever we've been saying but the way you have to read this is is Terrace. Look at Rashi Rashi adds the word Rashi is helping us out here. So the answering when do you talk and have this that is possible by a bomber. Well when do you have a that ever possible it's the right those are the only times that you find it will guess what the carbon you weren't able to bring a there are anyways so as much as this true there's a concept of when it comes to when it comes to a bomber as much as that is in fact the case but at the same time you weren't able to bring a so would never pass so if it would never pass so you can't tell me there's a there's a time with going to pass or is not going to pass so. When is that it's on a bomber cuz the only time passes anyways is by a and there's no such thing as a being brought on a boat. Now the truth is. In the world of bombers there are two types of bombers there was not what known as a bomber Yochid and a bomber bomber Yochid was a bomber that you can have in your backyard as opposed to a bomber that was a more public bomber right builds in the beginning in so these seem like they're public bombers right these are bombers these are bombers these are bombers that you were able to. Use as long as you were a member of the this is a and couldn't be brought on a bomber that's true for a bomber and. On a bomber there wasn't a and all these when it comes to bombers that you would think at the very least by a bomber there's an idea of a and being possible if that's the case you might have a in over not by a bomber where you can't bring a so the whole point is moot but rather by a bomber you could bring a and the Terrace is when it came to a bomber there was an idea of also. Because the bomber had and in that case you had the whole time of the period was bomber with the but there's no bomber. It's true that but you don't have a that's possible cuz the only time possible is by a you can't bring a on a bomber the only time there's an idea of a that's possible is by a bomber by a bomber there is a but the bottom line is the first Terrace of the that is going to be possible just like is possible just like how do you know it I know it from I know that has a that you find it even by a bomber. It's not really true because by a bomber the bomber that you would want to learn it from is not really uh. True statement and the reason is because a couldn't be brought on a bomber if I say >> [clears throat] >> says it could be really put some is going to be learned out from what was the cash show. Put some put some out of put some it has a the that this car is says the issue but there's a that compares these two things which is a theme in the that we're going to learn put some put some are very much related to each other they even hook what's the says in the past exactly put some then it says that put some the two are together and once the two are together there's a and so you can have from today till tomorrow these are going to be able to ask the way this concludes. The first part of today's stuff so what's the first part of today's stuff why because he is expandable said well if the whole reason is because it's expandable expandable then when it comes to the because over there it's really not expandable time is the might be I typically there's no bigger when it comes to the why is there no bigger because of the fact that the bigger is. From the which was brought in and the holds that if there's no bigger then who had in this what's the short answer give a longer answer what's the short answer it's true there's no bigger but when we say there's no bigger means there's no bigger but as relates to the bigger that you would have the of that you would have even you would have all the are that you would have by the and therefore as relates all of we should. Bigger it's completely not no after the all my more about in if you're going to tell me like his son so who's son. If you're going to tell me holds like his son so fine that the area between the and the was considered so fine then in by us have toys have elements then the only time what said. Is going to be true again what say say that by the the only time it's going to be true is if. The was had during the from the into the but if it happened anywhere in the then so again we need a little bit of background for this like we need background really for every single line here in the beginning of and that is we know but there was a big what the definition of some held means literally to the north of the so you have to be like the on the of the so you have to be adjacent parallel to where the was on the side of the that's where you could do the let's say you go. To the northern part of the but you work your way towards so you're not parallel to the right. Right you're but right means towards the towards the so you're my office. That area is that considered or not considered what are the arguments on the one hand it's to the north. On the other hand it's also not it's not she does is that the area. Between the and the is considered now one other piece of background what was the so the was like the corridor right the was part of the all. It was the area that led into the so when you think of the that's the actual building the structure of the it was made up of three parts the first part was the that's like the corridor that leads into the then you enter the in the you have the you have the you have the that's inside and then on the other side now that's that's when you had the the the in the beginning of the of. Just. A high level understanding of the so the says that the what is going to be the whether it's going to be in or in or it's going to be on wherever exactly it's going to be it always had to be made up of a structure that was made up of three components one is the the other is the and the other one is the right it always has to be made up of three parts and then the says there has to be a surrounding it and that has to be surrounded by it. Like the lays it out like no one could but the bottom line is is the actual structure was made up of an that. Entered into the which then entered to the so again we're discussing the area that's between the and the is that considered or not considered what it is that it is considered says according to and in and in right it makes