Zevachim 82

We've all learned Chumash, maybe even thought we understood, but now, with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature up-tempo Daf Yomi style, Rabbi Shraga Bornstein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the Derech Halimud of the Beis Medrash meets Pashut P'shat, discover the Shiur that's redefining how people learn Chumash. Rabbi Shraga Bornstein's Chumash Shiur. Find it on the Lakewood Daf Yomi app or wherever this Shiur is being heard. >> Today's daf is Zevachim daf peh beis, and we are at the bottom of daf peh aleph amud beis, the Mishnah. So, perek kol ha'zevachim, perek ha'terumah, is is coming to an end, and it ends along the same theme that the entire perek discussed, which is the halachos of two korbanos that were nis'arvu. Says the Mishnah, "Ha'nit'anim bifnim she'nis'arvu, bein nit'anim bachutz." If dam that was supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Pnimi got mixed with dam that was supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon. So, we know most dam korbanos went on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon. There were five exceptions, the chamishah chatos ha'pnimiyos, whose dam, by definition, went on the Mizbei'ach Pnimi. What would be if the kohein had one kos, and in the kos there's now a terumah, there was a mixture of dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Pnimi, one of the chamishah chatos ha'pnimiyos, and dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon. Says the Mishnah, do azrikah on the Mizbei'ach Pnimi cuz there's dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon. You can't do azrikah on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon cuz there's dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Pnimi. The only option is is to pour the dam down the drain, so to speak. You have to get rid of the dam. "Nosan machutz v'chazar v'nosan bifnim." What would be if the kohein didn't follow the l'chatchilah, and rather he went, he did azrikah first on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon, and then he did azrikah on the Mizbei'ach Pnimi. Says the Mishnah, "Kasher." Cuz at the end of the day, dam that was supposed to go on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon went on the Mizbei'ach Chitzon and dam that was supposed to go on the Mizbeach Pnimi went on the Mizbeach Pnimi. He wasn't supposed to do it. But there's no question that b'dieved if he does it, it's going to be kosher. What about in the reverse b'f'nim b'chotzo v'nosan b'chotz. What if he would first do the z'rika on the Mizbeach Pnimi and then do the z'rika on the Mizbeach Chitzon? Rebbe Akiva posel. In that case Rebbe Akiva says it's going to be posel. V'chachamim machshirim and the chachamim say that it's going to be kosher. Why did Rebbe Akiva say that it's going to be posel? Rebbe Akiva omer this Rebbe Akiva would say posel. Rebbe Akiva holds kol damim shenichnesu l'chaper baheichal psulim. All dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbeach Chitzon if the dam enters the heichal, we'll see more specifically what that means during the course of the daf, but if that dam enters the heichal, posel, it becomes posel. It's for that reason Rebbe Akiva says that if first the dam entered the heichal and then it went on the Mizbeach Chitzon, it's going to be posel because the moment the dam of this taruv voice enters the heichal, the cheilek of the dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbeach Chitzon now became posel. It became posel not for going on the Mizbeach Pnimi, but merely for entering the heichal. Rebbe Akiva omer again kol damim shenichnesu l'chaper baheichal psulim. All dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbeach Chitzon if it enters l'chaper baheichal, the halacha is it automatically becomes posel. So if it first went on the Mizbeach Chitzon then went on the Mizbeach Pnimi, it's going to be kosher because at the end of the day you put the dam on both Mizbechos, which is what you were supposed to do. You weren't allowed to do it at the katchila, but b'dieved that's what you ended up doing. And being that the dam that was supposed to go on the Mizbeach Chitzon went on the Mizbeach Chitzon before it ever entered the heichal, there was no psol on that dam for entering the heichal because by the time it entered the heichal the z'rika had already been done. If it was done in the reverse order, if first the dam was put on the Mizbeach Pnimi, then it was put on the Mizbeach Chitzon, then it's going to be possible because although the Zrika that was done on the Mizbeach Hapnimi is okay for the dam that had to go on the Mizbeach Hapnimi, but when you later will do a Zrika on the Mizbeach Hakitzon with the dam that's got supposed to go on the Mizbeach Hakitzon, that Zrika is going to be possible cuz you're doing a Zrika with the dam that is possible. Why is it possible? It's possible merely for entering the Heichal. Why do the Chachamim argue? The Chachamim say that it doesn't matter in what order you do it. In the B'dieved K'dichila you're supposed to take this dam Tahor or and put it on either one of the Mizbechos. If however you do it, it doesn't matter if you did it first on the Mizbeach Hakitzon, then on the Mizbeach Hapnimi, first on the Mizbeach Hapnimi, then on the Mizbeach Hakitzon, either way it's going to be Kosher. What happened to the Psul Nikhnas? The Chachamim argue that the Chachamim say Chatas B'vakas. This is a Halacha that dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbeach Hapnimi Hakitzon and it enters the Heichal is possible is only true for the Korban Chatas. It's not true for Shar Korban. The Ya'avetz Rebbi Eliezer happens to be a third Shita FYI. After Asham, Rebbi Eliezer holds like the Chachamim that the Halacha was said regarding Chatas stating that once we know it regarding Chatas, we know it regarding Asham as well. Shene'emar K'chatas K'asham. And this is the Shitas Rebbi Eliezer that appears many times throughout Maseches B'choros where Rebbi Eliezer said that Halachos that were unique to Korban Chatas related to Korban Asham as well. The most notable example where Rebbi Eliezer said this was the first Mishna of Maseches B'choros where Halacha is Kol Hab'choros Shenishchatu L'shem Lo L'shman Cherem Chutz Min Pesach V'chatas. Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishna said it's not just Chatas, it's also Asham because once you know that a Chatas Shel Lo L'shman is possible, you know that an Asham Shel Lo L'shman is going to be possible as well. What's the commonality? It's called a Shava. The common denominator between a Chatas and an Asham. Chatas is Ba'chet, Asham is Ba'chet however even though it's also Mechaper Al Asei Al Averi Aveira, but it's not quote unquote Ba'chet. The bottom line is is we have a three-way Machlokes in this Mishna. According to Rebbi Akiva, any dam that's supposed to go on the Mizbeach Hakitzon if it enters the Heichal, then Halacha is it becomes possible. According to the only a chazzan that was supposed to go on the mizbei'ach chitzon, and then there's a heichal. Obviously, a chazzan that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach pnim, is supposed to enter the heichal. When we say chazzan, we mean a chazzan that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach chitzon. One of the chazzan chitzoni'in. If the dam would enter the heichal, it would be passul. Do we have the holds chazzan and asham? How does it come into our mishnah? It comes into our mishnah cuz we're discussing another heichi timtza of a taruvus. This is the the way case of taruvus where you had a taruvus between dam that was supposed to go on the mizbei'ach pnim, dam that was supposed to go on the mizbei'ach chitzon. The kachiva the halacha is you shafchu l'ah mayim. You're not supposed to do anything with it. Stating that, despite the fact that you're not supposed to do anything with it, if b'di'eved you'd go ahead and you would do a zrika on both mizbei'achs, it would be kosher. But at the same time, Rabbi Akiva said it's only if you would do first the zrika on the mizbei'ach chitzon, and then the zrika on the mizbei'ach pnim. Cuz if you do first the zrika on the mizbei'ach pnim, when you do the zrika on the mizbei'ach chitzon, it's too late. Because the dam that's in this taruvus, that was supposed to go on the mizbei'ach chitzon, the moment it entered the heichal, forget the zrika. The moment it entered the heichal, at that point, it already became passul. One thing is clear, and that is the opening line of the mishnah. Hanitanim bifnim shenis'arvu binatanim bichutz, yishafchu l'ah mayim. And the Gemara asks a very obvious question if you hold in cheshbon with all these mishnayos and all these sugyos that we did learn together over the last couple of days. And that is faith in Gemara of Rabbi Niflag in Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Akiva. How come shitas Rabbi Eliezer that was mentioned many times in the perek, most recently in the mishnah on daf ain tes amud beis, isn't mentioned over here as well? The mishnah over there discussed dam that was supposed to go l'ma'ala michutz l'asechra, that was nis'aruv with dam that was supposed to go l'mata michutz l'asechra. The chachamim say it's a problem. You can't do a zrika with that because you can't take the kachiva dam that's supposed to go l'ma'ala and put it on the matter, and that's supposed to go to matter, and put it on my love. Rabbi Eliezer had an answer. Rabbi Eliezer said, "You eat in the my love. First do this Rica in my love. I, how could you go to my love and do this Rica in my love? Isn't there down in this my love that's supposed to go to my love? The royal and the my love Rabbi Eliezer has a he calls it royal. The explains exactly what royal means. But the bottom line is there's an idea of royal. So that you're allowed to take down that's supposed to go to my love and put it on my love. Great the royal of my love Rabbi Eliezer why doesn't Rabbi Eliezer argue in our mission as well? And why does Rabbi Eliezer say that you could do the royal of this Rica with this my love? I, how you taking down for example that's supposed to be on the putting on the my love royal. How you taking down that's supposed to go on the my love and put it on the my love royal. So how come the royal was true when the was down in the my love down in the my love but the royal is not mentioned in the mission discusses down that's supposed to go with down that's supposed to go with so the royal says I'll tell you what to take you out. What are you supposed to do? So the royal of should you first do this Rica and then do this Rica Rabbi Eliezer can't allow you to do that why because just like there's a to first do the down that goes to my love where is this mission? So says the bottom line down is the my love and we know the always comes before the but that's what we need. So to do the mission if the two is that he had to do this Rica with one was down that was going to go to the other one was down that was going to go to the there's a mission for him to do first this Rica with the down that goes on the my love. So if Rabbi Eliezer is going to tell you go ahead and do this Rica for sure which one are you going to have to do first? This Rica that goes on the my love. Okay, so let him say that. So the why did Rabbi Eliezer say that when you have this first do this Rica in my love then do this Rica you worried about the royal it right. So how come you don't have and let first I'll tell you cuz being that you can't do this with two carbon eyes probably as a and an ocean. Who's done belongs on if you would even take the damn into the the is the damn would be possible so it's not possible to do first then like that's what he didn't say that we actually explains in other words it's true according to there is a of in this just like there was in the in the previous the reason didn't mention it cuz it's not always going to work. It's only going to work for carbon other than the and the carbon all other carbon it will work for but for the and the it will not work. The reason it won't work is cuz you have to do first then and you can't take the and the and bring it into the and then do cuz the moment you bring it into the to do becomes possible and enter the wasn't allowed to enter the as a result it's like doesn't work for all carbon probably as I said you know what I'm just not going to get involved was willing to say in the event that it's always going to work but being that it's not always going to work he didn't say it but what the more I'm saying is the of doesn't apply probably as I just didn't want to say it it was like being that it wasn't always going to work either way the now really till the end of the is going to digress and we're going to learn the of the let's just take three steps backwards and what exactly is the everybody is familiar with the item it comes up throughout