Zevachim 118

Today's is and we are five lines from the bottom of today's being learned as and today's also being learned as a foreug So we're in the middle of a bra a long that discusses the topic dour which is the of the mentioned aasor then aita then aasuda and then another and aas so it's fiveto so to speak that are mentioned in the bryo and at First glance it looks like these five shittas are really discussing two topics two topics that are but two topics nonetheless. The first topic is what kind of carbonos were able to be brought on a bisman. Now one thing is clear that you couldn't bring a carbon seabore on Obama's you could only bring a carbon y on a y but the question is within the world of carbon y what kind of carbono were able to be brought the second discussion in the bryo is what kind of carbono were able to be brought on the basis sibore also known as the misbeak bisman bum thist You were able to bring all the carbon in the on the mentioned the carbonos to be brought on the misbeh. The question is bisman had their bonus. Did anything change? Is it all the carbonos that are able to be brought on the bismanos that are allowed to be brought on this misbeh which seems to suggest that the Mishkon is not on the same level as a result could be that in terms of what kind of carbon were able to be brought on its misbeh and by the way you find that misbeh was referred to as a bum. just the name is almost a giveaway that the misbeh is not the same as it is when it's shunnardless it's these two ideas that were mentioned in the bra the first idea seems to be a between and the first two of the five shittas mentioned in the baha raor introduces the ba by saying that a y was able to bring any carbon that's in on the and said not every carbon that was bought in but only the said what are they arguing about they're arguing with regards to and according to raor it's included in a carbon that's brought up according to the it's not and as a result it's going to be excluded The latter three shittas, the sheet of rabhud and at first glance seem to be discussing the second shila. And that is what kind of carbonus were able to be brought on the bum on the misbeh when the was in the midbar meaning is able to be brought on the in Gilgal meaning according to rahuda you could bring all carbon on the misb on the even bisman the were and the said very very clearly that it's only that were able to be brought on the basin that brought would not be able to be brought. So according to the all the carbon were able to be brought on the bas as it relates to only a carbon that's brought and by the way said what's the definition of it's like the previous and finally there was a third on that topic and that is the who said that the only carbonist that were able to be brought on were But all other carbon even carbon would not be able to be brought on the bum. So as it relates to what could be brought on it seems to be two it seems to be a everybody agrees it's only a carbon everybody agrees only a carbon that's brought what's the like explains the arguing regarding and as it relates to what kind of carbonas were able to be brought on the on the seems to be a three-way all the carbanis the whole suite of carbonas were able to be brought According to you according to you can bring all but as it relates to only and the definition of is the definition when they the third is the shim who said that it was not even all carbon they were able to be brought but it's only that's the BRA theor that we started yesterday that's going to take us through the first part of today's d is pish it's a commentary on this and the gmorra takes it from the top and as it relates to the is between and what exactly are they arguing about so the gmorra says as follows let's start with what they agree about and that is that the only type of carbon that you're allowed to bring out is a carbon that's what's the it says and this is that when there's going to be it doesn't mean you could just go ahead and bring any carbon you want on a bomb don't think every carbon that we're bringing in now is still be able to on your or in your backyard rather and that the word is and we learn from there that it's that you're allowed to bring. However, if it's that's something that you would not be allowed to bring. Okay, so that's how we know it has to be a garment that's broken. What's the is whether and are included or they're not included. So the says the sh of is actually something that was already earlier in the s and that is were able to be brought on if the answer is yes then you'd be able to be bring because it's if the answer is no well then obviously you won't be able to bring it as it relates to nazirus. So that's already an interesting Shiloh. We can hear that maybe is considered because at the end of the day the Nazerus is something that's once a person's now obligated to bring his carbonus. You could hear that carbonus would be treated more as either way because of the two ways to look at it. It's for that reason there was between the just did clarify one point and that is the is regarding the and the of the as it relates to the that's being that the of the carbon is not brought even in where it's being brought of still it's not something that would be able to be brought either way. That is all what we spoke about yesterday. This is an 8 minute recap and precap. Now we're going to go into the gimmar's analysis of the latter part of the bride. just one point that we did mention yesterday briefly that I think is to mention now again if we're going to be on and that is that as much as it's true that the brace is made up of two parts right your proverbial the remain and then the remain what could be brought on what could be brought on but really It's mv and rashi and rashi takes it out of the that we're going to learn right now that the first