sense we know the sons we always assume held like their father. Which almost by definition means we assume that the father held like the son right now because holds like his son but if his son said it's probably saying what he heard from his father right it's six of one half a dozen of another but the bottom line is if we're going to assume that is she does that the area of is going to be considered so fine well then says even the in the entire area it's only when you enter the and you make your way towards the that. That's where it's going to be what's the reason cuz the whole premise of and is because it's an why is it cuz you have to do the and I have to do this so it's impossible to make this work one plus one requires a well if I could do the manage because that whole area is considered so fine well then the area of the uh. Anywhere in the that I'm going to do the is a that I didn't need that's [snorts] an that it's and it's for that reason not she does so we would have been again Rob's not arguing with he's agreeing with he's just qualifying it a little bit he's just telling you have to read the fine print as much as so what he said but it's only in a gay at the of the that you can't live without that will be according to in only from the walking you into till you get to the to the but anything outside of that is not going to be he continued to be going to tell me what you would if you tell me it's like what you would the who said as long as you are So, what exactly is the position so this we need another tiny little bit of an introduction. So if you're familiar with the right which had the purpose of the was to be eaten every eat with the kind of the mission of the mission they used to divide the upon him or to eat the it was that it had to be done. That >> [snorts] >> was taking the Levina that were on the show fun and being to them on the when that of the happened that was matter the to be eaten by the actually explains a very long in the actually says that the should with the was to the of the just like was not allowed to eat from the of the until there was a done with the so to the was not allowed to eat from the unless there was a done Being that the is considered a matter of the and we're saying it's like all the would be by the as well. So for example if there was a position that was done with a people this would be a problem and it would this qualified the cup. Now at first glance you would assume that the of the Levina whether or not you could have a or not is really whether or not you can have a when it comes to the what's the first mocking it's the right that's for sure what you would assume. Now the of the is that something you can live without or is that something you absolutely cannot live without? Can't live without it because where were the on the where was the it was in the where is the being done it's being done but it's the opposite it's 180 degrees it's the inverse of the of the where the is but the is being done in the over here it's the opposite you're taking it the proverbial is being done in the which is in the and then you have to walk it outside you have to walk it to the to go ahead and and do the so that at first glance you would say that for sure even a little bit of there would be a of a but the of the stating that let's try to figure it out in a more nuanced way what part of the what part of the because again the basic premise of is going to apply to the just like it applies to the so says rather talking that to the that the who said as long as you are in the as that the is what does this mean so again this is featured prominently later in the but the that if a wanted to do the any type of on the it was something you'd be allowed to do there was a historical precedent for that and that was I left when all those were brought so there was no room on the and they started doing on the said this is a that the has as and it's for that reason if you want to go ahead and you want to be on it that's something you would allowed to so from like is that but us then the only time you can have a a during the of the is it's it's from the until you get outside but the minute you get outside the minute you get outside at that point any you do afterwards is superfluous it's not something that you need you can live without because technically you just bumped into the I you didn't but the is so you can go ahead and do it so any beyond that is going to be therefore the is not going to pass now speaks of one important point that really everybody should get and that is that so who is on the in so who is on the show fun not so much the show fun was but we know the show fun is in a very specific place right where is the show fun so we know it's on the top inside of the but it has a very very specific place can afford in the but it's fast worthy to say you can just put the show fun anywhere you want show fun has to be in a very very specific place so the says but it's not so much the show fun so you see for me that really as much as the show fun had a place you could put it wherever you want so if you wanted to put the show fun with the by the that's something you could do so the from the to the is definitely something you don't need and even once you exit the long the is that's also not something that you would need so as much as it's true that there could be a when it comes to the but if it's only going to be from the to the exit of probably if you're going to tell me if you're going to tell me that also holds that the and the which is also a later in the there were those that held that anything you could do in the you could do in the so if you wanted the show fun to be in the technically you could you wanted to be the technically you could well if that's in my then it's only going to be from the again we're assuming that you hold that the is the bear and we're also assuming now that you hold that the has the same as the so you could put the show fun all the way at the entrance way of the and you could do the the minute you walk out of the so the whole is going to be from the and you're going to tell me if you're going to tell me that the actual of the so the of the was very very thick says it was almost a Russia the [snorts] thickness of the of the which was five thick if you're going to tell me that the is