say the throughout and that is that damn that leaves the Azara, becomes possible so if you take dam and you would take it out of the Azara, bring it right back in, it's too late. The dam becomes possul. So, just like there's a possul dam, there's a possul tameh, there's a possul shaliach l'Shma, and there's a possul piggul, and there's a whole variety of possulim that appear throughout Seder Kodashim. One of the possulim that comes up often is soyos dam. So, dam that leaves the Azara is possul by soyos dam. Incidentally, it's not only dam. The emurin that was supposed to go on the mizbeach, that was the cheilek of a korban with which you were mikayem the mitzvas hakatar, if it would leave the Azara, it would also become possul by soyos dam. The basar of kodshei kodashim that had a din that it had to be eaten dafka in the Azara, if it would leave the Azara, it would be possul by soyos dam. Basar kodashim kalim that had a din that it had to be eaten in Yerushalayim, if it left the chaimus of Yerushalayim, it too would become possul by soyos dam. Soyos dam means it left. Anything that leaves its mechitza's becomes possul by soyos dam. That everybody knows. What not everybody knows is that there's a possul that works in the reverse as well. And that is dam of a korban that's supposed to go on the mizbeach hachitzon, if it would be nichnas, if it wouldn't distance itself from the kedusha, but to the contrary, it would get closer to the kedusha than it's really supposed to be. It would enter the heichal, for example, the place where the menorah was and the shulchan was and the mizbeach hapnimi was, the halacha is it too would become possul. So, if you go too far from the kedusha, you're possul. But, if you get too close to the kedusha, above your pay grade, it's possul as well. So, the halacha is that dam that was supposed to go on the mizbeach hachitzon, if it would enter the heichal, it too would become possul. It's not known as the possul soyos dam cuz it didn't go out. It's known as the possul nichnas because it entered. It entered the heichal. If you go into the kodesh hakodashim, as we'll see in the Gemara, for sure it would be possul. But, the bottom line is that dam that belongs on the mizbeach hachitzon, if it merely enters the heichal, enters the the law is it's possible seeing the that this is in contrast to the only true for that. It's not true for the it's not true for the so where is a law that affects a and only affects that. Now as far as the the source in the it's actually mentioned twice in the it's mentioned in and it's mentioned in the the context in the for this next is the staff the the the the the the primary the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the clay. Let's say you cooked the carbon that is in a clay that you shouldn't. You have to wash it. But there means that you have to do some sort of a goal with it. Only a coin and only a male coin is allowed to eat from it. And then finally, you have a carbon that is in the oil that you shouldn't. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. The intent of doing a three count is very happening. You have to burn it. So this last part in this kitchen of a book is that pertains to the carbon that is the law that we need. The carbon that is in the oil that you shouldn't. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. You have to destroy it. And a higher coin who was brought three carbons that you shouldn't on that day. He brought the carbon because it was the day that you shouldn't bring a carbon that you shouldn't. He brought the carbon that you shouldn't of the day that you shouldn't. He brought the carbon that you shouldn't every day from the inauguration of the Mishkan to the next 12 days. The first one of the day that you shouldn't was was the day that you shouldn't. He brought the carbon that you shouldn't that you shouldn't brought and then there was a special carbon that was brought because of that day. So a higher coin goes. He brings the carbons and they eat the carbon that you shouldn't. They eat the carbon that you shouldn't for the fact that it was the day that you shouldn't. But the carbon that you shouldn't he burned. He sees that he burned it. He got very angry. He got very angry. He got very angry. he says and I quote hey this which was a it's never entered the so if it never entered the there's no so what get talked away now you know the rest of the story what was he talking about he's referring to the see you have it twice you have it in and you have it again in regardless the Torah mentions the in the context of a carbon what about that's our that was our mission a three way Rabbi Akiva says it's after the carbon it's true for all carbon say no it's only the carbon Rabbi says I agree with you the but the whenever you have a regarding the it applies to a as well regardless the going to explain the beer the background the source of this Rabbi Akiva and the talk to you tomorrow Rabbi the what's Rabbi Akiva that holds that even though the Torah mentions the regarding the carbon but really that is not exclusive to a true for all carbon so he said I'll explain it to you a there was a Rabbi Akiva he was diluting his Rabbi's wine with hot water and as he's diluting it with hot water his master tells him Rabbi I want you to dilute it with water Rabbi so he told him what type of water meaning hot water or cold water he told him you're doing it now with hot water so obviously if you're doing it with hot water why do I have to tell you Rabbi without water must be they may be what I mean to tell you is that this next one shouldn't be with but rather it should be with and with Rabbi so said Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Shmuel the is the asking we're discussing a carbon that in it says there's a and it says the word contest again and again and again. Contest the one who won the race. So why that last contest that mentions why does it have to mention contest again? The whole contest that she won me down or you won the contest or you say it's we're talking about a contest. So why does the Torah have to mention contest again? I don't call it contest. I don't mean that contest. Rather what I mean is called contest. So just like that master who told his servant while he was being so obviously the was coming to add being something different than what you're being right now. So too the Torah is talking about contest and it mentions contest. So why does it have to mention