twoas also were opining although not explicitly but implicitly regarding the second sh and that is what carbonas were able to be brought on in other words when said that the only carbon that could bring is a carbon that's brought and they didn't only mean on they meant with regards to the sib as well which means is that the only carbon could ever bring is a carbon that's brought and according to the only carbon that could ever bring is a carbon that's brought how did the know this How did Rashi know this? Because otherwise the flow of the price really has no havana because when you read the price it does very much sound like fiveas on one topic not two topics that are in that's a little bit of a copout. It sounds like it's actually one topic. Rome said this told that told the went back and told that and then had the last word and he said this. That's what it sounds like the bryson should be doing. If you read the price of without going into a little bit of no the first two shittas are talking about one thing and the other three shittas are talking about something else. It could be they would agree could be they would disagree. You don't see five shittas necessarily when you read the feels a little bit like it is. Either way, with that in mind, the now is going to go through the latter part of the different as it relates to what kind of were able to be brought on meaning which primarily was when the was in Gilgal and when the Mishna was in and given says the so which is this is actually the fourth sheet the second of the latter three sheet. is in the B said any carbon that the was able to bring in meaning any carbon was brought in the meaning was only able to bring the or the says what's in this because the says That was the Pik of the end of yesterday's d and then it says right that's the of the says the we learn from here is the way the understood this of ish is that an ish is only allowed to bring a carbon that's if he's bringing on a and if he's bringing it on a regardless of what he's bringing it on is always going to be meaning even though the of the sounds a little bit like it's talking about the So the limitation of would seem to be limited to the but no ish with the period now that's only true regarding ish it's not true regarding okay so where does with that could bring on no that's then on arrival as we mentioned in the beginning of the introduction it's on but that's how the formulate their position that when it came to the and ish was only bringing a brought in because of as opposed to as it relates to doesn't have that limitation says the garbudo what about who's raud so going a little bit backwards is the third mention right the first of the latter threeasita is that right anything even that was able to bring in the midbar. He was able to bring in Gilgal which means a to bring in Gilgal. What's the says the word is it sounds like ish is limited to says it says and the word says is mashma. Where is it? sounds a little bit like that. You're going to want to just whatever wherever you feel fit, right? You're going to see a place and it's going to be a for you to go ahead and build a bum over there and bring a car. But it's in a place like that that we have that of is but as it relates to the as it relates to the over there, you're not going to be limited to anything, right? as relates to that be able to drink even says but doesn't it say ishra isn't it coming to say I mean from the fact that it says ish isn't it for sure coming to say that even on should only be allowed to bring didn't we just explain it we said it says ish but it says the word explains that means to ask as follows Theor feels that the word is really extra. The could have said and I would know that the is referring to an ish meaning if this is talking only about obviously the talking to the because can never bring a carbon. So the question is why would the have to say the word ish? It's so obvious that we're talking to the so the Gmorra says that the holding and regarding that that an ish is always only allowed to bring a carbon that's but he can't bring a carbon even on the so it's for that reason the Torah went out of its way and the Torah mentioned the word ish to teach me that as it relates to the isha it's only the ish will never be able to bring anything that's not the say the word ish there's no way in the world I would ever think that this is talking also about I would say for sure it's talking about that's the of the I would never extend it says the word is the holds that no the only then ish Why did the have to say the word ish the word ish would be in other words when the is asking essentially the gar is also explaining the a little bit better right when we learn in real time it says even on the right it's not so clear why read is not masked that way the ter is they were coming from the word ish So compelling is that in the word ish it's the has to go at it and has to end for it but the says did end for it he said very he says you want to know why the said in the context of the banana the word ish isn't it obvious that that what's going on over here yes but at the same time there's a little bit of over here the is you could have thought that when was done on these small bumas maybe you needed a kamash that is going to be okay. But the gar says no. It says clearly that the only time a needs to do the is if it's going to be on the but it's not being done on the says truth. There was no meaning that you should have told. I would have thought maybe we should go back by these to the that's the that you don't eat. But the reason is was mentioned was not with to tell me that the limitation of even the it's coming to tell me that don't think had to be done by absolutely not another to the extent that the five sheet is mentioned the are really all talking to each other and on some level they're all