Zevachim 55

Today's daf is Vayakhel Daf Nun Hey, and we are at the Mishnah on the bottom of Daf Nun Dalet Roman Base, moving along in perek Eizehu Mekoman. So, we discussed chatas olah and now the Mishnah continues. Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur v'Ashamos. Shalmei Tzibur, a korban shlamim that was brought by the tzibur and a korban asham are additional examples of kodshei kodashim elah v'Ashamos. What are the Ashamos? Asham Gezelos, Asham Ivvos, Asham Shifcha Charufa, Asham Nazir, Asham Metzora, and Asham Talui. So, there are six examples of korban asham. Being that all the aforementioned are kodshei kodashim shechitasam b'Tzafon v'kibbul damam b'keli shareis b'Tzafon. V'damam tan sh'tei matanos arba. Just like a korban olah it has to be sh'tei matanos arba. V'ne'echalin lifnim min ha'klain. Again, klayin, like all kodshei kodashim they had to be eaten within the walls of the Azarah. V'zichrei Kehunah. Only a kohen and only a male kohen was allowed to eat from it. B'chol maychol. It's allowed to be eaten and prepared in any way you want in contrast to the korban Pesach that had to be eaten roasted. A korban asham and the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur could be eaten in any shape or form. L'yom v'lailah. You had a day and a night to eat it ad chatzos. And even though you technically had the entire night to eat it but the chachamim said don't eat it past chatzos. That's the first Mishnah in Maseches Berachos. It was a chok because we were afraid that if you're going to wait until the morning, you know, you may end up being left with noises. As a result, the chachamim say wait until chatzos. So, the Gemara immediately asks on the boy Tzafon. How do you know that the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur require Tzafon? And really it's a chiddush because we know that korban shlamim is kodshim kalim, not kodshei kodashim. Stating that the Shalmei Tzibur, the korban shlamim that the tzibur brought, that had a din of kodshei kodashim. So, the question is how do you know that? The Gemara says Tani Rabbi Bar Bar Chana k'mei d'Rava v'Asisem S'risim Echad l'Chatas. It says the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur next to the korban chatas. And we darshin Nachas b'Tzafon Shalmei Tzibur b'Tzafon. Amrei Rava, said Rava, "V'chi chatas meichal adam d'meiha?" How do you know the chatas will need Tzafon? It's learned out from olah. The only place it says olah or Tzafon before it in the Torah is by the korban olah. So, if chatas is learned out from Tzafon, how could Shalmei Tzibur be learned out from chatas? Dover al omed b'hekeish chozer umamed b'hekeish. Al lo zeh Gemara says "Mi d'Tani Rabbi Horei b'Reish Perek Kaf." You have to say d'Makar. That the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur in contrast to the Shalmei Yachid had a din of kodshei kodashim and as a result shechitasam b'Tzafon is learned out from a different pasuk. It says "Al olos zeichem v'al zivchei shlomeichem." So, we're makeish the korban olah to the zivchei shlomeichem to the Shalmei Tzibur. Mah olah kodshei kodashim ad zivchei Shalmei Tzibur kodshei kodashim. And therefore mah olah b'Tzafon ad zivchei Shalmei Tzibur b'Tzafon. Says the Gemara "Al lo zeh keisha kama l'mayosa." Meaning we started off that the makar that the Shalmei Tzibur was kodshei kodashim and had a din Tzafon it was learned out from the pasuk that says "V'asisem S'risim Echad l'Chatas." The Torah writes the Shalmei Tzibur next to the korban chatas. Just like the chatas needs Tzafon, so too the Shalmei Tzibur needs Tzafon. But the Gemara immediately rejected it. The Gemara said that chatas gufa that it needs Tzafon is a dover al omed b'hekeish and the rule is dover al omed b'hekeish is in chazer umamed b'hekeish. So, the Gemara says you're right it's learned out from somewhere else. So, the Gemara is now going back to the original source that the Gemara thought was the source. We had a hekeish. We're left hanging now because that hekeish isn't being used to teach me the din Tzafon by Shalmei Tzibur. So, what is that hekeish being used for? "Al lo zeh keisha kama l'mayosa." So, the Gemara says "Ki chatas it teaches me different halachos. Mah chatas in nichnas el av zichrei Kehunah af zivchei Shalmei Tzibur v'zichrei Kehunah." It's coming to tell me that just like a korban chatas was only eaten by male kohanim, so too all kodshei kodashim such as the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur was also only eaten by zichrei Kehunah. So, it doesn't teach me the halacha of Tzafon. It can't teach me Tzafon because Tzafon gufa I know may hekeish dover al omed b'hekeish that can't be chazer umamed b'hekeish. But it teaches me a different halacha. It teaches me zichrei Kehunah. Amrei Abaye. Said Abaye, "E ochi gabei eil nazir d'chazir regarding the eil nazir that was also a korban shlamim. That was one of the three korbanos that every nazir had to bring when he completed his nezirus. It says "V'hikriv es korbano l'Hashem keves ben shnaso tamim echad l'olah v'kivsah achas bat shnaso tmimah l'chatas v'ayil echad tamim l'shlamim." So, the nazir brought three korbanos. He brought an olah, a chatas, and a shlamim. Now, if you're going to tell me that every time the Torah lumps a few korbanos together