contest? Presumably to be something more than contest and that is the source. Said the name of give us a lot of even though it says in the Torah contest it means more than contest. Meaning ordinarily you think if it says contest it means only contest. But being that with anyways talking about contest this contest must be the rabbis explained it with a slightly complicated muscle but the bottom line is the initial simpler than the muscle. But the point is is that the Torah mentioned contest when it didn't have to mention contest. It's the rabbis love that contest. Misbehave. He says I'm going to ask you a contest. One of the in fact that I mentioned over there in that parsha is the of the it says in between if you cook a in a so you have to rinse the you have to do you have to the contest of the and that we know based on is true not only for contest it's true for all contest. Meaning the starting point when you come to the contest of the is the previous contest which wasn't exclusive to a contest. It was actually true for all contest. If that's the case contest so why does the Torah mention contest? You should not even know you know why the Torah mentioned contest. Contest it's just the opposite. The Torah that said the name of Shmuel was isn't the whole parish of talking about why do you have to mention so must be is the rabbi's other things than a house. Time is the just the opposite. The you're right the general context is we have to look at the more specific context. The more specific context is the previous which is discussing something that's not only related to it's related to all that's why the had to mention the whole to contrast it with the previous which is true for all but the reason the mention is to tell me that we're talking about a carbon and he said if you want I'll explain it to you with a muscle down below muscle become the name. There was a town man who was diluting his rabbi's wine. His master's wine with and then. That's what the is the emphasis of over there is. Only carbon. Is then the carbon if it's not this muscle and it's not the fact that it says. Which it didn't have to say that. The says is in Parish of those are carbons. How do you even know that the applies to all Carbons. Says the more We keep it from The fact that it could have said and it said it says The whole thing. It's a price. The time is in the How do you know all Again it says It could have said that. The whole would be all that. The whole thing that. The vote. So it could have just said that. It says the whole The whole is to rebuild. One rebuild the whole The vote is a second rebuild to be all All carbons doesn't matter if it's all that. Or it's all that. Told the you can be all day long. I'm not going to listen to you. Hello. You want to know what you with the whole thing. Had it said that The whole thing that. And had it said the whole thing that I would have thought the cutters who brought the cutters the Nazi and all the cutters and all the cutters because cutters doesn't have it. The cutters supposed to go on the cutters. So only cutters would have been a half a minute that it's only true for the cutters and Nazi. How about the cutters and the cable? How many of the cutters says copy liar wall? You had a half a minute that the cutters only apply to the cutters to the cutters Nazi as opposed to the ordinary cutters which is the more common cutters. The cutters cutters Nazi is a very rare type of cutters. It's It's voice here. Most cutters were cutters and cable. So why would you have a half a minute when the cutters says cutters it's referring to that one rare exception to the rule? Doesn't it make more sense that what we're referring to is the the the stand cutters which is a cutters and cable sitting more than you're right. In the other cutters and cable cutters cutters mean I am. You're right. You had a just like all the cutters only cutters and cable. Had you know cutters cutters cutters. The bottom line is according to the cutters this cutters relates only to the cutters that when only talk about cutters it's not true for cutters. What did you do with the call? The call it's to be my all the different types of cutters. The cutters cutters cutters all that the whole cutters is coming to tell me the of cutters cutters by all cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters cutters a minute to think that these carbonas were anyways burnt. That the part of minus roffum, the sear minus roffum, maybe burn them in the same place where the mitzvah was to burn. What do you do with a carbon that's fossil? So you're going to burn it. But where do you burn it? So you would have thought that the part of minus roffums din shrayfa when they became possible was the same as the din shrayfa when it was kosher. Maybe burn in the same place. K'aund loyma, this possuk tells me that you don't burn it in the same place. But rather you burn it at base habiyur. That was a special place in the mizbeach. That's where you're supposed to burn it. Another halacha of lav mebulas. I say from the part of minus roffum and the sear minus roffum when they become possible, you're over a lav asah. But what do we need? The bottom line is that what is What does Rebbi Yishmael hold? He holds this possuk is not talking about the psul nichnas. This possuk is talking about a a whole different halacha. Amru loy, chachomim told Rebbi Yishmael chata nichnas damo lifnei habiyur lifnei mizbeach. So according to you, how do you know the psul nichnas? Amru loy, he told them, "Ein loy huva. I know from parshas shmini." Parshas shmini, Moshe Rabbeinu in the sacred attire mentions to Aharon that don't tell me the reason you didn't eat from the se'ir schoydesh was because it was nichnas. K'ein loy huva damo. So that's where I know the psul nichnas from. But the bottom line is Rebbi Yishmael holds it's not from the v'chol chatas. So how could Rebbi Yishmael tell Rebbi Akiva that even if you'd be marbeh from v'chol chatas carbonas, a few of them are kol ayin kulo. A gishmak loshon. In the sh'eila chof because what's the v'chol chatas being marbeh? It's all different types of chatoyis in the context of the psul nichnas. I thought Rebbi Yishmael would have said before this in a braisa that the psul nichnas is only dealt with in that possuk. It's only dealt with in parshas shmini. This possuk is coming to tell me a completely different halacha. So the Gemara says, "You're right. Let's bring Rebbi Akiva's comment." You want to