it also has like is the of the if you hold that also on that level of or maybe the that's already going to be different well if you hold that the is in I feel as well well then it's not going to be at all right even one it's technically not going to be the only way it would be possible to have a is while you're doing the but if you had to take one step that's one step more than you had to take the reason is because I could do the position inside the entrance way by the I could do it literally right there and then I could do the right when I go out so if I took one step it's one step more than I needed to take and it's for that reason it wouldn't be so where would it be but it's not I continues so and if you're going to tell me that is that is not considered which by the way is going to be the topic of tomorrow's but if you hold that is not not considered again you hold that the is the bear and you hold that the has the same as the and the of the of the and you hold that is well then it's impossible for there to be a that you would absolutely need to do now if you grab kept the show fun where it's supposed to be and you decided to do the where you're supposed to do it on the you ended up walking I don't know long time right you got a little exercise you did you didn't have to that's the whole point >> [laughter] >> and the only time the passes by when it's critical when you can't live without it if we make all these assumptions then there's actually going to be a where according to it would be impossible to have a position of the so it's interesting at first glance we assume that the is the inverse of had done by the rubber came up with this whole you know to show that it's not necessarily it's inevitable that there would have to be some form of when it comes to the what's not inevitable is that it would be all the way from the to right from to because it really depends on the definition of if you hold you would have to move it but as it relates to move it but as it relates to as it relates to the that's not something that's and it is possible that the of that's mentioned in the would be applicable to the as well moving along with the back drop of only told the the speaker of asked the following question what is the with regards to being done with could do or or could a Tsar not do a Halacha? Shaira. This is what Chizkiya said. He said it's kosher. He said I have a possuk that supports this. There's a possuk in Divrei Hayom in Bais, perek lamed aleph, possuk aleph. The possuk says as follows, "Vayizruku meyadam v'halevi'im mafshitim." So what's the makor from this possuk? So Rashi explains. Everybody knows shchita shaira b'zar. You know everybody knows it because it's a gemara. You know what a gemara is? Aleph mem bais. We're going to go back to the gemara in 1 minute. But shchita is shaira b'zar. So when it says the assumption is that these were non-kohanim that did the shchita. Then it says "meyadam" that the kohanim went and they did the zrika and they took the dam from them. Who's them? The ones that did the shchita. Who did the shchita? The zarim did the shchita. That means the kohanim when they did the zrika, they took the dam from the non-kohen. Now what's the avoda that's done right before the zrika? The hilucha. Shchita, kabala, hilucha, zrika. So it sounds like who did the hilucha? It sounds like the zarim did the hilucha. So the question was is hilucha shaira b'zar? It's poshut from the fact that the kohanim did the zrika after receiving the hand off from the zarim. How do you know that the zarim? Because it's the ones that did the shchita and shchita is shaira b'zar. So we're assuming that the shchita was done by zarim. So very interesting assumption. But that's what we're assuming. So if that's the case, I have a makor that hilucha is going to be shaira b'zar. From a braisa. Zar, v'onen, shiker, u'baal mum, b'kabala, b'hilucha, b'zrika posul. So a zar, someone that's not a kohen, that's what we need. An onen, you know what an onen is? Rachmana litzlan. A shiker is very self-explanatory. A baal mum. All of these psulim are posul when it comes to kabala, hilucha, and zrika. V'chein yoshev, v'chein shomeil. And the same is true if somebody is sitting while he did the kabala, hilucha, zrika. How do you do a hilucha if you're sitting? Hashat t'siad maybe. We'll see more about this tomorrow. V'chein shomeil. Or if it's done with the left hand. All these things are going to be posul. But what do you see from here? You see pretty clearly that hilucha is included in one of the avodas that is posul. Chiyuv hilucha shachmei. But the gemara says no. Rab Chizkiya kama? He has a possuk. Rab Chizkiya had a possuk. You can't just dismiss Rab Chizkiya. Rab Chizkiya has a possuk. So the gemara says, I don't know what the gemara said. Raya is doven. Maiseh d'stova. It could be the zarim in that possuk in Divrei Hayom never actually moved the dam. They didn't move it even 1 cm. They didn't do the hilucha. What did they do? They were just there as an istava. They were just holding it. Rashi says they didn't even hand it off. They were literally there like an istava. That's what they're there. They're they're a pole. They're a beam. That's they're a piece of furniture. That that's all they are. But the point is that yeah, they did the shchita. The kohanim did the kabala and they said, "Sir, do you mind just giving me a hand? Also if you hold this for a second, you?" Yeah, you have to stand like a goylem literally. You're holding it. You can't do anything. You momish you can't even touch. You can't breathe. So right now you're you're holding it. And then when it comes time to do the hilucha, the kohanim took it and then gave it to them again. And ultimately when it came time to do the zrika, so you had the zar who was standing there holding the the mizrak. This klisha that had the dam inside from where the kohen went and took it to go ahead and do the zrika. Right? The possuk doesn't even say that the zar gave it to the kohen. What does it say? They did the zrika. They're taking it from their hands. All they did was an istava. Raya is nishkan. Raya in fact it's true that there are chizuk because it's a meforesh braisa. Rab Rab Yosi both said hilucha b'zar. You want to know what hilucha is regarding? Hilucha b'zar. Right? This was a