discussing the same sh as much as they're also discussing a different shil but they're discussing the same sh as able to be brought on so it would seem that the first number two and the second sheet number four if you're keeping score at home right so it would seem they're the same because they both are of the opinion that only carbono sib of were able to be brought on the bodila as it relates to it's only that are and by the way even as it relates to that are the definition so it's literally the same exact right they were both referred to as but either way isn't it the same ostensibly yes but if you mind a little bit better you'll see there is an there is whether or not were able to be brought in the midbar. In other words, as it relates to the sha of what kind of carbonates were able to be brought stating that if you look at the based language, what they said was it's a little extra. It's a little wordy. Why they have to give that whole? They should have just said that no the is only let we are coming to be is in the every carbon that was able to be brought in the midbar yeah there's a carbon that was able to be brought in the midbar that my predecessor my doesn't agree with cuz he holds that were not able to be born in the midbar were able to be born in the midbar is talking not So much nega is not so much nega the lumbus the lundus of what carbonas were able to be brought on but rather it's more negaya what carbonos were able to be brought what carbonas were able to be brought on the misbeak that was inside the mid either way moving along what was the last sheet in the brace was shim what did shim says when the came to Gilgal right when they crossed the it says they brought the carbon was they brought the carbon came it's coming to teach me uh and that is that the only types of they were able to bring at that point where that gain but any carbon that's not gain is not something that they were able to break. Meaning the fact that they brought the carbon notes the is that the only type of carbon they could have brought was a carbon that was getting p is a carbon as a result only that are carbon the pl have to say that they brought the carbon isn't it obvious there's a different over here the name someone that's an oral could be haz Now the long rashi it's actually that explains this Indian what the is is that if somebody is to m and now he needs h from the apher of the problem is he's also an oral so he's a tom he's an oral he never had so the question is can an oral beab and become for it or not said in the name of mab the answer is that yes or could be says You know what the it is? The martu is the fact that it says in theor I think it's rashi inside bangs this outra that became he's going to become is going to be allowed to touch and is actually this sounds like they did it in the proper way right can't bring the carbon if you're can't bring it if you so it sounds like they had now we know on the 10th day of they couldn't do so they didn't cross the and on that day they couldn't do because they were very tired so When they did do the briso, they did the briso on the 11th day. Additionally says, we know that there was a good chunk of at that time that were saying because all the yid were always dying in the midbar. Now says I just told you three facts. I told you that the yidden and the mbra didn't do brism. They did bris not even the day they crossed the yard which was the next and we know that if you're going to tell me that the had not already received at least one of the need from the then there's not enough time to become from the time that they did and be ready to bring on why because you have to be Three days between, right? When was that all done and at that point it's already going to be too late. So from the fact that the said it's no it's not because you could have made the argument they were and being that if that's the case they would have absolutely no ability no capacity to possibly become in order to be able to be the carbon unless you're going to say they started the entire process 7 days before Nissan 7 days before Nissan would mean they started already on Zan which means those first were done before Nissan which is while they were you see That's why the terrorist said the reason of was to teach me that the only time that was able to which is gilgo was something similar to the carbon says he wanted what no hold that it's coming to teach me something else that is one last on this topic and then we're going to digress into our that presented the following toad There's no meaning between the exception of and so he said there's no between rather the and those can be brought on the those cannot be brought on the bum. Now sounds very right sound like the only types of carbonos that you'd be able to bring on the what about the carbon sour that are not it sounds like you can't even bring that so for sure it sounds like the t over here is expressing the of but the when the told he told him I think in You see even in the world of and that is I think we have to explain your meaning if you have such a mind is not even going to mean it's going to mean and the reason is because you have the to compare and contrast with the little but the point is that if it includes when you say there's no such thing as a and being that there's no such thing as a it can't mean that when the said it means as well this is also a little bit right it's not so easy to understand but we have reaction And of course we have Rashi. So everything is let's see Rashi again inside. It's understood that the B was coming to say that even that holds you only able to bring that. It didn't even mean or where there's component to it such as an oil. How do you know that? voice and because what it sounds like it is in the original that really you could bring why do you have to mention the word this is what he should