know where Rebbi Yishmael holds? Rebbi Yishmael holds this possuk is not talking about psul nichnas at all. He was just telling Rebbi Akiva, "You, Rebbi Akiva, hold it's discussing psul nichnas. According to you, the chol should be marbeh be types of chatoyis. Even you can use the vocal to be mar shar carbonas. What about me? I grab the whole this possible has nothing to do with the whole kind of within this price is with the Rabbi Akiva excellent. So before we go by there, just one hour. That is that Pasha what exactly is the the way we understand you have done possible that have a certain level of condition they belong in the college you take them out of the of condition even if they come right back you must see from the condition so to speak it's it's a problem and at this point they're going to be unfit to be used again as a carbon. But the what should be wrong with the character such brought it to a place of even more condition. Why should that be a problem? That is earlier in the ask a question that the says that even though of all carbonas was supposed to be done in the question is but of all carbonas was supposed to be done in the it doesn't make sense that the whole that it's it's should be more than the itself and you can do it in the come the it should be able to do the same question why do you say the question it's the obvious question with a meaning if the meaning the certainly it should be allowed to be in the should be the in the this question says that I believe it's very very practical. It was a double practice as the it's simply because in the it was done of carbonas that was supposed to go in the carbonas. In the it was done of carbonas that was supposed to go in the and we just learned we're at the conclusion of an entire period that deals with taruvus. What happens if there was a taruvus amongst carbonos? You know why the Torah didn't want dam that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach hchitzon to enter the heichal? Because the Torah itself felt that if the dam would enter the heichal, it was mushchiach now that there would be a taruvus. I mean that was mushchiach now that there would be a taruvus. It's for that reason we were worried. Because what happens if the dam get mixed up? Halacha is going to be yeshuf kulam. So we know that halacha is going to be yeshuf kulam, we're trying to prevent it. So we set a mechitza. We said that dam that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach pnimis stays in the heichal. Dam that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach hchitzon stays in the azaroh. You can't take the dam of the mizbei'ach hchitzon and bring it in the heichal. It was simply a gezerah. It was a harchaka. So you shouldn't have to deal with perek at taruvus. You shouldn't come to a situation where the dam is going to be nisraf. What's our mishnah? Dam pnimis that was nisraf with dam hchitzon. That's the whole purpose of the mizbei'ach of the mizbei'ach pnimis. So we're sitting here learning halacha of dam that's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach pnimis and mizbei'ach hchitzon. Dam that goes on the mizbei'ach pnimis. here the gemara digressed into the psul nichnas. It's not just such a digression. Because the reason that there's a psul nichnas is because of the mishnah we just learned. It's because of this idea that we don't want the damim to get mixed up because if they get mixed up, there's no way to like the first halacha we saw this morning. Yeshuf kulam. It's for that reason there's a psul nichnas in the first place. Says Reb Meisim Chacham, with that I'll explain to you two things. Two things that you may have not understood. Says Reb Meisim Chacham, number one, the halacha is that even though there's a psul yotzei by dam, but also by basar and emurim, the psul nichnas is only true for dam. It's not true for the basar and it's not true for the emurim. We're going to see in the gemara on amud beis. Says Reb Meisim Chacham, why what's the difference? How come there's a psul nichnas by dam and there's no psul nichnas when it comes to basar and emurim? Says Reb Meisim Chacham, very possible. Because by dam, there's confusion. This dam that goes on the mizbei'ach pnimis. This dam that goes on the mizbei'ach hchitzon. If they're nisraf, they get mixed up, you're going to have a problem. So the harchaka is that you can't bring it into the heichal. And if you bring it into the heichal, it's going to be pasul. Like this you're not going to have to worry about these issues. But boss sir, that of the hat to me and boss of the hat to me is the same. They're both eaten in the Azara. The of the it's the same as well. So being that there's no meaning as relates to the boss sir, it's for that reason you don't find them so when it comes to the boss. That's the first thing says. The second thing he says is we just want to go tomorrow with the tomorrow to have a minute that had it said call you would have been only the Nazi. A very interesting have a minute. In fact, if you open up a minute, the brings it. There's says it says had it just had it in the had it in the they had it had it in the had it in the had a problem with it. They jumped on it immediately and said why doesn't make sense? It'd be a have a minute that the should be true for the not for the who brought the who the Nazi? Who brought the who everybody else? Which one was more fair? The the so it makes more sense on a it makes more sense that the should relate to the and the what was this have a minute and it's the it's the way it's brought down in the says you know why? Because all the was all the was it was either a the held the wasn't a it was a you had the that was burning in the in the in the they were all the therefore you had a that the the down of the and down of the they're more likely to be in the as a result of it is more to an animal that's a as opposed to an which comes from a completely different type of animal as a result you would have thought maybe over there shouldn't have the the the this is not only true for a but it's true for a the make a bit well. Either way, talk to me about the more regarding the person what happens if a carbon was brought and two of them did did the couple of they did it with two cases. So they were two standing with they each did their own couple. If one of the two cases one that case is going to be possible and so you I say but I the one that remained inside is going to be if one of them entered the