בענין דיבור במחשבת קדשים

Just to end with one short and this is really a hard that was left on the table last week and it's not as possible. It's it's so possible I'm like afraid to call it a red bike, but it's very very simple. It's a hard and I just think it's good I to mention. So the first Sugio in Mesach this Menochis like the first Sugio Mesach this Vochim was the Sugio of Shma and really like all things Menochis versus Vochim and Vochim we get the longer version of it and Menochis we get the abbreviated version of it. But the very first Sugio is the of Shma. Right how does it relate to a Mincha? Call a Menochis Shinekmas Shma and especially all of them the same with the Mincha and the Mincha where over there the is if you had a piece of Shino by them so they did they're going to be possible. In the course of the Sugios we saw Shimon that was a big topic of the first and second half. And then we saw the Shita of Rav and Rishlokish and Rav regarding the Shimon that was a big topic of the third, the fourth, and the fifth half. Right but very much Sugios related to Shma. Rashi on that base on the base in Mesach this Menochis says quote "It's a muscle of a muscle of a Mencha of a muscle of a Kochen." As it relates to a muscle of a happy cell is by Kochen I saw as deep over the pillow. The muscle has to be with the coin actually saying out of his mouth the thing that is not so supposed to say. So that Rashi the word muscle in the context of bad muscles and Kochen is a little bit of a misnomer. The reason it's a little bit of a misnomer because really if all the coin did was have a bad thought of Shma that in and of itself would not render the carbon possible. That would not render the carbon possible. How would the carbon become possible? Only if he expressed verbally, orally, with words, this bad thought that he's having. And Rashi says that it's not just true for Shilo Lishma, the Sugya Shel Z'avim U'danim, but Hachmashev Dekochim. It's true for all Machshavos. Be it a Machshava Shel Lo Lishma, be it a Machshava of Pigul, Notzar Z'manim, Notzar Komim, or some of the other Machshavos that come up in different Sugyas. But all Machshavos of Kochim that Rashi has to be B'dibur. Rashi says the same exact Chiddush in Maseches Z'vachim in Perek B'Shamayim Daf Mem Alef Amud Alef. It's the base. It's the middle of the Rashi. Rashi says V'chol Machshava Dekochim Motzi B'peh. Every single time you find the idea of a Machshava Dekochim, it's something that has to be expressed B'peh. The truth is that this Chiddush of Rashi, that Machshavos of Kochim have to be B'peh is not only Rashi's Shita, it's Tosafos' Shita as well. As a matter of fact, Tosafos in Z'vachim Daf Bet Amud Alef, Tosafos in Z'vachim Daf Dalet Amud Bet, Tosafos in Maseches Bava Metzia Daf Mem Gimel Amud Bet, Tosafos in Perek Eilu Treifos, Tosafos in Perek Eilu Treifos, Tosafos in Maseches Chulin Daf Lamed Tet. In all of these places and more, Tosafos says verbatim what Rashi says, that every single time you find the Inyan of a Machshava Haveaytzalahs by Kochim, you should know the word Machshava is really a misnomer. It's something that needs to be spoken up B'dibur. It's a very big Chiddush, right? I mean, the one of the big themes of Kochim is the bad thoughts. And it turns out it's not even a a bad thought. That's not the Nekuda. The Nekuda is it's it's bad speech. It's something that would have to be spoken up B'peh. The Mishneh L'Melech in Hilchos P'sulei Hamukdashim, the beginning of Perek Yud Gimel, he's M'dayek from the Stimus Lashon HaRambam throughout his Yad Chazaka that the Rambam couldn't have held that way. The Rambam, when he introduces the concept of bad Machshavos, so the Rambam says Perek Yud Gimel Halacha Alef, Sholosh Machshavos in And the Mishnah Berurah is medayek midivrei Rabbeinu Yerucham And he says even though Rashi's shittah and Tosafos' shittah and his Minchas Chinuch all the Minchas Chinuch that we just mentioned is meforash that it has to be bedibur, but he says "V'ani es da'ati, if you want to know what the shittas haRambam is, the shittas haRambam is that this is something that would have to be b'machshavah would only have to be b'machshavah. Even without it says dibbur b'peh, that would be enough in order for it to be a problem. In other words, we have a very fundamental machlokes Rishonim regarding all the machshavahs of pesulim b'kodshim. Is it davka bedibur or is it a filu bemachshavah? It could be, and again, this is it's more poshut than poshut, this shailah would seem to be totally in the two mekoros that we have in Chazal and in the Rishonim for why it is that if somebody does an aveidah with a bad machshavah it's