have said oh gosh he's crash so must be this is what the price is that saying is is that you could bring the and I'm singling out the because you don't have like the there's one type of and that's something that you can bring on the additionally there's other but it's only things that are but as it relates to a which you can't bring to the but that's not something you would able to bring either way. So this Bryce is like an addendum in disruption when you learn originally the fifth on if it sounds like holds any carbon that's bring but if it's not such as the et that's not something you'll be able to bring from this in the here sees some and what's that we see over here that it can't be because if it's all then why are we singling out? Oh, it must be it's only that have a component such as as opposed to as opposed to that doesn't have a component that would not be included. The one exception to that is pes and that's why pes is singled out. Notice there's a that takes up a whole lot over here and is that he's being with rations one of the basic that I think everyone should ask is that what did this didn't say in the original this that seems to be the backbone of this and understanding we already knew from the original. So what would be the over here? just asks that and much much more. Anyway, let's just finish. What did the say? Oh, based on this understanding of it must be that what is it must be, right? That's the only thing I can think of because that's the only type of carbon that has a and that's also bump. So, it must be that what's going on over here is the oil. What do you mean? There is another one. there's also meaning what said was not not he said it's only right not was like a but it's what he said it's not only there's also we know the answer is going to be there's no such thing as if no such thing as a so obviously that can't be what's going on either way this concludes the five which it's fiveas really if you think about it all talking about two things but also talking about one thing as well. Moving along. So the Mishna then pivoted and started talking about mentioned a few things about Shil. Number one about the physical nature of Shil. So we know there was a Mishkan and we know there was a mikdash, right? There was a mishk for many many years and then we had a ba mikt. The mishk was like a tent. The miktosh was a bias miktilo. The mishna says was somewhere in between. It was a little bit of a bias. It was a little bit of a mishk. Right. There was no roof. A bias usually has a roof. Right? If you don't have a roof on top, you don't really live in a house. There was no roof. But the structure of the house was really a von what was says what's the mart like how do we know that is like a tweener because there's one regarding that says sounds like it was a bias the but there's another that says another you find that those seem to be describing it as a as a as a tent. So on the one hand you see it described as a bias on the other hand you see it described as a tent must be it was this in between thing. If you look in the not for now, but they all explain that the in between physical nature of Shilo is really representative and indicative of the in between symbolism of what Shiv really represented. Right? We talked about the mitzvah of We talked about the special mitzvah of the in the beginning of the beginning of that was the idea that said from the beginning of time once became a nation that there always has to be a muck where I can come and I can convene with you. But that wasn't the bias of the bias of aeshb was the was the banto in we spoke about how was a temporary bias of this in so many places refers to it as the but then again it was a mishkilo right soil is somewhere in between it's the bias of but it's not it's only a temporary bias so really what represents when you understand the tide of that it's a little bit of the it's a little bit of the that's indicative of the physical nature that on the one hand it's a but there's no so it's again that's a little bit of moving along the Mishna said so what are the laws of the laws of were it's always the way it is if you were able to see Then you were allowed to eat you allowed to eat and shen now ordinarily what'si and columnian it's but over here they were in over here they were in so what's it toian it's obviously such aesh requires a mocker and the very next is going to discuss immediately had we know this and the is going to bring a few different because it says in that you better be careful. You're going to come to you can't just bring carbon wherever you want. We learn from here. If you want to be that's not something you could do, right? Any place that the can be seen. But the point is is that to the extent that the bik could be seen or if you looking at it from the standpoint of the if you could see the mikdash you'll be able to eat it. So there's a limitation of as it relates to but from there we learn only regarding do we have that limitation but when it comes to there it's says how do you know to jump from maybe jump from and maybe what it's coming to say is that your latter is as long as you could see the says So we know all the had to be done in the and if the terrorist says so you know for sure the also not. So the only thing that it could be possibly coming to exclude is the either way this is the first. So how do we know that in you will eat because it says in the but as relates to that is something you again a different it says in the it says what does it of this is a place that whoever would go there they would be they would be bit over the fact that they're no longer able to eat kach in other words the context of this is talking about after and they would go to the place where they were able to see where she once was and they would be miss and the garra is saying You want to know why they cuz