Zevachim 108

We've all learned Kish, maybe even thought we understood. But now with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature uptempo dapomi style, Repsuri Bournestein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the Dera Haleim of the bass medish meets push-up shot. Discover the shear that's redefining how people learn humish. Repurly Bournestein's humish shear. Find it on the Lakewood Dafomi app or wherever this shear is being heard. Today's d is and we are about 28 lines from the bottom of so we're moving along in a very lish per the 13th of and as we've seen the topic of is the of and the of the terra is very clear it's in par it's repeated again in par that a carbon had to be brought in the Mak Mikdash. So much so that if somebody had a carbon, he was Maktish an animal, it's now a carbon and he brought it outside of the Mikdash. Not only did he do an aa, not only does he get a slap on the wrist, but he's one of the that the Mishna mentions right in the beginning of additionally we saw that the Torah separated the par of the par of so it's one para inra but it's really it's two independent paras within the one para you have the par you have the para of addition Ally we saw that it's not only so far we learned in the Gmorra we'll see more as we continue along in the par but we already saw what the is but they both agreed that if somebody does he's going to be as well but the point is although the mentions regarding and it's not unique to there other would is that he would be as well. Additionally, we saw that the is related to the says very very clearly that the reason that it's so not to bring a carbon is so to speak. So that if you will be careful and you will never bring even a carbon to now we're a little bit more comfortable that you'll never bear but there's a slippery slope and if we're going to allow you to bring a carbon toe you may choose to now bring a carbon to another deity in other words you may be so at its core the reason the is related to the idea of regardless there's a lot more raid that we need to speak out just in terms understanding of we'll get to it in the coming days. Today is going to be # no raid regardless we begin with a classic if somebody is nowadays in other words today that there's no if somebody would be and then he would be that carbon is he for as we like to Whenever you know you're learning a real reason because although today there's no butt still exists and being that this is if somebody has a carbon technically theoretically hypothetically he still has an obligation to take that carbon and bring it to the to be mid in Ba mikt. Thus you have the iser of not being in the B mikdash. So being that although there's no physical mikt today, but you still have of the mikt as the is going to say in a moment. So there is a concept of being a carbon. So it it makes sense then that in the same thing the flip side of that coin that there should be a problem if someone has a carbon and he doesn't bring it to the base. that that when the Roman Empire destroyed the second base with that of the Bikto was destroyed and being that there's no Bik so that there's no obligation there's no possibility to bring a carbon so what should be the problem if someone is m a carbon In other words, this which is really a detail. It's a laws of really has broader international ramifications. It's related to a much more general that appears very often in that is whether that's the case. Would it then make sense to say that the really said when the were building in the beginning of destroy the base of he took into 70 years. At the end of the 70 years Cyrus the great allowed the Jews permission to go and to rebuild the Bikto. It took many many years 20 plus years until the construction of the BA mikt was finally complete. And Razzzar was relating what he had heard the Messiah tradition lived 4 500 years later. But Rabzer was relating what he had heard regarding how the construction of the second mikdash went down. said, "I heard that when they built the claws that they made curtains around the area of the and they made curtains around the area of the Azar, meaning in the long run, there weren't going to be curtains. There were going to be walls, but it takes time until you construct the wall." So during the intimate period before the construction of the MET was complete, they immediately hung up curtains surrounding the area of the and surrounding the area of the Azar. Stating that said, there was a difference between the way the curtains were situated in the Azar. In the curtains were to the inside of the In other words, when they were building the wall, they were standing outside of the curtains. And in the Azor they built the curtains on the inside meaning they were standing from inside the Azara building a wall around them. The reason was because you don't want to stand in the it's okay to stand in the Azar. So when the Yidd were building the they should be standing in the so they made the films like this they can be standing on the outside a it's okay anyone's allowed to go to the as long as you're not coming. So that already wasn't an issue. That's said I'm Yeshua said I heard differently. I heard that during those 20 or so years before the Bik was complete brought even though there was no BD in fact even today said that there's no mdash even though was only eaten. I heard that they used to eat even though there was no club and even which once upon a time had surrounding it. I don't have the real life but it's okay and said the reason is says and others said that I heard that when the second they made short clin curtain surrounding the mikdashu commented to heazar I don't agree I heard bias what was comment Yeshua was calm and tight as the Gomorra probably was. He understood that what Baz was trying to say was the reason they had to build these curtains was because they needed a surah of a Bikash in order to be able to bring carbonas and the wanted to bring carbonas during that