Zevachim 33

Today's daf is Vochin daf lamed gimmel, and we are 13 lines from the bottom of daf lamed base omid base. So, this morning we began the third perek in Seder Vochin perek kol hap'sulim, which began with the halacha that kol hap'sulim sheshachtu shchitoson ksheira. And the Gemara digressed from that topic into a halacha of bi'ah b'miktzas sh'mobi'ah or bi'ah b'miktzas lo sh'mobi'ah. We know a tamei is not allowed to enter certain machanos. Machaneh Levi'ah, Machaneh Sh'chinah, da Azarah, da Har HaBayis. The question is, what if the tamei doesn't enter with his entire body? It's a bi'ah b'miktzas. He sticks his hand in, his foot in, his head in. Is that considered a bi'ah so that he's over the issur of entering the Makom HaMikdash? Or is it not? So, the Gemara brought a memra Omar Rav Ashi Omar Reish Lakish, tamei she'eichin tzi'adah lifnei hamikdash, a tamei who stuck his hand into the Makom HaAzarah, is chayav malkus. She'ne'emar, "B'chol kodshei lo yisaig, v'el mikdashi lo yavo." Makish bi'ah l'negi'ah. Makish bi'ah l'negi'ah. So, when a tamei touches kodshim, he's over the lav of "B'chol kodshei lo yisaig." Even if he doesn't smother it with his entire body, if he touches it with his hand, b'miktzas, it's considered negi'ah. So, too, bi'ah b'miktzas lo sh'mobi'ah. And the Gemara asked a a convoluted question. The Gemara asked a kasha from the metzora she'chol sh'mini shel ohr ne'ir es Erev Pesach. So, the metzora did everything he needed to do for his taharah. It's now the eighth day. The last thing he needs to do is he has to bring korbanos. He's going to have to stand in Shan Niknor, stick his thumbs into the Azarah. The kohen is going to have to complete the taharah. At that point he's going to be tahor. It just so happens the eighth day fell out on Erev Pesach. It's his good fortune because Erev Pesach a Yid has a chiyuv to bring a korban Pesach. If he would be tamei on Erev Pesach, he would have to bring the Pesach Sheini. So, it's all okay. The metzora is able to do what he needs to do. He becomes tahor in the morning, and then bein ha'arbaim he brings the korban Pesach, and at night eats the korban Pesach. Everything is wonderful. What happened was this Yid was road carried that day. Then he went to the Mikvah, but he's still at full Yoin the Keri. And at full Yoin the Keri is not allowed to enter Machaneh Levi'im. At full Yoin the Keri is not allowed to enter the Azarah. So, now he has an issue cuz how's he going to go through the seder the Taharah of Metzora? Outs Metzora, there's no problem. Why not? Cuz the Torah said that a Metzora is allowed to do what he needs to do. But this new issue, the fact that he's at full Yoin the Keri is going to oppose a problem. So, the Gemara says Amrucha Chachamim that even though ordinarily it would be a problem, over here it's okay because Yodeh Assei Chassei Shein B'Karos. And the Gemara asks the Kushya. Bishlema, if the only violation of a Tamei entering the Makom Mikdash by a Metzora is the fact that he's entering the Har HaBayis. So, for a full Yoin the Keri to enter the Har HaBayis is an Assei Shein B'Karos. So, it makes sense. Yodeh Assei Yish B'Karos Viyei Chassei Shein B'Karos. But if you hold Bi'ah B'Mikdash Shma Bi'ah, so every Metzora is not only entering Har Machaneh Levi'im, he's also entering Machaneh Shechinah. When he sticks his Bahonois into the Makom Azarah. And that's already Assei Shein Yish B'Karos. So, how then do we say that let Assei of Pesach Bidocheh Assei of Bal Keri? The Assei of Bal Keri is the same Assei Shein Yish B'Karos as the Assei of Pesach. Hal O Mai Must Be Bi the Mikdash Lo Shma Bi'ah. So, the only Issur that the full Yoin the Keri would be doing is entering the Har HaBayis Machaneh Levi'im. That's not an Assei Shein Yish B'Karos. But the Gemara said it's not a Kushya. Right, it's not a Kushya because Shani Metzora Hoyo Hoyo B'Hoter L'Keriya. Because there's a Svara of Hoyo B'Histeri Histeri. What does that mean? It means that Enach ordinarily a full Yoin the Keri shouldn't be allowed to do this Bi'ah B'Mikdash. But being that a Metzora is also not allowed to do the Bi'ah B'Mikdash, and the Torah was Mattir for the Metzora, so we say a Svara. Once the Torah was Mattir for the Metzora, the Torah was Mattir for the Bal Keri as well. Either way, the Gemara picks up now on that note on the Svara of Hoyo B'Histeri Histeri. Amru Rav Yosef, Rav Yosef said K'Sover Rula. Now that Ulla holds of this svara, "Hole of the history history