bayas shaila that he told them to ask Rab Chizkiya. Ultimately we have a chiyuv d'Rab Chizkiya. Rab Rab Yosi both said I'm going to tell you what I think. That it's hilucha b'zar. Rabbonan. It's a machlokes Rab Shimon and Rabbonan. Which Rab Shimon Rabbonan? That Rab Shimon and Rabbonan. Rab Shimon that an avoda that you're able to be mevutal is nishkan avoda, right? Rab Shimon who holds that a machshava piseles when it comes to hilucha is nitkai machshava piseles because it's afshul hiluch. Well, if it's not an avoda shaira b'zar. The Rabbonan but according to the Rabbonan the fact that you can live without it is neither here nor there. And it's for that reason psula. It is going to be posul. If machshava is going to posul, it's going to be posul as well. So Rab Rab Yosi both said something very mistaber. They said, I don't know. To me, you want to know if it's shaira b'zar or psula b'zar? Could you live without it or can you not live without it? Or does you being able to live without it impact its halachic status or not impact its halachic status? By the way, those two nischais that we just mentioned are two leshonos in the Rishonim in terms of how you have to understand poshut shav in this gemara. We're not going to go into this. But the bottom line is said Rab Rab Yosi, to me l'chiyuris totally in this machlokes between Rab Shimon and the Rabbonan. According to Rab Shimon that you can live without a hilucha and it's for that reason there's no machshava piseles. So lav avoda it's going to be shaira b'zar. According to the chachamim that what are the two nischais? I can live without a hilucha but I don't care. Or maybe the chachamim see this. I can live without a hilucha. You have to figure out a way to make a hilucha. Right? So now we've been talking about shitas Rab Shimon. We haven't even discussed shitas Rabbonan. Maybe tomorrow. But the bottom line is then l'chiyuris it's a regular avoda. It's no different from then. Right? Shchita, kabala, and zrika. Okay. Either because just because I can live without a hilucha, the Rabbonan don't seem to care in the Mishnah or because the Rabbonan's shita happens to be that you can't live without a hilucha. But either way says the gemara in Rab Shimon you see some leakage when it comes to hilucha in terms of treating it like a proper avoda. In the chachamim you don't see it. So finally Rab Rab Yosi I think whether or not it's shaira b'zar or psula b'zar should be totally this machlokes. So Amar. So usually aleph lamed is amar lei. Right? But over here it's not amar lei because he's talking to Rabba and Rab Yosi. L'chiyuris. Right? We know Abaye always talks to Rabba. He always talks to Rab Yosi. And it's Rab Rab Yosi d'Rab Abaye. So it's amar lei or amar lehem whatever the proper Aramaic grammar is. But either way amar lei Abaye. So Abaye [laughter] told them. Right? It's amar lei. We're talking to two people not one person. So Abaye said I'm going to ask you a kasha. The avoda that you're able to be mevutal. Shchita is an avoda that you can't live without. U'shaira b'zar. And still you see it's shaira b'zar. I mean you can't tell me that this machlokes Rab Shimon and the chachamim is the hachra'a when it comes to should it be kosher b'zar or not kosher b'zar because I have a pircha on it. My pircha is shchita. Everybody agrees that you can't live without. Shchita everybody [snorts] agrees the machshava is going to posul. Yet shchita we know it's shaira b'zar. It's a Mishnah later. It's kosher 101. So shchita we know it's shaira b'zar. So you see whether or not the machshava posuls, whether or not I can or can't live without it is neither here nor there when it comes to determining whether it's going to be shaira b'zar or it's going to be psula b'zar. So this was Abaye's greatest kasha. So the gemara says "Amru lei." Chiyuris that's the way you read this aleph lamed. Amru lei they told him shchita. Don't shchita. You want to know why shchita is shaira b'zar? Because shchita lav avoda. Because shchita is not no shai. Shchita is no shai. Shchita lav avoda. That's why it's shaira b'zar. Hilucha is zechur avoda. The shaila is is that hilucha I can live is an avoda I can live without or not an avoda I can live without. Does that impact machshava or does not impact machshava? Abaye amar avoda it is. I mean that it's an avoda. Therefore there's makom to say that for sure it would be psula b'zar. And I think it's totally in the machlokes Rab Shimon and the chachamim. But shchita is not a good svara because shchita is just different. Shchita is just different. Shchita shaira b'zar. Now inasmuch as shchita is shaira b'zar we just said that when it comes to shchita the machshava is posul. It's lav avoda. Yet it's treated more like an avoda than hilucha. Let's say I leave it to Rab Shimon. So you see this is one of the mysteries of of kosher. Something that really requires a good hachbara. line is Abaye was told by his two rabbaim, Rabba and Rab Yosi, don't shchita because shchita lav avoda. But the gemara says that's true. Shchita lav avoda. Amar Rab in the name of Rav. Shchitas para b'zar psula. That the shchita of the para aduma was posul b'zar. So if it's posul b'zar it must be it's some form of avoda. Right? Has to be it's some form of avoda. Now Rab Zeira is the gemara is the gemara's questioning whether shchita is shaira b'zar ordinarily. No, can't be. Everyone knows shchita it's Mishnayos is always kosher b'zar. But to dismiss shchita as not being an avoda at all by virtue of the fact that it's just shaira b'zar thus it's not an avoda. Yeah, that that's an oversimplification of shchita because you see shchitas para is b'zar psula. Wouldn't that mean that on some level it's considered a avoda? Says the gemara Amar Rav. Rav said a lo ze b'chukim she but that's the reason the reason that shchitas para b'zar is psula is because it says a lo ze. Right? If you look in the possuk in the Torah in parshas Chukas when the Torah says that you have to do the shchita of the para aduma it says who did the shchita. It said a lo ze. Who was the second kohen gadol by the way. But the bottom at the time. Right? So the the kohen had to do it. And it says chuka. And what does chuka mean? Chuka means that whatever it says in the parsha of the para aduma is me'akev. But the bottom line is you see shchitas