in the same pasuk, there's a hekeish and something's supposed to be learned from it. "Hacha nami neima." So, should we learn a hekeish here too and say "D'hekeisha kasuv b'chatas" that that shlamim, the eil nazir, the shlamim that the nazir used to bring is also hookish to a chatas and mah chatas in nichnas el zichrei Kehunah af eil einu ne'echal el av zichrei Kehunah. You're telling me that the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur was real kodshei kodashim. It was like a chatas. It was only ne'echal av zichrei Kehunah. How do I know that? I know from the hekeish. Because in the same sentence the Torah mentions the chatas and the zivchei Shalmei Tzibur. I have the same exact din by the nazir. So, tell me that the eil nazir also, even though it's a shlamim which ordinarily is kodshim kalim, but maybe this shlamim like the Shalmei Tzibur should be different. And maybe the halacha is that it should only be ne'echal av zichrei Kehunah. So, the Gemara says "Hachi hashta over there given the sidra d'Kehunah she is ro'eh b'shlamim min ha'ayil." The Torah specifically says what part of the shlamim that the nazir used to bring went to the kohen. What was it? It was the zero'a hayemin. His forearm had to be cooked. He had to take the zero'a b'sheilah. That's what he got. "Michlal mah d'is mi d'kula ba'al machlei." The rest of the animal must have been eaten by the ba'al. Ba'al wasn't a kohen necessarily. As a result, you see that it's not necessarily ne'echal only av zichrei Kehunah. So, you're right. Maybe based on the raw hekeish you would think that the entire shlamim that the nazir brought should be treated like a chatas. But a more foresha pasuk not that way because the pasuk says only the zero'a b'sheilah is supposed to be given to the kohen. It's mashma the rest of it not. Says the Gemara "Zero'a b'sheilah meicha lo ilas achilah l'lo zichrei Kehunah." Let the halacha at least be that the zero'a b'sheilah which is given to the kohen can only be eaten by the kohen. Meaning the kohen can't give it to a zar or can't give it to somebody else to be eaten. At the very least let the hekeish say that the cheilek that was given to the kohen is only eaten by the kohen. So, the Gemara says "Kasha." Which is the Gemara's way of saying I hear you. But you're saying alternatively "Kodshei ikri kodshei kodashim lo ikri." The pasuk clearly refers to the zero'a b'sheilah as kodesh. It says it's kodesh. Doesn't say kodshei kodashim. So, it's as if the Torah would foresh be telling us that even though there's a hekeish maybe, but still it's looked at as kodshim. It's not looked at as kodshei kodashim. "Al lo zeh mai hilchas ishkash." So, then what then is the purpose of the hekeish? Meaning again the Gemara is assuming that if the Torah wrote the olah, the chatas, and the shlamim all together in the same pasuk regarding the korban nazir, there must be some hekeish. The hekeish is not zichrei Kehunah because of the terutzim that the Gemara just gave. So, again what is the reason the Torah lumped it all together? "Amrei Rava it's coming to teach me a halacha, a very important halacha but when you learn Maseches Nazir and that is sh'im gilach al achas me shloshah yamim yotzei." It's actually coming to teach me that chatas and olah learned out from shlamim, not shlamim from chatas, but rather chatas and olah from shlamim. The halacha is is that in order for the nazir to complete his nezirus he had to bring three korbanos. Then he shaved his head, he did his tischlaches, and then "V'acharei yishteh yayin." Now, really the Torah says that if he brings the shlamim "V'acharei yishteh yayin." That's a chiddush. Doesn't have to bring all three. The shlamim is enough. The question is what if he only brought the olah or or he only brought the chatas? Is it davka if the only one he brought was the shlamim that's enough or any one of them is going to be enough? "Al zeh namra d'hekeish that just like the shlamim as long as he brings that he could be megale'ach "V'acharei yishteh yayin." Same is going to be true for the chatas. The same is going to be true for the korban olah as well. Excellent. So, we have over here the Mishnah that discusses two additional korbanos, the Shalmei Tzibur and the asham. Incidentally, we probably should have spoken about this at the beginning of the Mishnah. So, when exactly was a Shalmei Tzibur brought? There was only one Shalmei Tzibur. That was brought on Shavuos. It was the Kivsei Atzeres. So, together with the Sh'tei Halacham, they were chvasim that were brought. It was a korban shlamim. It was a communal offering. It was financed by the Machatzis Ha'Shekel every single year. It had a had a cheilek in it. And it was a korban tzibur that was a korban shlamim. That's a chiddush because you find a chatas tzibur on Yom Kippur there were chatas tzibur. The Par He'elem Davar Shel Tzibur was a chatas tzibur. You find an olah tzibur. The korban olah was an olah tzibur. The Musafin were olos and chatos. But a Shalmei Tzibur, if you look around there's only one shlamim that was ever brought b'tzibur and that is the Kivsei Atzeres that were brought on Shavuos. But just one interesting thing. So, we have the Mishnayos that talk about the korban chatas. And we have now a Mishnah that talks about the the korban