interim period. They didn't want to wait 20 years until the B mikdash was finally built. They wanted to be able to bring carbonas during the interim period. So what did they do? It takes time to build a ba mikdash. So they had like an interim bas. a makeshift uh construction with a paroas and client not the real walls and that allowed them to bring carbon but that's why they needed the cl and on that commented he said it wasn't necessary in other words says don't you see from the earth obviously holds that they needed the curtains because it's only that said In other words, it's going to be which isn't it really isn't maybe everybody else meaning Even if that's the case, why was he saying what was he trying to say when he said they made wasn't he trying to say they needed the because if not they could have brought carbon and bring out the ramification all the ramifications that you find throughout that would come about if you help the says no he was just saying what he had heard He was just saying that that he heard they were says so not everybody should see what was going on. It wasn't important for every person that that went to and ascended to see all the construction that was going. They did it for purposes. They were bringing they didn't want everyone to see the BTS was a a muck of to a certain degree. You find this concept of the so it was purposes but as it relates to the was there didn't go anywhere according to according to it's not this is now obviously when you see the words the first thing that comes to mind is rape so we should be speaking out a lot of rape But like we said this morning is # no raid later in the week will speak out raid and hopefully a lot of raid as it relates to this. But for now that's we'll see more about the she either in today's or we'll see that in tomorrow's but that's clear that there's a how much a person has to be in order to be the of Allah. It says at the bare minimum it has to be a so what if somebody's and there was no but there was a bone attached to the meek and the bone is the of so do we say that we have a because even though there's no on the so that from that standpoint you can argue Why should there be a problem of on the and you don't have a without it? But at the same time says as long as the is attached to the it's aer and therefore it could be we don't look at it as attached to the there's no on the only on the you don't have a and as a result you're going to be another if somebody would be my as He would be mocked the head of a bird of an says that it too didn't have a but he salted it and the salt was so we know the says a different but the point is is that every carbon had to have salt on it. You couldn't be a carbon without salt. It's actually the salt is of some sheer. So what would be if you did a example is the but what would be if you was you says you heard and he told at first glance isn't that we had whether the could be same not the according to said that the is but at the same time we can hypothesize what would hold regarding me because perhaps maybe she told me by the mean of the baser because the is of the same min as the baser right the it comes together with the baser you have bones attached to melt which is a foreign object. There's just a mitzvah to salt the animal but at the same time it's not maybe it's not and I can hear the according to as well said that is not you know said is not because there's no mitzvah necessarily to put the bones of an animal on the if it's attached to the animal. Yeah, but to go in the event that it was detached and now put it on the there's no mitzvah. But at the same time by the punish but the is always a mitzvah. You have to put me on the on the so you don't have to have the attached to the but you do have to have the salt attached to the baser. So I would think maybe over here maybe there is no difference. go. In other words, was asking a very nice I heard between earlier of previous generations, they weren't sure whether the is for the sheal or the is not for the Allah said, I want to clear a different shel is the mel this year or is it not mash this year? Immediately's reaction was the same shila. No, it's not. It's not the same shila. I can hear it according to maybe he would hold here. I can hear maybe here would hold or maybe not. Either way says so. Now we return to the first in the par. So began with someone that was and the same exact carbon he was and he was the first part of and the second part of so again the par which is it's bifurcated and this person was both with the same exact carbon meaning if someone is one carbon and by the carbon of He's twice and if he did he would have to be two but this person was the same exact says you're going to be in other words even if it was two for one for argued said that in this case you're only going to be meaning according to you're only going to be for not for the only is for is if you but if you in that case you're going to be you're not going to be and then we explained his position he said the reason is because in the case you were and then you were you and the only time for is if you're and this is very simple it's because you were supposed to take this and bring this into the mikdash by the fact that you were my that's a bad thing. That's only true if you could have brought it into the B. had no there was no because once he was at that point it's so that it's for that reason not but responded back and at first glance they made a checkmate argument you're going to tell me the only time every is a problem because the minute you Take the Rebi was sitting and he said is so we have an obligation we need to come to the defense of and that's exactly what did said you know really held really helped It's true. Every single you're being mild with something that's not right now to go. Why is it not right to go to his but it was once right to go to when you was it was right to go to mean that it had a that's enough to say that it's somehow that as opposed to that