echo of you say really that the one that's outside is going to be a common person that say that that one is going to be possible. In other words, by you would say only the that you would say is possible. The that's not you would say is not possible. So if mix this was you would say the mix this is possible but it doesn't mess up the rest of the carbon. So it's already not so possible. Over here it's already you would say and the you would say is mix this is like you would say but the say not you would say say that once it is mix this all of it becomes possible. You would say you would say that it has to be that way. How could you tell me that mix this is more common than you would say? What would be if a coin has a pegel? What's a pegel? It's also a coin. What is a coin? A coin means that you had in mind to do something outside of the if a coin would have in mind to do the Zrika that's supposed to be on the heat side on the penny. That wouldn't be a pegel. So it's a coin. A coin is a coin. I mix this You don't have a coin even though in you could hear maybe you should. It's not you see this even though a mix this just like this maybe a mix this to do Zrika mix this coin could be true both of the mix this you would say dig or if it's mix this dig but the reality is that everybody knows, every child knows, it's not true. If a is doing the in the and he has a mind to take the that's supposed to go to the and do this it wouldn't be So what do you it wouldn't be So what do you see from there? You see that has a over my the So the is that if only mixes of the is the other mixes doesn't come possible. Then as it relates to the where there's no in addition to then certainly it shouldn't have this that if only mixes of the was that that should make all the possible. says as it relates to the you don't have to do with the in the in order for the to be possible. By taking the into the with the intention of doing that's enough for it to be possible. But you one thing you see for sure you have to do it with the intention to do otherwise there's no it's the the says actually you have to do this says actually actually have to do this says if it ended by mistake it's going to be there's no so we mentioned over here we mentioned says the you should know that all that's possible that goes on the the is it's possible meaning you don't have the superpower of the that's somehow going to clean it up. The only thing that the was was the was the the was wasn't the we'll see more about that tomorrow. Either way it's up to you. We had a in the there's a there's as it relates to the if mixes of the was but mixes of the wasn't only the mixes that was becomes possible. The mixes that wasn't yoetzey doesn't become possible. As it relates to nichnas, machshava is related to Yosi HaGlili and the Chachamim. According to the Chachamim, if mix of the dam is nichnas, all the dam becomes possible. According to Yosi HaGlili, only the mix that was nichnas becomes possible, but the mix that wasn't nichnas doesn't become possible. The Gemara is going to bring a braisa that elaborates on this back and forth between Yosi HaGlili and the Chachamim. I have to be right. The halacha is that if mix of the dam was yoetzey chutz la'azarah, it doesn't possible all the dam. The heichal, where the which is not a makom that the machshava is pasul. Certainly shouldn't have this chomer that if mix of the dam enters then all the dam should be pasul. Told Yosi HaGlili said they didn't respond in the Mishnah. But in the braisa they responded. That's what the pasuk says, and we learn from midama. That's enough. Amaleihem. Kal vachomer, that's the case. I make a different kal vachomer. Where there's no machshava on that makom. Still it has a chomer that mix of dam that's nichnas. The halacha is what? All the dam becomes pasul. So yoetzey makom shamachshava is pasul bachutz. Chutz la'azarah. Which is a makom that the machshava is pasul. Then certainly it should have that chomer. In other words, said Yosi HaGlili, then at the very least use the premise of my kal vachomer, which is that the makom of yoetzey is more chomer than the yoetzey of nichnas, and flip it. Say it in the reverse, and say that Madoch in Nichnas, which is not such a Makom Chomer, mixes Dam, makes all the Dam unfit, then Yotzei, which is a Makom that's more Chomer, mixes Dam should make it unfit. We still have a Possuk for that as well. Harei Reish Nachash Yuvah and Nichnas Posel Ve'einah Yotzei Posel. This Halacha of Mei Dam of Mixas is only by Yuvah. B'Chachas Asher Yuvah Mei Dam. So as it relates to Yuvah entering, there you have the Halacha of Mei Dam. But as it relates to Yotzei, over there you don't have the Halacha of Mei Dam. In other words, the Chachamim said, "My Halacha I know from Psukim, I know from a Possuk that Mixas Dam that's Nichnas, all the Dam becomes Possel, and I know from a Possuk that Mixas Dam that's Yotzei, all the Dam doesn't become Possel. And even though in the world of Kal V'Chomer, it doesn't really reconcile, it doesn't really make sense, but I have a Possuk." So the Bais Ha Mikdash says, "I'll ask you another Kashya." Bais Ha Mikdash continued. He said, "B'Tei Machshavah B'Pnim Posel Mei'Kal V'Chomer. Once we know that the Makom of Pnim is more Chomer than the Makom of Chutz, in that Mixas Dam that's Nichnas, all the Dam becomes Possel. But Nichnas that Mixas Dam that's Yotzei, all the Dam doesn't become Possel, then let's be consistent, and maybe let's come up with a Chiddush, a Chiddush that no one ever heard. And that is that a Kohen that has a Machshavah of Chutz L'Koyem K'Nein the Heichal maybe should be considered Chutz L'Koyem. B'Tei Machshavah B'Pnim Posel Mei'Kal V'Chomer. Mah B'Makom Sh'Lei Possel Dam Sh'B'Chutz Sh'B'Pnim Machshavah B'Posel B'Chutz. Makom Sh'Lei Possel Dam Sh'B'Pnim is Dam Sh'B'Chutz. Anyway, De'in Sh'Tei Machshavah B'Posel B'Pnim. Madoch Chutz, which has a Kula that Mixas Dam doesn't make it unfit. What's the Halacha? It's still a Makom for a Machshavah of Chutz L'Koyem. Then Nichnas, where Mixas Dam does become Possel, certainly it should be a Makom for Chutz L'Koyem. So the Chachamim said, "I have a Possuk for that as well. Harei Reish Mei'Yom Ha'Shlishi." We had this earlier in the Masechta, and we learned from there that Chutz L'Koyem has to be a Makom Sh'Ei M'Shulash. B'Dam B'Basar B'Eimur. It has to be a place where you could do Z'rikah, you could eat Basar, you could do Eimur. And the only place that that's