going to be a problem. The Gemara in Maseches Zevachim daf chof tes amud beis says Amar Rabbi Yannai "How do you know that if somebody has a bad machshavah b'kodshim he gets malkos?" Talmud lomar it says in the Torah "Lo yachshev." And from "Lo yachshev" we know you get malkos. You get malkos for "Lo yachshev"? It's lav she'einah b'ma'aseh. V'chol lav she'einah b'ma'aseh ein likin alav. So the Gemara says "You're right." who holds lav she'einah b'ma'aseh likin alav. According to him you would get malkos. But the Gemara says "What is the makor that if someone has a machshavah of pesul say and according to Rabbi Yehudah he would even get malkos, it's because it says in the Torah "Lo yachshev." Now the truth is, if you look at the pshitusho mikra, you look at the pasuk in Avodah Zarah that says "Lo yachshev," Rabbi Yannai's understanding of "Lo yachshev" is very much being might say mikra midrash peshuta. The pasuk hashiv is said in parshas in the parsha of the shlamim, right? So, we spoke about this. In parshas the Torah introduces all the carbonos and then in parshas the Torah rounds off a lot of the halachos that weren't mentioned in parshas Vayikra. Zois Torah as this, zois Torah as that. So, this is in the parsha of the zois Torah zevach shlamim, right? The shlamim is always referred to as zevach shlamim. The zois Torah zevach shlamim so one of the is as follows. The Torah says, "The im ochel yei ochel mipser zevach shlamim beyom hashlishi." And really it starts a pasuk earlier. The pasuk says that if somebody brings a carbon shlamim, you have two days and a night to eat it. "Va nosar mipser hazavach." If you have anything left over beyom hashlishi, by the third day sorry, if you have to burn it. So, up the pasuk. "Im ochel mipser zevach shlamim beyom hashlishi." Let's say you have left over basar already on the third day. "Lo yeiratzeh." At that point you can't get mitzoy. "Hamakriv osoi, the person that brought it lo yeichashev loi." The carbon will not be considered a good carbon on his behalf. "Pigul hu yei." It's going to be disgusting. "Va nefesh mimena any person that eats from it avona tisa." He will have to bear his sin. Meaning he didn't get any kapara. To the contrary, he ended up doing a terrible avera by eating this basar. If you were learning peshutei shel mikra, you would almost be tempted to say it sounds like what the Torah is saying is if you bring a shlamim and the shlamim is nosar and you eat from the nosar, "The mei ochel yei ochel mipser zevach shlamim beyom hashlishi." Then retroactively it cancels out your uh carbon. "Lo yeiratzeh. Hamakriv loi yeichashev loi." In fact, "Pigul yei." The whole thing is disgusting and because you ate the basar, "Avona tisa yei nagar bechayav misas." But the Gemara in meseches Zevachim says can't be that's what the pasuk means. And the reason is because how could it be that And the time that the kohen did the shchita of the carbon he got a read so and now three days later all of a sudden because you didn't eat the pasta and now you did eat from it. Now in my must be that this person means something completely different and this person is talking about in real time while the are being done and we're not talking about pasta that was left over but we're talking about a carbon and I must show that leave over the pasta. So me inside of the carbon that solution he had in mind to eat the pasta or be a more of a mistake I say then you're not going to get I'm not going to waste it then it's going to be but I never mean of the soul. But even in the Jerusalem which of course is the even in the Jerusalem of when it says all it means is is that the carbon should not be considered your carbon. It's a little tricky this pasta because took this pasta and they said it's talking about a a my show that spiggle but has all been get it from the words has all got it because there's nothing else the pasta could be referring to in fact even in the Jerusalem of means it won't be as if you brought a carbon. Stating that I'm going to be in the days in 9 because it says but it's yeah we just have to understand what's going on here. We touch as if it would say or it would say you you shall not have a bad but the bottom line is this is that you're not allowed to have a spiggle and the that matter you're not allowed to have any of the sellers when it comes to carbon but the truth is there's another the other is a and this is in partial the over there says you're not allowed to have a carbon >> that has a blemish. Anything bad is a problem. Because if you're going to do this, it's a it's a disgusting thing. Parenthetically, it's nice to speak this out. It says that this was only said here