asham. Now, we know that the chatas was ba'al chet and the asham was ba'al chet. The chatas was brought primarily for someone that didn't have an aveirah b'shogeg she has dinei kareis. When did he bring a korban asham? For what aveiros? And the Mishnah mentions six. Asham Gezelos, Asham Ivvos, Asham Shifcha Charufa, the Asham Nazir, Asham Metzora, and the Asham Talui. The question is if the chatas was ba'al chet and the asham was ba'al chet, why do you need two korbanos for chet? Wouldn't it make sense that there'd be one category of korbanos? Anytime a person does an aveirah, you bring a chatas. There's a korban todah that you bring when you're giving hodah l'Kadosh Baruch Hu. There's a a korban Pesach that serves its purpose. There's ma'aser, there's bichur. So, there should be a category of korbanos that were brought for chatain. There were two. Sometimes it's going to be a chatas and sometimes it's going to be an asham. So, you know who asks this kasha? The Ramban. The Ramban in his peirush al ha'Torah, it's in Parshas Vayikra, perek kaf, pasuk tes vav. And he has an arichus. He initially gives two suggestions. He rejects both of them and then ultimately the Ramban says that the key to understanding the difference between the asham and the chatas lies in the word asham and in the word chatas. Just read to you one excerpt. "V'hanireh b'einai k'sheim asham." The word asham moreh al davar gadol. Sounds like something really really bad just happened. I should when is she if it's so bad that the punishment this person deserves is show me he should be completely ruined completely destroyed. That's what the word awesome is me lotion show me he should be completely obliterated and he brings different things I see me by yes to tell me more a shame and I etc. etc. But the the connotation is very very severe. Has a much more subtle connotation. Myra the connotation is that a person was he veered off the path a little bit. He he made a a wrong turn where he wasn't supposed to and he says a riot to this is the person says the concept the context over there was referring to people that can sling a stone and you stone slingers and here a Sarah the way you can do not going to veer they're perfect archers. It's perfection. When a person is he's not perfect. He is a little to the right. He's a little bit to the left. The one is show me that such a bad a very deserves to be destroyed. The other one is he made a wrong turn and says the take a look when does a person have we don't have a very person that didn't have a very he was a little bit not on point. He went off it was only a very but all that are coming for things that are are much more serious. The I'm going to say this is in fact only awesome that was worth for a is but the says that even though was brought for someone that was for but being that you're dealing with culture even if you did it it's not such a good excuse. You know the mission says in office and and some learn that what it means is that when it comes to there's no difference between a and a the same thing. What are you going to tell me I was only a you shouldn't have been a it's something you should have been so careful to and so sensitive somebody is in the oval office and accidentally you know spills coffee over it was an accident. That was a I didn't realize it's probably not going to go over well especially in front of a king. That's the point. The point is that when it comes to certain things is not a the only awesome that's a was the the and even him he was and make sense that even for a you should have the lotion of regardless of the is the is the learns a certain just like also also but the and the are not the same. One has a much more severe connotation than the other. The the and the that the used to bring they are both and this is the first of we had all the the the and the now we have an a and we'll see in a minute why they're put in a separate category. They're both examples of and the their doesn't have to be it could be anywhere in the but don't the is the anywhere in that's in contrast to that had to be eaten take a look anyone could eat it not only take a could be eaten in any way the the a day and a night at twice up until a mirror may have periods that was given to the that's the mirror may have that's the part of it that was given to the has the same as different the may have them so there's so much here in this that we'll have to get to in the next day or two but for now what the mission is saying is is that the and both so it doesn't have the and has the but what they have in common is that ordinarily as we'll see in the next mission are eaten for two days and a night. So what's unique about the and the is that they were only eaten for a day and a night. The shake a true to the to us the context over there is the and many were brought. One of the that were brought was the carbon and the person says that the was eaten to I'm going to from the commented on this person. He said the what the other carbon is the the everything else that's mentioned over there that was brought in the they were eaten in a of of course it's you can only eat it in a hello what does it mean means it's a place that's only a little bit tall. Meaning it's a place that only some are not allowed to go but other are allowed to