again." The Torah was matter. The matter of Bohinus for the metzora, despite the fact that being that the metzora is shmu beer, so the Torah was matter and even for the to'ei in the keri. Reuven said, "Well, if Rabbi Akiva said so, it was resolved." And after Akiva said so, Rabbi Akiva became to'mei meis. Hole of the hotza'a of tuma meis, being that there's a halacha of tuma hotza'a b'tzibur with regards to the issur tuma hotza'a l'ziva, so you can have regarding the issur ziva as well. So, we know the halacha of tuma hotza'a b'tzibur. What does that mean? That means if Reuven of Klal Yisrael or if Reuven of the Kohanim, but the classic example of Reuven of Klal Yisrael became to'mei meis, even though ordinarily a korban can't be carried b'tuma, in this case, tuma hotza'a b'tzibur took precedence. We'll see more about that in a minute, but the korban is allowed to be brought. But that halacha was only said regarding tumas meis. It's a gezeiras hakasav. Other tumas, that was the chachmei dorim, one of the more complicated often earlier in the mesechta, the ziknei dorim, where there's an idea that it's only true for tumas meis, it's not true for another tuma. Meaning, if Reuven of Klal Yisrael would be to'mei tumas zav, just so happened, you wouldn't have the halacha of tuma hotza'a b'tzibur. But Rabbi Yosef said, "If there's a svara of hole of the history history, then maybe you could say that if Reuven of Klal Yisrael became to'mei tumas zav and then afterwards they became to'mei tumas meis, say hole of the history tuma hotza'a b'tzibur on the tumas meis, say hole of the history as well on the tumas zav." Amrei Abaye, Abaye said, "Be dummy. To'mei ish taroi, ziva lo ish taroi." When do you say hole of the history history? If the thing that the Torah was matter came first, then you could say hole of the history on something that came second. What was Rabbi Yosef's example of where he wanted to apply hole of the history history? If Klal Yisrael were Reuven zavim and afterwards they became Reuven to'mei meis, you can't say if the first tuma was something that's not history, then when something comes later, now it's going to be matter d'kameisa. Rashi says that the svara of hole of the history history is basra l'chumra l'chumra kameisa. If the first one is the history, but in Rabbi Yosef's case, it's the second one that's the history. So, the Gemara says, "Amrei Sa'ih, let's tweak it. Don't have to come out so Reuben to my Mason and ask who's up and who chooses the muscle which chooses the awesome. And if you have me, you're right. The Nafka Mina wouldn't be if they cry so was first right of Zahir and afterwards it became rough to my Mason because there it's the first one that's not history. You need the first one to be the history. It would be in the other case where cry so was right to my Mason then they became right of Zahir. You'll say it's right how of the history history. On my way he said in and I can have me that's what you come out of this is right how of the history history regarding the Matzah and the 12 young men and makes the sense to say the same exact story of cry so was first right to my Mason and afterwards they became right of Zahir. The Gomorrah says is it still to still is a mocha that just because Rula said how of the history history regarding the Matzah and the 12 young men to carry that he would say the same thing regarding cry so of a cat to light on me. Why Matzah had to roll who Matzah to enter the Harabias and to be able to do the Matzah and behind this in the Zahir if you hold beer and mix the small beer. That's hot chocolate meaning the turn never answered the Matzah to enter the Matzah and my crush. Although there's an idea of Thomas not allowed to enter the Matzah and my crush, but there's a hot chocolate there's an exception to the rule so to speak. As relates to the Matzah there's no wisdom. Where something is hot chocolate kind of the Gomorrah maybe you could say how of the history history, but Thomas when cry so of Thomas and the luck is you could bring the current Matzah. It's not the Matzah that is no issue Thomas that would be guy government of added this in the Matzah, but there's a trio carbon fiber has the ability to be the highest of Thomas. So, maybe when do you say how of the history history that's where it's a terror. How of the history history, but Thomas light right light right is it just because it's true that all of this right of the history history maybe it's true for Matzah