never had the at the moment that it would have been it was already you were it So at that point it was never it was never it never had a never had that's hold it's going to be so it's not holds and it has to right now physically be realizes that every is not it's always but at very least had to have one spin every was name was it only became not later when it was as opposed to it. It was already not right here. It's going to be different says I too I'm going to come to the defense I can make a distinction between what is that if someone and so the but even though the learn the whole par is it doesn't necessarily mean that there's no den on this there is a den there's aul There's a there's a of synonyms, right? There is a because if you would take this boss and you put it on the would be now you're not supposed to put it on the but there's a type that you have. Thus it is to go to the to be in the mind. That's why you have the Allah as opposed to but if someone is that is such a bad that messes up the carbon so horribly that you don't even have a you don't even have it's for that reason said that's completely excluded from the Allah's in other saying that there is a bin that carbon has to be to be on his in order to be the boss of that carbon but every even though it's but it's still there's it's only where there's no it's only over there that it's going to be what's between again said that the difference between aren't they both possible is one had a one didn't have a said the difference is one is the other one is if you at night if the reason that it's a problem is because it never had a also never had a was and being that the was it never had a shak If the reason is related if the was done not is it was done with a if the reason it's a problem is because of this never had a even though the was good but as soon as the was done with a he never had that was thus it's considered that there was never a but if the distinction is whether it's at the end of the day if you do with is going to be if that's enough that if you should be speaks out that that's said that that's all going according to who holds that and these things are said there was three in the par of zas So that there are examples of cases where it's two of them are the two that just mentioned which is the equivalent of is also here saying it's all but those things are in fact going to be so then The Mishna digress and the Mishna went and the Mishna said and we mentioned I'll tell you another between the with the methodology of that mirrors the methodology of this meaning is that even though someone that's he has and he eats but that's only a he it's only true if he ate That's but someone that's that eats that's argue and a very similar argument to what they made in the rat regarding and that is how can you distinguish between and every single time the Tom is the he's thus it's always How can you say there's a difference? That was the argument. So again, just for one moment as backdrop before we start this we're familiar with the laws of md and that means that kachin and don't go together. So if someone's tummy enters the mdash he's if somebody eats kach that's malus if someone is to and he eats kach that's tar he's k as well. So there's a lot of ideas of but as it relates to background for this there's a fundamental difference between someone that's that eats that's versus someone that's that eats kum that's I mean they're very similar they're both but there's a big difference where the toma is in the where the person is what's known as and he eats that's if the person this and he eats and that's it's the that's over there it's it's it's a it's an but at the same time it's not going to be said this is that the only time someone that's that eats is if the he was but let's say he was and the was then he's not going to be car and now it's time to be exactly how's that possible Every time the tummy eats kachum, he made a he's always eating the kachum. That's at first glance the are coming with a very compelling argument said as follows. In other words, that's true. We have to tweak a little bit. That's really holds that if the person became and then the baser became even though this tummy is now eating bas he's still going to be for eating the bas that's the only time said his was when the baser first became and then he became tom but if the person was and then the bos became it's that he's going to be and being that that's the are not saying anything is not a good time. How could you tell me is from every Tommy is a Tommy? It's not true because he was Tommy first. That's how he was. I mean that he was that's what we're talking about. So as long as he was Tommy first in that case it's not going to be initial says what is first of all and then the person became what does that mean? So there's some long rashies here. What it means is the is actually a very general and that is in the so we know once something is it can come again stating that there are times where you say one of them is what's known as if the second is it's over in iser over the first is that's an example where you could say is says something like this do Why he holds a is not it's because once the was so that even though now the person became that second is not if that second is not all you have is the of which is not that's why you're not going to be in true but and this is a classic example Why? Because when the buser's Tommy, you just can't eat this piece of meat. When the person becomes Tommy, now I can't eat any kach. So clearly when the person becomes tommy, there's a lot more iss the ramifications of him becoming Tommy isn't just this piece of meat. It's now gay all pieces of meat that are kach. So as a result the that's why even though the became first and then the person became and usually the more that's why over here you're going to say what does mean we don't mean they hold whereas and for that reason in that case where the bus became and then the person became there's not going