go. It's a place of quasi but at the same time quasi what is that? It's it's a place that's because a can't be there but the a little bit because the is allowed to be there. What's a place that a is allowed to go but the is not allowed to go that's and that's the definition of says the was eaten in in the sense that it's a place that has a little bit of some had to be sent away from that. What is that place? It's which had to be sent away from but all the other were allowed to be even the was allowed to be in the says if the definition of is like so maybe it's referring to a different place. Maybe it's referring to maybe it's referring to the the was wasn't allowed to go in the but a me to for example wasn't allowed to go in the is a so maybe that's what it's referring to. The only information I have is that it's a place of quasi quasi so I didn't know it's with some have to leave them other could be there. Maybe it's with some are allowed to be there such as the other have to leave such as the says the the says it says regarding the that was brought in the that had to be eaten and we don't only but only it had to be eaten but the other carbon that was brought with it in our context the didn't have to be eaten the so after there's already a there's one in terms of with this had to be eaten. Now that I have the second how do the that's like a second after the that's how it ends up being so after there was only one maybe you're right but being that there's two it says regarding the so that's like one after we just pushed the out of one and then I have the that pushes it out of another so it gets pushed out of the with the first out of the with the second that's how we know it could be eaten in although said it a little bit differently same conclusion but a little different the regarding the the regarding the after the we have a that says the had to be eaten in it's the had to be eaten in but in terms of everything else you could eat it anywhere. You could eat it even all the of the then it said the so now it says no it has to be in a it has to has to be in in one of the of so we enter into Israel but the maybe push it all the way into the meaning I said the should push it you can eat it anywhere and the should push me into the you don't go up two steps you go up one step so if the original pushed it out of all the if I have one re boy I'm going to be married into one of the but the you can the why are you telling me that the pushed it out of all three but the only pushes it into one how how come the meal can knock it out of many and the could only bring it back into one. Shouldn't we have to be consistent but I decide how could it be a means of the that you could eat cut your wherever you want. The the even you can't eat out of there's a you can eat out of so whole doesn't work must be like said regardless what's the cut your and the and not only in the it's learned out from the that says that the so we know from there it's a place that's a where in on some level it's but on a another level were allowed to go there we also have the meal that the by the meal of that was brought in the it says that teaches me somehow that it had to be eaten the but it did not have to be eaten certainly did not have to be eaten the again not a lot of but very very loaded just one heart. So the mission mentions the carbon so who brought a carbon to it's all familiar with the tomorrow says in this that I'm ready to our three the four people that back in the day when there was a had to bring the carbon today say show I don't know I don't know I don't know I haven't been there in a long time so you have to say about three there are four people that had to bring a carbon I was about to say but I made more recently that I went back to well so those are the four people that are like this so you do that the brings this it's in ratio test our three the show me with you issue me show you with you me show you and a good way to remember who the four people that are are the have you do is table is the you sure you have young and you do it's a the four people that are on this says that the reason we drink four cups of wine and there's so much symbolism of four by the is because when the went through throughout the course of the we experienced all four of these things that say the whole barriers obviously they were in the middle of 40 years we are there we went through the all the had a and the were published for 210 years which as a result when the left we had four obligations of and that's why there's so much symbolism by the way as it relates to the I'm going to tell you a dish and it's the in Pasha last night we spoke out of the in in Pasha regarding and and why is referred to as a because is going to somehow play a role in the rebuilding of the so also a total first in Pasha in says right in the beginning in Pasha base carbon the is talking about the carbon says in Pasha who brought the carbon if you had a miracle take place that's what the word means and maybe carbon as the says I shall say but it's not limited to that could go in I'll give you an example when the get married you know what they used to do when there was a they would go to the on their honeymoon and they'd bring a carbon that's what they would do and then the says she says I have a minute