and for young men to carry because Matzah is hot chocolate. So, being that it's hot chocolate for Matzah it's hot chocolate for young men to carry, but Thomas which is the choir maybe when something is the choir you don't say how of the history history. Maybe you only say when it's hot chocolate. You don't I would true. rather say I'd rather I think it's to be just the opposite if I'm must have say that they are all the story I think it makes more sense in to say how the history history when something's true rather than when it's a true. So we have a by the way rather does it make more sense to say the story of how the history history by a true or does it make more sense to say the story of how the history by a true again what's the difference true means the issue was never said because I got true means this was said you just have a clear like for example I say I say I say combine the it's not the shot when a person is wearing is no combine you're being over the combine you're also being the so you have to pick which one you wanted you want to be over that say you'll be over the say so we say I say the say which is the that the issue was never said what's the classic issue the never asked the issue the issue so we have a when is it more to say how the history history is it more to say it by a is it more to say it by a the matter could you could you say the story of how the history history that he said regarding the for you to carry to the of to more to you where class with Mason then they became could you say how the history history but the says one thing you see clearly I clearly were both of the opinion to more to you because really the in where the to more to more to you if to more to you then it's the same case then there's no difference between the two cases the and the for you to carry and the of Tommy Mason the the whole is that being that they are here it's is it a is it a by your head a super one way rather had a super one way the other way both above are you know real leave that for the one that but the bottom line is is there's presupposing that to more to you that's clear even though it's a in by the way that is the even though people always quote to more to you but really the is to more But, we have there's an important rush regarding to be to be but that's not our so to you the right there lay more Messiah so again we have Ulla who said in the name of a of Thomas witness with like Tommy would take his hands into the he would get why because a Tommy is not allowed to enter the and even how does he know that he's being just like and again so to a beer a beer is so says the we have a riot to this call take every single time Smicha was done so the first that was done with a carbon was Smicha it was not even before the so the Smicha and the would happen in succession it was take with Smicha Smicha immediately after the Smicha the Smicha was done with one exception the exception is the carbon that the used to bring beyond meaning with because where did the stand when he did the Smicha in meaning until he brought the from the and from the as a result of the when he did the Smicha he was standing in where was the done and had to be done in the not just any part of the he's bringing has to be done in so it can't be taken so it can't be taken because there's going to be a little bit of time that it's going to take from going where the is in until the so says the price of call us there's one Smicha in the world that couldn't go take of the in the world that couldn't go take of the in the world is the that in the that the used to bring because being that he's he has no ability to do the and as a result you can't do it we have a now if you're going to be what's the problem well now the most smart. Why can't you just stand in China and stick his hands into the Azara and let him do this miracle and then as soon as he does this miracle, you'll do the schita. Why does the animal have to be in China? Why can't he stick his hands into the Azara and do it right there? So I think who holds that the didn't soften has to be remember there were three sheets of the definition of soften is again this is one of the that we have to internalize but the hood of sheet the was that soften means literally it had to be parallel to the Rashi says it's 22 away from the China. So even if and it's true that a lot of stick his hands into the Azara but still it's 22 it's five to not going to be taken for as a result that's the have no right from