they would remember, oh, I was once able to eat kachum right here. Not I'm not allowed to eat kachchum there. So you see that once upon a time it was able to be eaten. Now by the way if you're looking for this palo good luck because if you take a look at the first ration on the top of the says said I tried finding this I couldn't find it. Now Rashi says I found something similar. I found in that it says by the way this is not the only place where the quotes where if you're trying to find it you're not going to find it 100%. We once spoke at a a raid bite from Marggo. He wrote a whole and this is one of the that he talks about. But either way had a third macar. He said it says in the bane you know we learn from here the eye of that did not want to sustain itself. didn't want to have pleasure from something that's not his will be and will be able to have this that you'll be able to eat the in the Mishk that's in right we're going to see in a minute that was and it's going to be able to be eaten so this is the was able to be eaten now what is even in this right so if you take a look says it was part of and you want to know why it was part of it was related to his because of the fact that he had it's interesting because is associated with even though really the of was more related But here you see that really the is very much that was so you see how much is part and parcel of the Indian but either way this is the he said a fourth mart that's really the says right this is in par this is from This is what he told him. He said that's the sign that didn't want that doesn't belong to it. So the is going to be that even if you're in one of the one of the that hated they hated the in the beginning of right. So even if you're standing right now in the of one of the that really hated you're going to have a that you are going to be able to eat from the either way we have that in you were able to eat oh to be and to do the other but as relates to not says but there was a place that people knew once upon a time they were able to eat it and when they would be there they would give this correct and what was that place the place they were able to see oh so you see we back into this idea that you were able to eat the third is the fourth is which is also related to when we talk about being allowed to eat it means means you have to be able to see the entire right if there's like a you have to have like a a good clear shot but in the event that it's somewhat obstructed that's not going to be okay heard this and they didn't understand exactly like how do you play this out he said let me explain that you could if you're standing in the mine you could see it clearly that's what we're referring to actually you don't have to see all of it. As long as you see part of it, that's going to be okay. So, it has to be an unobstructed view, but albeit only of I'll tell you what I'm not sure about. What would be if you're standing, you could see it, but if you're sitting, you can't see it. And now you're sitting, right? Because if you're standing, you could see it. But now you're sitting and you can't see it. Do you say being that if I was standing be able to see it? So, I'll be able to eat it. Or maybe not. But has a shab. If you're standing on the banks of a of a you would be able to see it. But if you're if you were inside the so that could be I don't know 20 feet down your so now that you're on the bottom of the but if I was on the top of be able to see it would that be okay says like it does so often with so many of is we are going to stop here in the middle of all this dra. So just to end with one rabbi and that is the very very last discussed the of my ino was able to be eaten the briskarov in paras quotes the is going on the in parishes that says it's false in short the saying that you're not let you can't just eat it wherever you live okay so if I have where must I eat it you have to eat in the place that chose for it to be eaten. So you can't eat wherever you want. Where do you have to eat it? You have to eat it. In other words, you have to eat it in. Now the terra doesn't say but that's in line with the fact that the never mentions rather the constantly refers to a place that in the future I am going to choose the on this says as follows. So although when you read the it sounds like it's describing one there's going to be there's going to be right and it's there that you're supposed to eat that what we need to do with this is we have to do and that's referring to break the brisker of I don't understand I think that if somebody wasn't familiar with somebody didn't hear the rabbit in the sh and he sat down and he saw this he would probably be very satisfied with what he saw cuz he would say I know that sh even though the mishk stood there for 369 years but it wasn't the moash and because it wasn't the so it's for that reason if the would Hey, we would say it doesn't mean it for sure means only. Therefore, the Torah has to say that it's not only this when you're going to have the but it was the 369 years of hence the would be which is not additionally too you're going to have that but the problem is we know that there are countless not countless but like four there's many with says that whenever the Torah talks about the didn't only mean the but was referring to it was referring to as well right just are over there says right I'm going to choose a place and there's another that says that from amongst all your is it or is it the one that says from one of the that is referring to the that's going to be from all the that's referring to another says it says twice the idea of verbatim it says it two times and all the was struggling why does it say it twice said the the second that's already referring to Jerusalem. Let's mention another one. It says it says in the par of the what does it mean? Might as well mention the