in a no less than 11 13 that says that the used to bring a carbon in other words it's not only the that are it's really a big enough it's yeah come on these are four examples of somebody that needs to bring it's interesting when the goes through his acronym of so it's you young midbar which one is would be he's the one that's in the young self-explanatory and midbar is self-explanatory it's the is a much broader term than maybe this is a little bit of a in the to that is it's not necessarily these four things the point is is that anytime a person has a has a a person what came to mind is the says the question of the answer regarding so maybe there's an element of but regardless as I state to in in Pasha but I'm going to tell you a song the well-known the is famous the is on the tells a story of the the majority of other had passed it was a long winter but it hadn't but it still hadn't rained and the was starving to death literally so they sent a message to who was known to be a big they said his diving for us for you to show me make it rain the says the he but it didn't rain so he drew his famous circle and he stood in the middle of the circle the he turns to he says I'm going to tell you but but somehow they know I'm a by you and as a result they're all coming to me I I am a I'm going to take care of the Jews I swear I will not leave the circle until you have a son the says that as said that is nothing started drizzling I'm going to tell you the so the that were there they turned to they say that's called rain that's not rain what are we going to do with a little bit of a drizzle heard and he says we need real rain as finishes saying that rain started storm it was coming down it was pounding I should call people the people the it was unbelievable how much rain there was I'm going to tell you the so tell me turn to they said that's not what we want this is dangerous we we can't we can't go outside this this is a little bit too intense says go ahead and dive in that it should slow down so he told them I hear but we have a a you never dive in because there's too much good too much rain is not something you're supposed to dive in for but I thought says the he told me he told me to go go bring me a I want to bring a if you like somehow all of I'm going to tell you so it says in any what should we do the Jews we can't handle too much bad but we also can't handle too much good you gave us too much bad it wasn't good too much good he ended up getting to give him punk the amount of rain that they did it the tells the end of the story which is heard what did he said if your name wasn't you have to go put you in this the way you talk to but what should I do you talk of the by you see you were able to pile well-known the what's the part that we need the part says bring me a says what was this says was he wanted to be he wanted to say this we says in the was says the it's on this he says I would say I don't think this word is the word is THE WORD IS THAT'S WHAT THIS was he was bringing a carbon says the you you're going to tell me this which one of the four which one of the four was this says the it's that when we say it's love it's love those four I love any that happens probably means what should I I love carbon for so it wasn't a bigger than this we should have carbon which will call you strong the carbon washing machine it was carbon it's not one of the the it's any that happens the the four is just examples of the four but technically you can get up you can always something else I don't know if it has to ask your local rabbi but I don't know if it has to be this the point is it's a in the Pasha it's the in the is famous the is I have to tell you that I saw in the beginning of the so the discussed the three the was talking about the and the each carbon is unique meaning if there's a that it says by one carbon you cannot another carbon from there one of the things the said was I saw the carbon is never bought as I saw in the and brings over there that he heard a that somebody has how can you tell me a carbon can never be bought the says that the that they brought was a the so you see you can bring a a carbon but I don't think it's a and nobody says it was a carbon I mean the of the if we really want to be was he said carbon the call you strong that meant that it was a carbon what it was paid for by the yeah the of I don't think that's one of the could be it was a carbon that he himself was was bringing or he felt that all of had to bring a carbon so maybe they were all carbon but it was more a carbon of not a carbon of either way definitely a nice up to me there cut you moving on cut you moving on cut you moving on the cut you moving on the cut you moving on the cut you moving on therefore you could check it anywhere in the top and the top and the top and the top and the top in the column of the column of the in any way the that's the with most the exception is the and the carbon but ordinarily it's the part that went to the same as in the the and the that's the in the it says regarding the carbon the that there's another that says the with and there's a third that says the why didn't he like actually it was called because of the carbon the tell me they didn't know about the when it comes to carbon all the you can do it