the fact that you couldn't do take it the that be the small beer. Cuz maybe I'll tell you small beer but it's not going to make a difference because it's still going to take time. Now China was on the measure of side of the Azara. As a result it took time to get from China until the soften part of the the most cash is that the if could have stood on the soften side of the Azara. Now the truth there was no shower by the soften side but make a shower. We have a fish. Make a little bit of a shower there. Let him stick his hands in. If it'll be soften cuz he's going to be parallel to the and immediately you'll be able to do it. And we learn from there that it's not a you can't hire an architect and start designing the it had to be done based on the God have mercy, to David Hamelach, says so it had to be it had to follow that blueprint. And if it didn't follow that blueprint, it would be a problem. Being that there was no didn't have a shayar over there, so you couldn't make a shayar on the tzafon side. The only shayar was on the mizrach side. That shayar miknah shayar miknah is too far. And that's why regardless if you hold beer bamitzvah shma beer if you hold beer bamitzvah lo shma beer, there's no way to make it happen. They could have been some sort of different teretz. Again, the we were bringing a raya that beer bamitzvah shma beer from the fact that there's no take of a smicha shchita. Ordinarily, smicha shchita. But by the metzora, there's no take of the smicha shchita. Why? Because he has to do smicha shayar miknah. The Gemara thought that's a raya that what? Beer bamitzvah shma beer. Cuz beer bamitzvah lo shma beer, do it in the azar. So, the first teretz the Gemara gave was it's not a raya. Cuz even if you could do it in the azar, it's not going to be tzafon. Because Homani Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehuda, he holds that tzafon has to be literally al yarech hamizbeach. But the emes is, we had a Shitas Rebbi. He's one of the three shitas man who argues with Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda. He holds the entire tzafon part of the azara. Not only towards the ulam and the heichal, even in the other direction is always considered tzafon. So, according to Rebbi, this price shouldn't be true. Rebbi Yosi wasn't happy with that. So, am Rebbi Yosi Rebbi Yosi said, I can make this work even according to Rebbi. Meaning even according to Rebbi that holds that tzafon extends all the way to the edge of the azara, which would allow you to do a take of the smicha shchita. Cuz Rashi says that the shaar miknah, even though it was on the mizrach, it was 10 amos wide, five amos were on the tzafon side, and five amos were on the darom side. So, as a result, technically you could have made it work. But still, Rebbi Yosi says kol asur mikol shehu b'ruban machnis. The way you do smicha is you don't just stand there with your hands, you know, your back straight, shoulders back, and you do smicha. You have to do it with the ganz ganz keich. Kol kocho be'eino. He'll get a shiver. It's not possible. Because if you're going to go in with your whole koach, then already it's not just going to be beer bamitzvah. Oh, that already is not an option. So, either the reason the metzora can't do it is because it's just not going to be tzafon, or the reason the metzora can't do it is is cuz kol kocho be'eino. But regardless, you have no raya to beer bamitzvah shma beer. It could be beer bamitzvah lo shma my beer. Still, it would make sense that there was no way to accomplish a take of the Smichos Shchita. But the Gemara asks another kasha. We're saying that even though there's a din of take of the Smichos Shchita ordinarily, but the metzora b'shmini sh'lo is the exception cuz there's no way for him to make it work. Perfect. I don't understand. Eka so Smichos Asher Metzora d'Oraisa. So if we hold that the Smicha that the metzora did on the korban Asher is mid'Oraisa, the take of the Smichos Shchita d'Oraisa, and you hold that the din take of the Smichos Shchita is also d'Oraisa, layo l'ma Smich, l'hagya, then just do a regular Smicha d'Rachmana Amar. Cuz then the Torah says it's okay. I mean, is this the only problem with the metzora? The metzora is a machna l'via. He's sticking his hands into it. The metzora is anyways doing things that really he shouldn't be able to do. That was the first part of the daf, how you have a history. So why don't we say the same thing over here? Like what's going on over here? You