para b'zar is psula. You might say shaini para. That's not a kasha. That's a whole different inyan. The kosher by the kabaise. Because the para aduma is kosher by the kabaise. It's not even kosher by the mizbeach. But the para aduma didn't go on the mizbeach. Where was that korbon of the para aduma? It was on Har Hamishcha. Right? It was on Har Hazaisim. And that didn't even go on the mizbeach. So that's a whole different sugia. You're right. It's true over there the shchita requires a kohen but not because shchita is etzem an avoda. Because that's already a whole different. But the gemara says right that in English means kol kosher See, tell me that when it comes to the part of doing it's not kosher because never one of them is there. So, is it an avodah? But by kosher it's not an avodah. Right, if anything when you're dealing with you're not even thinking in terms of avodah. We're thinking of the that's what you're thinking in terms of avodah. So, shouldn't it be a I'm not sure but you're not understanding the meaning that a matter of going. When we say that you need a to do the part of doing it's for the same reason that you need a when it comes to right requires a a coin has to be you don't go to a doctor you go to a coin. The coin has to be the one that presides over it. Now, the that's certainly not an avodah. Yet requires so it's in the same vein that the part of doing it's also it requires is never an avodah. It's another but the fish. Taking the volume to the for the that was an avodah why is it an avodah that law? Well, first of all itself is you don't even need so if you don't need then on some levels but says even more you could have done the you can do everything you need to do with the carbon right next to the right just do it by the and if you're going to do it it's so that in and of itself would make it a situation where you don't have to do the yet but we know it's possible says the they hit their of what does it mean they hit their of all my It means so what do you see from here? You see clearly that even if you're dealing with an avodah that's actually so it's going to be who is this a and said that according to the being that it's is going to be same thing because why is it that different than the of and the where the is that the it's possible bizarre even though it's a avodah that you don't have to necessarily do. So, the Gamora says the way the way it's true it's true. You see from the volume a on what you're saying is but then today it's like also says and the means as opposed to that you don't have such a because if there's not going to but the Gamora says called the new the way the fish the way act for by isn't it a meaning at the end of the day if there's a the way there's a that says the way of the volume even though it's not necessary but at the same time even according to everyone's going to be the way it's going to require a coin then it should be true for the way the both but the way is more important than the way the volume why? Because the way the volume is not the volume themselves are not the part and even there you're telling me by it's a in the Torah so the way the volume the part of the way and therefore the Gamora it just can't be. So, at the end of the day if you find that even the way which is definitely something you can live without the way it's possible bizarre certainly the way possible bizarre even it might not be the Gamora says bizarre the way it's the Gamora the way it's going to be possible bizarre a few a little bit what was the last part of the Gamora? The last part of the Gamora was handling whether or not the way it's bizarre or the way it's going to be possible bizarre. First glance it seems like an often a in base it out of that maybe all the bizarre was doing over there was was a it's the ball then wanted to be in the sounds very very meaning if you can live without it or if living without it matters to the point that possible maybe it should be bizarre if not not. It seems to be a on that it's a whole different deal. It's just a I don't know yeah there you need a coin the same way you need a coin but there's no the way that's being but at the end of the day the Gamora says it can't be that because the way is not something you need and you find even wouldn't possible by the way so therefore it should be because the way is certainly don't need and it's a a the way the coin as the way the way so you see clearly that's only that you need and meaning you need to have a coin well if you have to have a coin when it comes to the way so too you have to have a coin it's a when it comes to the way and that was the way it might not be the way it's the way a few the way so as it relates to red one or regarding the way the way the way the way Now, to be clear the topic of the way the way the way the way here is a topic that comes up a lot in but it's also a topic that comes up in common and it's something that we've spoken about many times over the years about the and over the next few think it's and to talk about different related to this noise say of the way the way the the way the way the way the way the way the way some in the this is in your idea the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the he brings a question of law the same way the way the way the way the and it's a question that's very much related to the way that we're learning and it requires a tiny bit of an introduction. The Gamora the way on the base says that the way the way the of the way after she was blessed with a child small so she's standing in front of and she tells the immortal words the way the way the way the way says the Gamora what's the rest of the story why did say the way the way the way said the way because was a the way the way the way they the part and immediately afterwards they brought the child as in to says says the Gamora the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way way the way the way the way the way the way the way way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way way and he sees the that they're trying to find a coin to do the I'm so told the the the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way We don't know let's see what has to say. So, they bring in front of the way the way how do you know this? I'm he told him the way tell me does it say