anywhere in the the meaning being that the first says the the the or even the you would get the sense that you have to be literally facing parallel to the the and if the didn't take place parallel to the the maybe it wouldn't be okay but this these extra it says it three times teaches me that all the are going to be says the all the with and if all the are certainly is going to be now if all the are included in all the are the in the is is that we're going to see there's a that holds that is actually excluded that even though all the were included something was excluded the holds that there's no way you could exclude to the extent that you have the other because once I know the other cover are match what's the cover my all the apostles of culture and is that kind of that argues he holds one of the three were actually needed to teach me that culture I would have thought I would have made a cover and said that maybe all the are kosher with the exception of stuff. place meaning all the are not kosher by kosher. There's a little bit of a backwards kosher kosher. Should I kosher kosher which is only kosher in something. In a kosher kosher kosher. The certain its place of something shouldn't be kosher by kosher kosher. One of the three of two of them. That discuss something by kosher kosher. The once I know all the I know for sure something. Really as it says no. I need a to tell me something. Everybody holds. Something. Is kosher by kosher kosher it's also kosher by kosher kosher. The question is do I know it from a kosher kosher and I know it know it from a kosher. So says the my what's the is where you actually explain the end of the day everybody agrees. So is there enough if I know it from a kosher or if I know it from a kosher kosher. So the says yeah. We said this three something. Three times this idea that the had to be in front of the mind. Kind of of a kosher it says it three times. One is to tell me that it needed my. That's going to be the next tomorrow. The is going to say that the carbon is going to be The only time it was kosher was if the the door of the my head was open when the carbon was brought. But if the door of the my head was closed when the carbon was brought then the was possible. So one is to teach me that possible my that the door of the my head has to be open. The had the stuff the one is to tell me that anywhere in the oil in the is kosher. The and the third one is to tell them to tell me that if it's on the side of them one of the is one of these chambers on the side of the are there in that case it's going to be possible. But something itself it's something I don't need a possible. I use all three to teach me something. I don't need one of the three to teach me something because I know something something. Really as it who says you don't know something really as it says one is to teach me the actual that that the had to be brought only possible when the doors of the were open. The the something one to tell me something. Something. The something is something. Tell me something something are excluded. For that I don't need a possible. Okay. The three times that the mentions the being in front of the my head. So the first time it the possible my the next two times it says my head my head What's this emphasis possible my Why are we talking about the door? In front of the my head. What's possible my head? Says the my This is a very important that that the only time you can bring the something was if the doors of the were open. So if the doors of the had not been open yet you couldn't bring the carbon something. How do I know that? Should never possible my head. Is my shoe possible my possible. It has to be open. If the carbon something was brought before the doors of the were open it's possible. Should never possible possible my head. Is my shoe possible possible. The is my shoe who know. Something should kosher the something the something was kosher before they open the doors of the is going to be possible. The in the something. Kosher I mean do the something. Before the and the and after put it down something is going to be possible. The something had to be standing the tent had to be up in order for the carbon something to be kosher. Just because you're in the are that's not enough for it kosher actually need the tent to be pitched you need it to be up in order for it to be kosher. Meaning there's a it's learned out from the kosher kosher possible my head that the something was only kosher if it was brought after the doors of the were open. But something should something kosher if the are there my head possible is going to be possible So just one more are related to yesterday's stuff. So one of the themes of this week was the idea that the and the my head the the kosher and the kosher kosher was all the kosher and one where the was supposed to be that was the of the There's just one classic kosher that we have to speak out. Kosher is always It's a kosher possible my It's in the context of the of keeper. And he quotes a that we say in keeper. We say So we turn to keeper the Israel you forgive the sins of the Jews who are on and you're shift the Israel in every generation and he's very bothered. What's this redundancy in the the Israel who are on the shift of the are He says besides you don't find