tell me I hear you have a timtzo where you can't have a take of the Smichos Shchita. Why not? Because how's the metzora going to do Smicha? I hear. But l'chura, if there's a din Smicha, if that's d'Oraisa, and take of the Smichos Shchita is also d'Oraisa, then just say that. Dosch sh'tain Torah that obviously it's okay. Amra Rabba bar Masna, g'zeira sh'ma b'tzi. You're right, mid'Oraisa you really could do it. It's only mid'Rabbanan. It's a g'zeira. We're afraid that if the metzora would go in, b'chol kocha, you'll enter completely to tzafen, and he would do his Smicha. What happens if he takes an extra step in the wrong direction? He's already going to be getting involved in chayevei krisos. They just didn't want him in. But an achana ami, mid'Oraisa he should. In other words, yesh koach b'yad chachamim l'hachzir doven atara b'sheva eisav. He's right to talk about that. We'll see if we have time. Yikadmei yoma d'Rav Adda bar Masna, Smichas Asher Metzora d'Oraisa. Maybe you could say that it's true Smichas Asher Metzora d'Oraisa, but the take of the Smichos Shchita lav d'Oraisa. But halacha of take of the Smichos Shchita is not d'Oraisa. What's the kasha? If If Smichas Asher Metzora d'Oraisa, and take of the Smichos Shchita is d'Oraisa, so just do it. Yeah, it's going to be true if they're both d'Oraisa. Amra Rabba bar Masna, take of the Smichos Shchita is not d'Oraisa. That's why there's no way to be matir. But the Gemara says, how can you tell me take of the smicha shchita is not de oraisa? Meisfay, we had a braisa on daf lamed beis on the alley of the summer of shchita. Mas smicha b'taharah, mas shchita b'taharah. We have a lot of de oraisa. Bitmayim nami mishkacha's law. So remember we had a braisa that said that smicha has to be b'taharah. Now how do you know smicha has to be b'taharah? So Rashi spoke out on the top of daf lamed beis amud beis. And Rashi speaks to that over here as well. That the makor that smicha has to be b'taharah is because of the din take of the smicha shchita. And being that the shchita has to be immediately after the smicha, obviously only a tahor could do smicha. Because a tamei can't do smicha in a place where immediately you're going to be able to do the shchita. But al kol panim, we see from here that the halacha of take of the smicha shchita is de oraisa. Because the halacha that smicha has to be b'taharah is de oraisa. And that's all predicated on the halacha that take of the smicha shchita. So it clearly is de oraisa. Says the Gemara, you're right. Al eipach, smicha is asham metzora not de oraisa. But take of the smicha shchita is de oraisa. It's true. Both halachos are not de oraisa. Because if both halachos were de oraisa, go ahead and do smicha. Which one is not the de oraisa? It's smicha's asham metzora. That's not de oraisa. Take of the smicha shchita is. Why would smicha's asham metzora not be de oraisa? So Rashi gives a reason, the bottom Rashi. K'seder inner b'chol shaar asham eirav inner b'chol ha'akshanim. Because the asham metzora served a different purpose than an ordinary asham. Ordinary asham was a m'chaper. But this asham wasn't brought as a head. It was brought to be machsher the metzora to allow him to eat kodesh, etc. So being that it's coming for hechsher, it's not treated like an ordinary asham. Even though an ordinary asham has a din smicha, this asham is not going to have a din smicha. In other words, the Gemara had asked two kashas. Just uh summarize this amud. The Gemara brought a braisa that said kol as smicha she hoyu sham, all smichas koidam ni'alain take of the smicha shchita. Chutz m'metzora, with the exception of the metzora b'shmini sh'lay, being that it was bashar niknar, so there was no way to do the schita immediately after the smicha. And essentially the gemara has two questions. First kasha the gemara asks is if a mitzvah why couldn't he stick his hands in into the azara and do the schita right then and there? The teretz is two teretzim. Number one, like Yehuda, being that we're having an asham and an asham needs something and only the bechor is something. Shaar Niknar is the eastern entrance it's 22 amos away from the mizbeach. So it's not going to be taken with the smicha schita. Alternatively, the gemara said that the way smicha works is called kocha and it's not possible to do kocha. It would be kocha by definition means it's going to have to be a that was the first question and the two teretzim that the gemara gave. The second kasha the gemara