anywhere in the Torah the way the way you know where the Torah starts talking about it says the way the way from there you see that it's from the moving forward that you need to have a coin but the way not in fact the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way She came she started crying and screaming. She said he says you remember who I am I'm that woman that didn't have a child and you gave a that I'm going to have a child. This is the child. This is the child that you can't take this child away. I'm said that and she says no I'm going to punish this child. I'm going to I'm going to for you. You're going to have another you're going to have another child that child is going to be even better. I'm she said and here's the punchline of this the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way this is the child that I for and because this is the child that I for I'm not giving up this child for anybody even for a child that's better than my child parenthetically says on this Gamora what was the punchline the way the way the way she's telling you're promising me a child that's going to be bigger than this child she says you don't understand this child is she says you know how many I feel this and how many tears I cried for this child there's no child that you can give me like this that's going to out a child that came through tears the way the way the way the way the way the way the way the way this is a child that came through this is a child that came through this child there's no child you can give me that's going to be able to outshine this child but either way this is on this Gamora on this Gamora it's to mention that if you go through the inside there's no to this right so if you were holding by you didn't see this story anywhere in fact what you saw was that didn't have any children and had children and then finally was blessed with a child because was gives her this and even though the family used to go they used to go for always did a wasn't it right that's where it was it was but the point is they used to go that was always the minute but she waited until she got a little bit older she wasn't nursing her child anymore and then she finally went. And the possuk says that when she went up, so it says "Vatal Emo Kasha Gimalatu B'porim Shlosha V'eifa Achas Kemach V'nevel Yayin V'ativiehu Beis Hashem Shiloh V'hananor." She came to bring a gift, right? That's what she was coming to do. She's coming to be makir tov for this incredible gift that she was given by Kodesh Baruchu and this is her proverbial carbon todah. And the possuk then says "Vayishchatu Hasapar." They did the shchita "Vayaviu Es Hanar Eili." "Vatoimer Bi Adoni Chei Nafshecha." "Adoni Ani Yo Ishi Anitzav Es Imcha Bozeh Laspalel Lashem Al Hanar Hazeh Spalalti." "Vayiten Hashem Li Asher Lo Shilasi Asher Sha'alti Me'imoi." "V'gam Anochi Shilatihu Lashem Kol Hayamim." And I want you to have the child. There's no remez over here being more of a problem. It's a beautiful ending to a what begins as a very very heartbreaking story. Which he just comes to be makir tov. But Rebbi Elozar was picking up on this possuk "Vayishchatu Hasapar Vayaviu Es Hanar Eili." The juxtaposition of those two ideas just seem at first glance to have no shaychus one to the other and that's where Chazal took out "Vayishchatu Es Hasapar." Something happened by "Vayishchatu Es Hasapar Vayaviu Es Hanar Eili." And now all of a sudden he's being judged and they decide he's chayav misah and she hears about this and she says "Ani Yo Ishi Anitzav Es Imcha Bozeh Laspalel Lashem Al Hanar Hazeh Spalalti." Etc. Etc. Bring down this Gemara Maseches Brochos Daf Lamed Alef Amud Beis that Shmuel was chayav misah because he was moireh halacha bifnei rabbah. So the Kodesh Baruchu brings in there a similar samach tes that Machshavah Olam Deval asks a kasha that why was Shmuel a moireh halacha bifnei rabbah? L'chumra by Shmuel telling Eili that you don't need to be a kohen to do the shchita. And shchita k'sheirah b'zar, he was really stopping Eili from causing a grave sin to be committed. What's that grave sin? The Rambam in the very very end of Hilchos Kelayim says "Kohanim Shelo Shishu Bigdei Kehunah Shleima Sha'as Avodah." Kohanim that were Bigdei Kehunah Shelo Bisha'as Avodah, "Afilu B'mikdash." Even if they're in the Beis Hamikdash Shleima, they get malkus "Mipnei Ha'avneit." Because they're wearing the avneit "Shehu Kelayim." And that was made up of kelayim. "V'lo Hutru Bi'eil Bisha'as Avodah." "She'im Itzvas Assei K'mayatzis." One [snorts] of the bigadim that the kohen used to wear was the avneit. The avneit had in it kelayim. Says the Rambam, if a kohen would wear his Bigdei Kehunah Shleima Sha'as Avodah, being that one of the Bigdei Kehunah is the gartel and the gartel has kelayim in it, has shaatnez, he would get loika. The reason he would get loika is because he's being over the issur kelayim. So Freig Deval, if that's the case, Eili thought that shchita had to be done by a kohen. If shchita had to be done by a kohen, kohen was going to do it and naturally he was going to wear the Bigdei Kehunah because b'zman she Bigdei Kehunah Malei'im K'nasam Aleihem, otherwise it's a possul bigadim, it's tam lo yitzal b'possul. So when Eili does that shchita is really an avodah, a kohen is going to do the shchita, he's going to do it wearing the bigadim. L'fi Ha'emes, shchita lav avodah hi. And because shchita lav avodah hi, it comes out it's k'sheirah b'zar. But here's the point, if shchita lav avodah then even if a kohen does it, a kohen can't wear wearing the Bigdei Kehunah because shchita is not an avodah. If it's not an avodah, the kohen is wearing his Bigdei Kehunah Shleima Sha'as Avodah. And if he does that, he's over a lav of kelayim and he's even chayav malkus. So if that's the case, what emerges is that when Shmuel said "Shchita k'sheirah b'zar." No way, don't have a kohen. What he's doing is he's being moyniah. He's being moyniah Eili from causing this terrible aveirah. And we know the Gemara says in Eiruvin samach beis and it's kapaskin in Shulchan Aruch that even though there's an issur to be moireh halacha bifnei rabbah, "Aval L'afrooshei Mei'issura Yoter Latov Be Moireh Halacha Bifnei Rabbah." So the Kodesh Baruchu says that Machshavah Olam Kasha L'flah, why was Shmuel considered