anywhere in the are such a that we're asking forgive the shift of the Israel. Forgive the are What's going on over here? He says a government of so says we know that the are there when he entered the of the keeper he had with special clothing. He couldn't wear the big days off. He had to wear the big day off. The reason is because on keeper the are there was connected to Israel. The are stood in front of the and in the way of them getting are And one of the jobs of the are is to go fight off the are that is the are The are was made out of it was made out of gold. So I would going to look at the are there who's trying to quiet the are of the are is going to walk in with his gold clothing. The are there as a are as a result the are there didn't wear any gold when he entered the of the keeper. That's why he had a second set of clothing. He went in with the big day off. Says the are That's possible. That the in this is based on the are are there with are there with are there with are there in the are there There is a generation who are there with are there are there Every are there Every generation has in it a are a little bit of are there So even thousands of years later when the are is entering the of the keeper he's still fighting off the are of the are and that's why there's a sensitivity to go and are Says are if that's true let's apply that methodology further. He says there's a are in the way. It's a are We have the are the are there are there Every single generation has in it a little bit of are there Meaning just like are there every is a little bit of are there Every single generation has a little bit of the are there that the was so profound that every single generation suffers from it. It wasn't just are there like we spoke about yesterday. But every single generation has in it a little bit of are there And says it could be it could be that the way you look at this is is that the are was the are of all are there And are was the of all are there So every are of are there has in it a little bit of are there Every are there has in it a little bit of are there He says it could be that that's the reason that the big day off and didn't have a are Technically the big day off and could have had a are It just couldn't have been of gold. But they could have been a are Says you know why there wasn't a are because what was on the are The names of the are How's it going to look that the are is going to walk into the of the are on keeper he's fighting off the are there and there you see and the are That's a that's a mistake. That's just as much are there the are walking in with big day off because he's being over the the are He's being over the are of the are And it's for that reason says that there was He says there was are So that It could be that that's the reason that the are was You know why it was kosher and you are Because we knew there was going to be a keeper. And on keeper the are was going to have to do are And are there are going to have to go fight off the are connected to Israel. And who's the greatest are in the are of Israel That's the are there So if the are would be in a territory that belonged to one of the other are not the are there would be a tremendous are And are there That's why it was kosher and you are Because you are the only one of the are that had zero with the are there If it's going to be kosher and you are you don't have to worry about this are And he says it's really a free There's a free the are kosher and you are kosher the kosher the are with are there The are It was like a reward that he got. All the other the are were punished because they were involved in are there But not You are wasn't get punished because he wasn't INVOLVED WITH ARE THERE AS A RESULT no issue. He says it's much deeper than that. You know what the is the is is that there was going to be a time when the are would need are for the are there He can't get are if it's kosher one of the other are because are there THAT'S THE ARE IT'S NOT just like a reward Okay you're going to be We're going to give you a very nice reward BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T INVOLVED with are It's way deeper than that. There's an element of are there you see cuz I so sensitive to and it's for that reason it's for that reason that that the base hamikdash and all the other that's what all the other people why couldn't it be done by because in the was partly Yehuda IT WAS BETWEEN THAT area is 100% like this you don't have to worry about a kitchen he says maybe that's the we say so what are the two things that are what are the two things that's the that's a reference to that the center of the whole why we talking about this spot then when do we ever mention this spot then we talking about the spot then that's all it's a reference to these are the two you have the that's the parish of you you have the whole thing and you have the whole thing that's the mishlei the whole thing that's the whole thing that's the whole thing bottom line is is the reason that the was to have the whole and the whole thing that's the free says cuz he wasn't involved in what's the because we needed that on Kippur which was going connected in the of should be in the of the that wouldn't remind us of the only that could facilitate that was the whole thing