asks is that if there's a halacha that the asham of the metzora needed smicha and there's a halacha of taking a smicha schita, then why would you just say it's mutar? Let the dinay d'oraita suggest that it's mutar. After that, the gemara said one of two things. Either you have to say zera shmaya it's true d'oraita should be okay. It's only it's not okay. Or you have to say that one of those two things are not d'oraita. Which one's not d'oraita? You can't tell me it's not d'oraita. So it must be asham metzora that's the din that's not d'oraita. And we began with the daf with a summary of daf lamed bet on this which was the gemara's kasha on Rishlakish who holds asham from the metzora shmini shalayim who is better of a pesach. If he became a yom on that same day, so the halacha is it's okay for him to go through the tahara. I ate yom enter the mikdash. You'll be because of pesach. The asher because that's for yom. The gemara's kasha was so what is for yom doing that's because. But if it's asham that means he's bringing because when he sticks his hands into the mocking mik in the azara that's a beer and that's already a heavy crystal. The highest issue is because highest issue is because of the most first carrots. Well, history history. You know how much second carrots leaning mouth goes it might this finish of beer and mix this small beer was only said with regards to mouth this. It was never said with regards to carrots. That was Mishnah Gishas Russian. Omar rule Omar Mishnah Gishas Thomas and the other day with him like he never said carrots. What he said was like he said that there's going to be mouth this and it is no carrots if no carrots. It's not an association by carrots. All it is is a mouth this. So you have to I say the Pesach that's a yesh by carrots. It could be the I say and maybe the lo is I say with mouth this but it's still not an association by carrots of the entering Mach Nishkin of beer and mix this Havdala if he enters with the Ganza Ganz guy. That's heavy crystals but even the finish of beer and mix this small beer that's Ravina's finish was only said with regards to mouth this. It was never said with regards to heavy crystals. Either way the Gamar is going to go now make in the Indian by oyster Indian which is going to take us through the flood of the island but before we go lighter two hours. Number one so we have here a Sugya of beer and mix this small beer. That mean nature in a truthful. It's in the area there cinnamon tough noon was asked the Shaila. The Shaila was asked was that there was a year who said that he's been to Yerushalayim and he saw the Yoshe of Yerushalayim they stick their hands they even put pitlach into the cracks in the Kosel HaMa'aravi. And he wanted to know why that's okay. The beer and mix this small beer and then it is the Halacha of Mishnah Gishas Rambam writing and the Rambam paskins beer and mix this small beer. So he wanted to know the Shitas of Ravina. You have to be careful of that. How you let us stick your hands into the cracks of the Kosel HaMa'aravi? The beer and mix this small beer. So I mean nature says that really it's a very loaded question and there's many different Halachas that the Shaila was assuming in his question. So we're not going to go through his true view. Actually, he has four simanim on this shul. It's Tof Nun, Tof Nun Alef, Tof Nun Bet, Tof Nun Gimmel. It's an Arichus Noira on this Sugya. But, he says, number one, the Halacha B'Beis Hamikdash Mar Bia that you find in Shas, it's the Gemara that we just learned, was said with regards to a Bia in Machaneh Shechina. Right, what's the case? The Metzora who's sticking his behinus into the Azara. We're discussing a Bia B'Beis Hamikdash into the Azara. May he taste it as a Halacha of Bia B'Beis Hamikdash when it comes to Machaneh Leviya. Right, Machaneh Shechina you find it. But, by Machaneh Leviya, lo matzil. Number one. Number two, he says that who said the Oiveh HaKoisel of the Koisel HaMaaravi is considered already a Bia. Maybe you're on the outside. Who said that's inside? What was the case of the Shul Niknor with the Metzora stuck his hands into the Azara. Over here now in the Azara, you toich the Oiveh HaKoisel. So, may he taste it that's even going to be a Bia B'Beis Hamikdash. But, one thing is clear that the Nizzar presupposed in this whole true view. And that is that entering, going beyond, going on the other side of the Koisel HaMaaravi would constitute not entering the Azara. It would