fourth one. It says always. So if that's the case, why does the have to single out is referring to the said an absolute classic. He said in Jerusalem we know kachum kalen and myeni was eaten in when the mishka was in shilo the was it was able to be eaten said maragris what's the gather of being able to eat the kachumi and really I think in In order to understand the Briskov, we have to take one step back. It's like a baby step back and just like state the obvious. What's the Kachum and my was allowed to be eaten only in I think you learn it's always the way you you think of it. But the truth is we're learning the now. It's a little bit deeper than that. Together is that's together, right? The whole is divided into just like the in the midbar there's as well right theor is it's also the of the which is the way of expressing why it has the rest of yeah it has more kadusha than the rest of the world less kadusha than but it's also is that they get there of why they were able to eat in is because it's and it's part and parcel of this Indian that it's able to be so with that better what's the in you were able to eat is the wherever you were it WAS as it relates TO IT WAS NOT BASED ON like it was in. It's not based on boundaries. It's not a block and lot number, BUT IT WAS BASED ON AND AS LONG AS I could see it with a couple of tus for what the definition of even is. But the bottom line is it's because the of in was said was not the from the idea that you find that you were able to eat that you were able to eat that whereas ordinarily is over here was not over here the was not over here the was said to one side from a that we learned together yesterday and that is the said that when the were in the mikdash they didn't have three mach they really had four the and is really considered on a rabbitic level a fourth And then he said when they were in they only had two mach which one of them did they not have maybe they didn't have it's an issue in the sad maybe they didn't have that was also a little problematic in the sugo and what does it mean that there were only two it means something very nuance it means that this Indian that the orate didn't have the ability to be kic when the weren't but said the brisker of how could it be that had it sad that there was no that there was no when how could there have even been such a you say no we we already addressed that in the introduction the gather OF IF THERE WAS NO THEN HOW COULD THEY HAVE EATEN THAT THERE WAS A HOW COULD HAVE ENTERTAINED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WAS NO WHAT'S THIS WHOLE THAT SAID it's from that the has no it has absolutely nothing to do with together is that whereas ordinarily because it's over here it's But rather over here it's going to be scrub has other fester on this level as well. Just mention one other beautiful and that is the says everyone knows this in the said this such simpleishna bothers me. You know why? Because is there really enough between Shiva and there's no they both have a that you're supposed to you WANT TO KNOW THE OBVIOUSLY it's different one's on what do you want it to be the same obviously it's going to be different is said it's A between how was eaten when the first versus when they were in it was IT WAS BUT WHEN WERE inn over the halfell of what's going on in this is in four places that the that place is true not only as it relates to it's true for but he said the fact that would be to the true only for you that wasn't true for what does it mean I'm going to choose a place and that place WILL BE THE MUK WHERE YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO EAT IF YOU'RE STANDING ONE FOOT OUTSIDE THAT MUKIN you won't be able to if you're in that muk Yeah, there's going to be a called I'm not telling you which city yet. You're going to have to wait for and to figure that out. But the bottom line is there will be a muck someplace in the future and in that muk only in that muk you're going to be allowed to eat kachum k and my but that's only true as it relates to as it relates to said marin it's that dear was and being that over there it was so over there it has nothing to do over there it has nothing to do with if it has nothing to do with it can't be so what is What is it? If you if you could see the If you could see there, you're going to have a that's to the fact that just to say a drop better all the other places that the says that the it's talking about bringing the it's talking about bringing the carbon it's talking about the those things THAT was no different than the specifically with regards TO WITH REGARDS TO EATING FROM EATING. THAT'S THE ONE PLACE SAID THE brisk that is that's opposed to as opposed to that's already just with a herish. This is ages. It's not even Josh. It's just a heresy. How you know that shila is something that could be the second two we learn from that from the fact that he had his were were very very pure. It's for that reason he was that which is in his you'd be allowed to eat the was sold into slavery was away from his family that were initan and where was he? He was a mit and he was able to be overif. And how was he able to be overifying by doing the but then he saw what did he see? He saw he was a mit but he was able to see he was able to see his father who was and by doing that he was able to bring he was able to be a little bit of into that of that he had been he was that the mishk that would be in his there would be such a musk with the hebber of the briskerov Even if I'm not innov And even if I'm in the I'm in a far away, I'm in a bad place. But if I'm able to see, if I could look up and I can see the Mishk, well, that means wherever I am, I'm able to bring kadusha in a place like that. EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT a mach I'm a mitan I'm in the blood you'd be able to eat the kumin and a nice shenyher.