to be of doesn't hold but talk about let the saying an interesting that maybe if the second is more than the first everybody should so here you have two reasons why you should say number one and number two the second is Second is the first is not so saying I can hear doesn't hold the but if the second is more over here he should agree to how do you know is more than maybe is more than Tom you're right on the one hand is more because it's cars Thomas boss has no carus but I'll find you a cooler that Thomas has over Tomas bas if the bas he can't put in the mikvah and make the car if a person's he can go to the mikvah and be so therefore you find that sadra in tumas over thus argues the thus argues the it's not the second bottom line is came with a good argument the ter is only said it with the buster became first the reason in that eating the stomach is because agree not just that in other words even two paras and the other one is alias says the there's a in the parish of over the parish of alias and there's a in the parish over the par of Rashi speaks out later in the that this really a little bit of a kesh because the had said that there was a hish between the two paras and we learned that is one from the other in the context of a there was even so based on and the hakish you would think that the two parachutes are interchangeable any stating that the says it's not the case there is one that has over and there's one if somebody but he has in mind not to do it for Hashem he hasn't wanted to do it for a person that's even are you going to be or not says the if somebody would do that equivalent there do the same exact thing but not with in that case it would be now Rashi speaks right away if for that truth says I agree with you but you're not a so if you did it you were amazing on but you were on the do you have to be for being a but that's Hashem's the question is from perspective do we obligate you to bring the katas do we allow you to bring the are you a because you or not. So says what's two people hold on to the knife and they shack together your potter there's a idea of you find this idea together are going to be but if two people held on to the of this animal And they were another let's say he did and then another Allah and then another says again assuming you did so and there's going to be a number of days that's going to discuss this in in rather great love detail. Additionally, you're not unless you do it on a rock or on a stone that's enough for you to be in other words have to be like you make this makeshift and now you do only then are you says no even if you do it on a rock or on a stone as long as you took baser of ker and you were my that's enough for you to be. So we had two differences between and Allah's one was a Allah. Now there was a in Allah over what was the had over. So as long as you doesn't matter what your intentions are you're automatically going to be. But when it comes to you have to have a mind that you're doing fashion says why is probably because the says it says in the par of it has to be so if it wasn't it also says it says it's true it says but it also says says and we so it's true it says but it also says it says well says no that is I need for something else that is even if two people held on to the ash And the ish is by to tell me maybe the ish that it says by is also coming to teach me that if two people do the together you're going to be says the word and being that it says the word that teaches me that you're only only one person two people it says only one person it says it says there It says the same word that it says by Allah says but if you were you made a mistake then you're not ask the obvious what does that if you were you so not but the says how do you know that by Allah is coming to your mind and not maybe come to mind the same thing says the word twice by Allah it only says the word once in other words the is saying that the reason is because it says ish is the reason is because it says and the goes back and forth it says the same is by Allah it says the name did what it does but the just concludes with one of only why did it say if it's not to teach me that it has to be why doesn't it says if somebody says that you're potter the reason is because it has to be something that was brought as opposed to the wasn't brought what does that mean so again we're going to have to get to that at some point this week not sure we're going to get everything, but we're going to have to get to it at some point this week cuz it's is actually critical in understanding the laws of but for now the word exactly. But for now, what is coming to teach me is that overall was because it says it's interesting because it says the same is by Allah. It says the same, but they're coming to teach me different things in different parishes. And what was that? Two people that do the but two people that do the are going to be when it says in the par of coming to teach me. I would have thought based on that says that's why they tell you how to say is but the bottom line is how do you know that it's from says says, "No, I disagree. Two people that do like two people that do they're going to be and the reason says the word is what does the word is mean?" Nothing that does to teach me that two people that do Allah are why doesn't he say that the word is that only one person is hold that the word is coming like we had in the previous for says it says who who so are two separate for it's interesting holds is not ashi held is a right you can learn two things from the word cuz said instead it said but as it relates to ish ish it's so the ish ish is not revealing but who is revealing. Interesting. Either way says how who is if the words is in the parah teach me nothing because then you have to be consistent. You have to say that when it says in the par of is also not teaching me anything. The problem is we learned from we learned even says he went from somewhere else not away even it was it's from the words.