constitute entering the Har Habayis. And that's based on a Mesora that we have that the Koisel HaMaaravi is not the Cheimas Azara. It's the Cheima of the Har Habayis. And as a result, the other side of the Koisel HaMaaravi is Machaneh Leviya. So, it would be a Shul of Bia B'Beis Hamikdash on Machaneh Leviya. And thus, quite the opposite in Nizzar. In Shas, you find Bia B'Beis Hamikdash regarding Machaneh Shechina. You don't find it with regards to Machaneh Leviya. So, he says that's one of the things that we have to be mevarer in this very, very lengthy true view. We have to determine whether it's going to be Halacha Bia B'Beis Hamikdash. But, Al Ko Panim, that's what's clearly understood in the Nizzar true view. And the Mesora says that most people know that. That the Koisel HaMaaravi was not the Koisel of the Azara, but it was the Koisel HaHar Habayis. Meaning, when we walk up, we're in that square right in front of the Koisel. You're not standing on the Har Habayis. To the contrary, you're on you're on the wrong side of the Har Habayis. The Mesora says that Moshe Feinstein in a true view, if you want to look it up, it's the last chuva in Chaim Chelek so Moishe it's discusses it in the end of the chuva. He says this referring to the Kodesh Hamaravi. And he probably or he says maybe it was the Kodesh Hazara unbelievable. And he says there's a reason going to have to meet us. Someone that stopped me. We're all going to be nice today. Are you allowed to go to the Kodesh and not allowed to go to the Kodesh? If it's the Kodesh Hazara, that means when you go to the Kodesh you're standing on the Har Habayis. Some of us are not allowed to go to the Har Habayis. If it's the Kodesh of the Har Habayis, then it's going to be okay. So he says what can we do about Kodesh? And then he says that the going to be scared of it. So all of them are going to Kodesh Hamaravi. He says maybe he's heard that the going to be going to go to the Kodesh because of the Kodesh Hamaravi. He says maybe that's what he was worried about. Maybe the Kodesh wasn't certain that it's the Kodesh of the Har Habayis. Maybe it's the Kodesh of the Hazara. So entering the Har Habayis, you're dealing with some serious issues over here. But Moishe says let me tell you Kodesh Hamaravi and all of them are going to Kodesh Hamaravi. So I'm going to go to Kodesh Hamaravi. Moishe how could you argue with the Kodesh? The Kodesh is that you didn't for hundreds and hundreds of years have been going to the Kodesh Hamaravi and we should now suddenly be certain that maybe this Kodesh is wrong and maybe we're all going to be nice and we're going to go on the Har Habayis, a place that we're not allowed to go. So it says Moishe Kodesh Hamaravi and Hazara and all of them are going to Kodesh Hamaravi. So the Kodesh Hamaravi is not the Kodesh Hazara. Rather it's the Kodesh Hamaravi. That's the first part. The second part is going backwards just to lighten it up a little bit. So the Kodesh we began this morning discuss Kodesh Hamaravi and Hazara. And the Kodesh Hazara is Hazara. >> Tosis makes a valid point in this Sugya. Tosis says that from the Gemara it's Mefuar that not only is a woman allowed to Shecht Kodshim, but it's even Lekatchila. It's not even Bedieved. Lekatchila if an Isha wants to do it, there's no reason to stop her from doing it. How does he know that? So Tosis makes a beautiful Pshat of a Hazmanah Gemara. Because the Gemara asks the Kushya, Kol Ba'al P'sulim She Shachtu Shchitasin Pesula. It sounds like Bedieved and Lekatchila what? And what does the Gemara say? Why did it say Bedieved? Agav Tamei. Because a Tamei is only allowed to Shecht Bedieved because we're afraid that he might touch the Basar. So Tosis, why did the Gemara say that the reason it said Bedieved was Agav Nashim? So Tosis says Tosis that an Isha is allowed to Shecht Lekatchila. And Tosis says if that's the case, Mikanchuvar. This is a Taino on Maseches Dechufes Eretz Yisrael. The Nashim Lo Yishchatu. There's a Sefer, it's called Hilchos Eretz Yisrael. And in Hilchos Eretz Yisrael it says that a woman shouldn't Shecht even Chulin. Mipnei She Da'atan Kalos. Says Tosis, it can't be. Because in our Mishna, in our Sugya it's Mefuar that not only is a woman allowed to Shecht, she can even Shecht Kodshim. So if she can Shecht Kodshim, Kal Va'chomer she should be able to Shecht Chulin. This Tosis, which is the first Tosis in the third Perek of Maseches Sukka, is also the very first Tosis in Maseches Sukka. The