true, it's Chutz L'Azarah. You can ask me "Khutz La'Azarah, you're allowed to do Zriqah, Haqtarah, and eating Basar?" Rashi says "Bishas Hatid HaBomois Asqinan, but Bishas Hatid HaBomois, they were allowed to do all three things. So, during that time of Bishas Hatid HaBomois, it was a Muqam HaShlishi, but the Heichal is never going to be a Muqam HaShlishi. In the Heichal, you could do Zriqah, you could eat the Basar maybe, but there's no Haqtarah in the Heichal for sure. So, it's not a Muqam HaShlishi, so it can't be a Muqam of Khutz La'Azarah. He asks another Qashya "Lo Yihye Mashma B'Khutz La'Azarah L'Khutz, Miqol VaChomer, let's again stick with the same Qol VaChomer, and maybe come up with even a bigger Chiddush, maybe there should be no Khutz La'Azarah as well. Why? You mad? Muqam Shehapasul Adam Shebifnim Sheb'Khutz, Eima Khashvei Pesulos. Madah, there's no Khutz La'Azarah in the Heichal, Muqam Shehapasul Adam Sheb'Khutz Eish Shebifnim Eino Din Sheyihye Pasul. Certainly should have been no Khutz La'Azarah because the Heichal we said is Muqammar. Where is it Muqammar with regards to the Pasul Nikhnas? Because Miqtzas that's Nikhnas makes it Pasul. So, Madah, you find in the Heichal that there's no Khutz La'Azarah, then Khutz La'Azarah there should be no Khutz La'Azarah as well. Qol VaChomer, for that I also have a Pasul. Shlishi, Khutz La'Azarah is not a bigger Khutz La'Azarah. You can't make Ois a whole Parsha in the Torah. We know there's something called Pigul, and Pigul is made made up of Khutz La'Azarah, it's made up of Khutz La'Azarah, so that's obviously untouchable. More with regarding the Pasul Nikhnas, and specifically more related to this idea, and the Chiluqim between Khutz La'Azarah between Yotzei and Nikhnas. Basar Yotzei L'Khutz Pasul. Basar that leaves the Azarah becomes Pasul. Hanikhnas Lifnim Pasul. Basar however that enters the Heichal is Pasul. Says the Braisa "Sheyihye Din Shepasul". You would have thought that just like Basar that's Yotzei becomes Pasul, Basar that's Nikhnas should be Pasul as well. Why? You mad? Muqam Shehapasul Adam Sheb'Khutz Shebifnim, Basar Yotzei L'Khutz Pasul. Muqam Shehapasul Adam Shebifnim Sheb'Khutz, Basar Nikhnas Bifnim Eino Din Sheyihye Pasul. Madah, Bifnim which has a Chumrah that only mixes dam, that nischas becomes pasul. Basar doesn't become pasul. So, certainly, madach yoitze, I'm sorry, madach yoitze, where mixes dam doesn't become pasul, the basar is pasul. So, nischas, where mixes dam doesn't become pasul, does become pasul, certainly basar should be pasul as well. Harei oylem midama, it says midama, and we learn from there dam of lay basar. Kal vachomer may ato, then maybe we should do a reverse kal vachomer. Uma b'makom she pasul dam she b'fnim, es she b'chotz, basar she nischas of dam kasher, madach nischas, where kasher makom she lay pasul dam she b'chotz es she b'fnim, basar she yoitze l'chotz, any din she kasher, madach nischas doesn't have a psul on the basar, then certainly yoitze shouldn't have a psul on the basar. Nischas has all a chumra that mixes dam, makes all the dam pasul, and still you see it doesn't affect the basar. So, then by yoitze, there shouldn't be a psul basar either. How do you know there's a psul yoitze related to basar? Harei oylem, because the pasuk says ubosar b'sodeh treifah lo yichalenu. This is the makor of the psul yoitze, and we learn from there kimat she yoitze basar chutz min she tzosah nesa. That's an interesting pasuk, because that pasuk is not a kashamdig pasuk, it's talking about the halacha of treifah. So, an animal that gets trampled, if it has a wound that's not going to allow it to live beyond a certain time, it now becomes a treifah. And the pasuk says where did this wound take, where did this happen? Ubosar b'sodeh treifah. It happened in the field. And then it says why did it have to happen in the field? And if it happened in your backyard, if it happened in your living room, that halacha would be the same. Why does it have to say b'sodeh? The Gemara learns from here that just like a field is a place that has no mechitza's, it's out in the open, so too, anytime basar, not treifah, basar kasher, goes chutz l'mechitza's, it's like a treifah, and just like a treifah is pasul, this is going to be pasul as well. So, it's an interesting makor, there's a a famous Brisker Rav in Sefer that discusses this at length. Not for this morning, but the bottom line is, is that you can't tell me that there should be no psul yoitze by basar, because there's a pasuk in the Torah that says there really is Now this is what the Gemara came out with, just to make a a little recap, is that there's absolutes say and there's absolutes and you find chumeros in over and you find in over What's the chumeros in over Number one, if you are on the of is bigger, but if you are on the of is not a is bigger. Number two, that's becomes that's is not The that has over say is that down that's according to the of all the down becomes whereas down that's say all the down does not become The really argued in these two prices that how could you have that? How could this be more than that and that be more than this? Shouldn't the meat of hammer follow some level of consistency? Doesn't the hammer always have to be more hammer? Says the Gemara, yeah, it's true. In if we didn't have you'd be right. But this for all the aforementioned and being that this is for all the aforementioned, it's based on the that this is the halacha. So, we'll stop here. But just before we end, one part. So, we mentioned that one of the two places that the Torah mentions the is in the parsha of parshas after the and and of pass away and there were many that were brought. Particularly, there were three that were brought. And they were and they ate two of the The third one they burned. And was very upset. They see the story of and he found out that it was burned. He got very angry. He asked them, "Why did you burn it?" And he went through a of that the Gemara discusses in more detail. It's a lot of on these But why did you burn it? Now don't tell me you burned it because it was because So, why exactly why exactly did you burn it? What was Aaron's answer? Aaron's answer was he told the reason we burnt this cuz we were on it. And then Aaron is not allowed to eat kosher and even though we were told to eat from the other two we understood that being that the other two were kosher these were special that were going to be brought one time. The