a moireh halacha bifnei rabbah? It was "L'afrooshei Mei'issura." Because Eili thought that shchita was an avodah. As a result it required a kohen with Bigdei Kehunah. And if that's the case, the kohanim l'fi Ha'emes were going to be wearing Bigdei Kehunah Shleima Sha'as Avodah. And the Rambam's shita is that it's ossur. Now the right it's chiyuv by the way. But that is the shita of the Rambam. The shita of the Rambam is that a kohen is not allowed to wear Bigdei Kehunah Shleima Sha'as Avodah. If that's the case, Shmuel was "L'afrooshei Mei'issura." And when it's "L'afrooshei Mei'issura," there's no problem. There's no problem of being moireh halacha bifnei rabbah. Parenthetically, in that teshuvah from the Chasam Sofer, the Chasam Sofer says "V'zeh Yom Lo Kavirim." "Hekshani Talmud Echad." He brings a kasha that he heard from a Talmud that's me'inyan l'inyan b'isinyan. The Mishnah says in Maseches Gittin Daf Nun Dalet Amud Beis "Kohanim Shepiglu B'mikdash Meizid Chayavin." A kohen that has machshavas pigul in the Beis [snorts] Hamikdash b'meizid is going to be chayav. This comes up in the sugya of hezek. Nikkar hezek she'eino nikkar. But some Mishnah, the Mishnah says "A kohen A kohen shepiglu B'mikdash B'meizid are going to be chayav." So the Talmud asks the Chasam Sofer, why are kohanim shepiglu B'mikdash B'meizid chayav? A viffel the avodah that was done was a possul avodah, so it comes out it was really not an avodah. If it wasn't an avodah, that means the kohanim that were wearing the Bigdei Kehunah, the kohanim that were wearing the avneit, were wearing kelayim shleima sha'as avodah. If they were the kelayim shleima sha'as avodah, they're over a lav which is chayav malkus. And we know the rule, you're not loika m'shaleim. So the Chasam Sofer says me'inyan l'inyan b'isinyan, I heard a very similar kasha, a very gishmaka kasha from one of my talmidim "Kohanim Shepiglu B'mikdash Meizid Chayavin." Why is there not a problem being loika m'shaleim? But either way, this is the kasha that the Chasam Sofer brings that Machshavah Olam. If you want other mareh mekomos for this kasha, the Malbim in his Artzos Hachaim asks this kasha and in the Binyan Ariel, this is already pre-Chasam Sofer, in the Binyan Ariel al HaTorah in Parshas Vayikra, he has a whole arichus on this kasha as well. But this was a this was a a Welt's kasha. So I saw many years ago in the Sefer Chavas Da'as in Parshas Vayikra, he brings a mahalach that's based on Torah from the Rogatchover Gaon and the Kotzk Gaon. So two tremendous iluyim, two tremendous gaonim. Shnei Amis Chachamim U'malachim Now I just want to be makdim this mahalach is a very very mechudashdig mahalach and it's davar palah but at the same time two gaonim and as we'll see soon a third as well went with this mahalach to try to answer this kasha but I think it's kedai just to be makdim it for one second. And that is another classic mareh makom in the sugya of shchita k'sheirah b'zar that we've spoken about over the years is a Rashi Maseches Yevamos Daf Lamed Gimel Amud Beis. The Gemara over there is discussing the halacha of einus achalah l'eisa and it says quote "Zar Sheshimesh B'shabbos Zar that does the avodah on Shabbos Yei'ish Kamishum Zarus U'mishum Shabbos." He's over two issurim. He's over the fact that he's a zar that did the avodah. A zar has no business doing the avodah. Additionally, he's over the fact that he did the avodah on Shabbos. And you're not allowed to be doing avodah on Shabbos. So zar sheshimesh B'shabbos is over issur zarus and he's over issur Shabbos. Freig the Gemara, zar sheshimesh B'shabbos What is the case? Which avodah did he do? If it's shchita, this feels like literally a Gemara that we've learned in the last 10 days. If it's shchita, is it talking about where the zar did shchita? Shchita b'zar k'sheirah. Shchita is kasha b'zar. If it's kabalah v'eilacha, if it was kabalah v'eilacha, talked about Amud Alef, then where is the issur Shabbos? Right? All you're doing is blood. In the worst case scenario, it would be muktzah maybe, but more than that it's not going to be. If it's aktarah, maybe it's talking about where he did aktarah. Zar is not allowed to do aktarah. Aktarah involves Shabbos. But that's talking about machlokes between Rebbi Yosi whether havarah l'av yotzei's or havarah is l'chayav yotzei's. So the Gemara comes out with a case it's talking about where he shchated the par that the kohen gadol was supposed to bring on Yom Kippur. Oh, I came to the Gemara. We just really need the first line of the Gemara. The Gemara says "Zar Sheshimesh That He's Chayav Mishum Zarus And He's Chayav Mishum Shabbos." What's the case? If it's shchita, is it talking about where he shchated? Shchita b'zar k'sheirah. So Eili and Rashi, what does it mean shchita b'zar k'sheirah? "De'ein Kan Zarus." There's no zarus. Why is there no zarus? Because shchita is k'sheirah b'zar. So he's allowed to do it. Freig the Sha'ar Hamelach, why did Rashi say shchita b'zar k'sheirah "De'ein Kan Zarus?" He should have said better. He should have said shchita b'zar k'sheirah "De'ein Kan Zarus." And being that there's no zarus, there's no Shabbos either. What would be the issur Shabbos if a zar does the avodah on Shabbos? It's because he's not allowed to do the avodah. And being that he's not allowed to do the avodah, so for him it's a chillul Shabbos. Right? A kohen who's allowed to do the avodah, that's not a chillul Shabbos, it's not being mechallel Shabbos. But a zar is not allowed to do the avodah, if he does the avodah on Shabbos, he is being mechallel Shabbos. So freig the Sha'ar Hamelach, what's up Rashi? That if the zar sheshimesh B'shabbos was shchita, it can't be. Why? Because you're chayav for Shabbos and you're chayav for zarus. And "Ein Kan Zarus" for shchita k'sheirah b'zar. It's not just "Ein Kan Zarus," it's "Ein Kan Zarus V'ein Kan Shabbos." Because aviffel shchita k'sheirah b'zar, it does give me a kasha with shchita. So the Sha'ar Hamelach said that he see from this Rashi a davar niflah. And that is that although it's true that shchita is k'sheirah b'zar, but on Shabbos a zar would not be allowed to do the shchita. On Shabbos and you would need a kohen to do the shchita. So it's true that shchita is k'sheirah b'zar, but it's dafka on Shabbos. It's dafka during the week. But