with regards to right? Even though really the is true not only regarding it's true regarding it's true regarding all the right? So why did the say so I'm going to tell you why. Because this is talking to non it's talking to us. And the only that's bizarre bizarre bizarre. And for that reason the says that Now the doesn't explain so much why this has to be talking about a us. But if you look at the as to say for them and it's says that every single that that the says in is non In fact asks a little bit of a show. How come wasn't Why don't we view the laws of and us in the same way that we review so many of the other in the us. Says the I'll tell you why. Because us reason here. And if a hear something once he doesn't have to hear it a second time. It's the rest of us that are right or we need to hear it again and again and again. And it's for that reason the had a over. And that's why there's a in the us. So the it's so good. Because the we wanted you to know And the said it by you know why? Because it's the one element of a that's bizarre. The says the us. He and us. It's again the us. I will reason us. It's for that reason the Torah was very careful in the way it spoke it out. This is me which he does. It doesn't say that, but it's me which he does. The Ram is essentially telling you to what I wrote in the But anyway, so this is talking about cuz it's only in the So what does the Torah say? What could the Zohar not do? He can't check the animal that has a mouth. Additional cold He can't check the animal that has cold So what does cold mean? So if you take a look at Rashi as long as the culture might be This isn't a Zohar. They now have a piglet. I think you I think you I think it's partial by the way. I think it's partial. We spoke about the Ram. a few dozen ago. The Ram has a lot of a lot of The Ram says in the I raise the voice. I say We PR London should be allowed to do. We have to do it so I raise it. This is the Ram. The matter of the culture. The Ram says if someone has a bad by culture it's similar to be culture. And we said was very bothered with this Ram. The Ram is giving me a magnet muscle. You should know it's a magnet culture. What is a magnet culture? It's possible because the Torah says it's possible. So it may seem that I hope so that the Ram is coming to tell me that only time you have to do is if the actually renders the carbon possible. This is the culture or the magnet culture. But when it comes to a a carbon where it's going to be culture unless all the same thing you're not going to be able to do this. But the bottom line is that the volume of the culture But the bottom line is that the volume of the culture that the Ram said. But where did the Ram really get this from? Again, the Ram is buying the culture that the Ram said. The Ram But where did the Ram get it from? I think it's partial. He got it from this possuk. It says the same culture. the Rambam saw possuk that the Torah was makish piggul to mum. The Torah was putting them together. No mum and kol davar rah is like this. Possuk to me. This is where the Rambam got it. I didn't see anyone say it probably because it's so possuk. See the hakdamah to the mesechta right? So obviously this is where the Rambam got it from. But al kol panim al kol eifun we have two mekoros. We have two mekoros that is Indian. We have two mekoros that you know that I have a bad machshava by kodshim. One is learned down from parshas sav. It says lo yachshiv in the parsha of piggul. The Rabbanan was mechadesh this aliyah saying you know that I have a bad machshava. And the second one is in parshas shoftim. Lo yasis b'Hashem Elokecha asher yihyeh bo mum kol davar rah. And Zakkai this is free as quoted by Rashi azarah l'mafgil b'kodshim al y'dei dibburah. One makor says machshava. The other makor says dibbur. I think it's possuk. These two shitos that we find over here, the shita of Rashi and Tosfos that a machshava in kodshim has to be b'dibbur and the shita of the Rambam that as long as it's machshava is enough would seem to boil down to the two mekoros that we have as it relates to what the makor is to the issur. If the makor is lo yachshiv lo yachshiv means machshava. If the makor is kol davar rah means dibburah then the cheir would have to be b'dibbur. Now at the end of the day we have to reconcile. Is it machshava or is it dibbur? Rashi and Tosfos pick dibbur. The Rambam picks machshava. Again, that's already for another conversation maybe. But the bottom line is I think it's possuk that the two shitos that you find in the Rishonim are rooted in the two drashos in the two sources in the two mekoros that you find to the idea of a machshava hapoiseles b'kodshim.