carbon that was a one time carbon. The carbon that was brought because it was that was a one time carbon. But the serious which which which was that Aaron said we understood we weren't supposed to eat. So you want to know why we burnt it? What were we supposed to do with it? Even Aaron said he just lost his son. Aaron and his son had just lost their brothers. So there was no way for them to eat it. When Aaron heard what Aaron said the says and Aaron says Aaron was not embarrassed to say you're right. I made a mistake. You're 100% right. I got angry. I shouldn't have gotten angry. You were right. So Aaron gets upset. Aaron says that there were three places that Aaron got upset and all three places it was it was but the bottom line is is that Aaron didn't know the Aaron told him what the says I'm sorry for in two places it says he says you know why Aaron forgot that how did Aaron forget that doesn't make sense. Aaron Aaron Aaron who was the Torah for 40 days and 40 nights literally how did Aaron forget that says Aaron cuz when you died Aaron was he was he was literally he was he was mourning and he was so about it so much that the confused him and it caused him to forget a halacha. When a person is bitzar, when a person is ba'al aveilus, he's mefulval. And Moshe Rabbeinu was mefulval, as is the Zohar from the Chasam Sofer. And that's why he was bitzar with the aveilus that caused him to forget the halacha. So, why did Aharon HaKohen not forget the halacha? Aharon HaKohen also had Aharon's two sons. How did Aharon HaKohen not forget the halacha? Says the Chasam Sofer, because what was Aharon HaKohen's reaction when Nadav and Avihu died? Vayidom Aharon. Aharon was quiet. Says the Chasam Sofer, Vayidom Aharon was on such a level, he didn't budge. He didn't move him at all. There was no aveilus. There was no tza'ar. He understood that this is what Hashem wanted from him. He understood that this was for his good. Vayidom Aharon, he took it not just outwardly that if you looked at Aharon, he looked stone cold as if he's unfazed. No, no, no. Aharon, even in his lev, in his heart, he was calm. He was so calm that there was no aveilus in the middle of the halacha. Aharon took it better than Moshe. Moshe, says the Chasam Sofer, we don't want to make a comparison, we can never say this, but he couldn't handle it. And that's why Moshe Rabbeinu was nis'almei me min hahalacha. What happened to Aharon? Aharon HaKohen was Vayidom Aharon. As a result, for Aharon it was okay. Says the Chasam Sofer, with this you'll understand something else. And that is Rashi brings in the Chumash, right after misas Nadav and Avihu, Vayedaber Hashem el Aharon leimor. Hashem comes to Aharon and he tells him, Yayin vesheichar al teish, ata uvanacha itcha el ha'ohel mo'ed. I'm going to tell you a very important halacha, that your Kohanim, you're doing the avodah by Yemei Hashmini, you have to know that you're not allowed to do the avodah the under the influence. If you're intoxicated, if you shosei yayin, you don't do the avodah. Who did Hashem tell this to? Vayedaber Hashem el Aharon leimor. Hashem told it to Aharon. And usually it's Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor. Over here it's Vayedaber Hashem el Aharon leimor. Says Rashi, why did Hashem tell this to Aharon and not to Moshe? At the very least, to Moshe and Aharon. Says the Chasam Sofer, says Rashi, the reason is is because this was a reward that Aharon HaKohen got for Vayidom Aharon. Because Aharon was Va'yidaber Aharon, it's for that reason it's hard to cause it. So, what was that came and told it only to him? Says the what's the beer beer is like this. We know So, for a person to be to communicate him via the medium of he has to be in a good place. He has to be calm. He has to be happy. He has to be That's what the says the end of the talking. But he can not get but he that sometimes it says sometimes it says because the only time that David was able to tap into to compose is when he was happy. So, when he was happy it was fine. But sometimes it was he had to be He first had to play music. He had to get himself into good spirits in order to be because in order for a person to be he has to be in the That's the only way a person could be most couldn't have had the deeper of You know why? Because most of them were and being that he was the whole right it was in It's for that reason I shouldn't come to most of you but I had who was I had who was quiet I had who wasn't You know what his reward was by you and the reward was that the was this was the showed how far this was. That was good for the that he was so that he was in a place of that was for him to be it was to talk to him. The Jewish Jewish people the says in that I've is standing on the standing on the Kader, and what happens is a bossko that comes to him and says you cannot says that he got unbelievable. Avram Avinu is about to slaughter his his Ben Yochid. He's about to slaughter his Yitzchak. And he was Nivoah. And he said so he says you see that not only was Avram Avinu prepared to be the son Yitzchak on the Akeda, but he did it calmly. But not just an outward calm, but an inward calm. He was calm in his slave in his heart in the deepest crevice of his neshama he was calm. And not only was he calm he was that he was about to be this unbelievable mitzvah. And the real is that he was Al Tishlach Yodcha Al Na'ar V'Al Taslem could have only been shiyach if Avram Avinu was in a place of simcha. But had he not been in a place of simcha he wouldn't have been shiyach. He don't answer the world's kasha. What's so great about the Akeda? Weren't there so many Yidden that gave up their lives Al Kiddush Hashem, the Spanish Inquisition, and and even the Holocaust there was so many Yidden that gave themselves up throughout the generations. What was so special about the Akeda? Says this was the punchline. You know what the greatness of Avram Avinu was? Al Tishlach Yodcha Al Na'ar V'Al Taslem. The fact that he was shiyach with Al K'vonem Aharon V'Yidden Aharon was Avram Avinu in the deepest deepest place. He was even and that's why he was able to be Avram Avinu V'Yidden Aharon and that's why whereas Moshe Rabbeinu was Avram Avinu and it was Avram Avinu Aharon V'Yidden Aharon was on such a degree that he didn't forget Alacha. This is the same middah that you find by Avram Avinu that as he's about to be the son of time when you would think Al he should have been but he was thus he was shiyach to the divrei.