on Shabbos then the kohen would have to do the shchita. And the question is why? What's the cheilek? What's the cheilek? The Kam Kumas in the Shavru to explain and to be meyashiv the svara of Rashi k'fi the way that the Sha'ar Hamelach was meyadeik. So enter now the gaonim. Said the Kotzk Gaon and said the Rogatchover Gaon that Eish [ __ ] that inasmuch as it's true that the Gemara says that shchita lav avodah hi, that just means that shchita is k'sheirah b'zar. And if a zar wants shchita, to be okay. About how mere if a coin is going to be the one that's going to do the then the is going to be in a void and then it's going to be considered a void when it's not a coin that's doing it. It's very bizarre. But if a coin does it now it takes on a new definition and now already it is going to be considered another void. Does it that the only time it's kosher on Shabbos is if it's an avoid. If it does the is kosher on Shabbos is if it's an avoid. If it does the it's not an avoid. Being that it's not an avoid so therefore it's not going to be kosher on Shabbos. So the bizarre is a reason for but at the same time to tell me that in Shabbos no because the that's kosher on Shabbos is only the that's an avoid. And it's not but when a coin does the then it is an avoid. And being that when a coin does the it's an avoid so for that reason it's going to it's going to be okay. So said the guy in the freezer we can be the so the so so brings me here in that we said the and it comes from the that why he was he was saving this terrible because the that requires a coin so coin was going to do it. He was going to do it with the big day he was going to do it with the big day it's going to come out that he's wearing the so for which you're going to be Marcus. So right now you're saving it from doing it a day. The carrots is no the coin does the the coin does the it is an avoid. If it's an avoid then we he wears the it's not if it's not maybe he even has to wear the but it's certainly not and being that it's not so what's going to come out is there's no for that reason we view him as and being that he's so for that reason that he's going to be is the use of to this belt one matter of that's the that is the all are a Rambam in the now this Rambam is in in it's at the very very end of where the is discussing a regarding inch of so it says as follows coin shall look at boy a coin that has a wound on his finger coin all of the if he's in the base of he could put a bandage on it. There's no before the Shabbos there's no Shabbos issue. If you're in the then already it's not going to be okay. Says the Rambam in give me who will become deeper the Rambam is a doctor in addition to being the Rambam and he says this is something that works. The location says the Rambam that when the coin did this he should be kosher with the piece of a bag. The avoid and you could do the avoid but just make sure says the Rambam should be between that this bandage shouldn't be in between your skin and the from where you did the or it has second or it shouldn't be between your hand and the knife the while you're doing the avoid. So the asked on this Rambam the Rambam was sensitive in this mission talk about talk to her. In this mission to because of this coin coin but make sure when you have to be careful be careful when you do this there should be no on the and be careful when you do the there should be no between you and the that's the that's an avoid they can't be by an avoid that's how kosher but the so what's going on over here? The carrots is it's a coin. Coin but that coin coin does that does the avoid a coin now that is this is all very very but like we mentioned it's it's very very right it's very very but the in base but like we already spoke out this Rambam is a but the in base magic would add one more and that is I saw in the safer from the Rubin so he has a little bit of a on this topic and on page it's on today's that you a on the base he brings an excerpt from the safer Mishmar HaLevi that's from Rav Shulsinger and this is in Rav Shulsinger's safer on Megillah. So this is talk the way but either way this is what he writes. So I remember Rav Shulsinger talking this was 25 years ago ago the I was in the the sheer of by the way the of Rav Chaim Shmulevitz the tzaddik Rav Shmulevitz the Yeshiva of so Rav Shulsinger said I remember it was about 25 years ago I heard a sheer from Rav Chaim Shmulevitz Shmulevitz he was Yeshiva of sheer of in between sheer the this is all Rav Shulsinger talking but how he he said quote that what you do she is my that coin. After the bizarre it's your duty that there's a to the coin even though bizarre may you Islamic love us the pair of 12 Islamic law the lady by the way to Islamic pushes Malbon Rambam with this you can be the of the Malbon Rambam the of the coin you have to big day at the of the coin. on this one so going Rav Chaim Shmulevitz but I'll call him Rav Chaim Shmulevitz also the greatest he was into this he didn't say from the from the at the that based on this in that you see that as much as it's bizarre but there's an between bizarre and a coin. Where do you see the on Shabbos you see the Shabbos but a bizarre can't do on Shabbos. A coin is allowed to do on Shabbos. That means the bizarre and the of a coin are not the same. If that's the case that there's no problem that there's no problem because the coin is going to be doing the then already it's going to be different. Now didn't go so far to say that when the coin does the it's an avoid. He just said that you see from you that there's an there's an between the of a bizarre and the of a coin. That avoid that means that a bizarre is able to do it. A bizarre could do the that's a but when a coin does it it's a whole different the whole year on Shabbos that's the biggest in the world that a bizarre can't do the on Shabbos the bizarre is not but the coin is again the is bizarre but at the same time when a coin does the at that point it's going to be already a different for others say with such a sharp that when a coin does the it's literally going to be considered an avoid the the pushes from and the from the on the base but then you should the the of the Rambam in the in the end of there's a lot more to talk about on this topic this was part one and we'll get to part two.