first Tosis in Sukka on the Beis Medrash Tosis starts. The Mishna says, Hakol Shochelin Be Shchitasin Pesula. That's of course discussing Shchitas Chulin. Says Tosis, Kasuv Be Hilchos Eretz Yisrael, The Nashim Lo Yishchatu Mipnei She Da'atan Kalos. Says Tosis, Ve'ein Erer. Da'afilu Be Mikdashin Shochelin Lekatchila. Kidamyan Perkol Ba'al P'sulim, Kol Ba'al P'sulim She Shachtu. Tosis brings this Raya that he brings Raya over here in the beginning of the third Perek. So what exactly is this Hilchos Eretz Yisrael? Hilchos Eretz Yisrael says that women are not allowed to Shecht even Chulin. Tosis says it's wrong, but there's some Sefer called Hilchos Eretz Yisrael. Where is it exactly? So if you take a look at the Mordechai, and again, also right in the beginning of Maseches Sukka, so the Mordechai quotes this Hilchos Eretz Yisrael. And he adds one line, #restofthestory. Says the Mordechai Kotsker Boruch, "Rashi quotes the Hilchos Shchita Shehevi Reb Eldad ben Machli haba me'aseres hashvatim." Omar, he said, "Yeshua said mi pi Moshe mi pi hagvurah." A whole list of Hilchos Shchita. And one of the things that he wrote in his Hilchos Shchita was that an uncircumcised person is supposed to shecht. And the Mordechai says exactly what Tosafos says, "It's not true based on this raya from the Gemara in the beginning of perek Kol Ha'Olam Kulo." So what's the rest of the story? What exactly was Hilchos Aretz Yisrael? It was delivered "Hevi Reb Eldad ben Machli haba me'aseres hashvatim" who had this sefer as a mesorah from Yeshua bin Nun who heard it from Moshe Rabbeinu who heard it from Hakadosh Baruch Hu b'chvodai uv'atzmi. So who exactly is this Eldad ben Machli? So the truth is Eldad ben Machli is also known as Eldad Hadani. And his story has actually been chronicled. There's books and seforim that have been written about Eldad Hadani. It's a fascinating story. It's dramatic. It reads rather excitingly. But the the synopsis is is he lived during the 9th century. And he shows up one day into the Haimisher Kreis and he says he's coming from Eastern Africa. He said he lives together with the rest of his shevet, shevet Dan. He says that when the aseres hashvatim were taken into galus, they survived the initial exile. And he said there's four shvatim that live together, Dan, Asher, Gad, and Naftali. He himself is from Dan. And he told the story. Said that him and one of his tribesmen from shevet Asher decided that they're going to travel the world together. So they go out together on a ship. The ship was taken captive by cannibals. He says that his friend, who was from shevet Asher, was a much bigger person than he was. And as a result, the cannibals did what they had to do with him. They ate him. Said he was a skinny person, so they weren't interested in him. They threw him him a pit and they fed him day after day after day, and they were going to fatten him up, and then eventually they were going to eat him. My sister a group of pagans, people that worship fire come, and they take over this village of cannibals. They take him into captivity. One thing led to another, he was sold. He somehow got out free. He made a few shackles, and now he's touring the world. But the point is, he shows up and he starts telling people his story. He tells them about how they give him his blessing where he comes from. He talks about the song and he has these fantastic tales that he was telling about the and most people accepted what he had to say. Not just that, he came with his primarily were it's it's what is it is cool in the basement of places in the walking down from the base. The market is what all the code is cool in the basement. It came from the it's this merchant who came allegedly from It's interesting that the in so that over there says that he found that something about so he says I'll tell you I'm going to tell you a rule. If you want to look it up, it's possible that close to the movie of my movie and this my age by the machine at the trust anything unless it was written by and so waste of time. Don't trust the It's not reliable. It's not a good source. Says the I'll give you a few examples. I'll give you a few examples. Say become the and so that code say for not to rely on it. It sounds like we're relying on it. The work you want to They held it was marriage and it was silly and it was Why they quoting it? So obviously they gave it some credibility. They gave it some hashivus, but either way, you want to know the rest of the story, that's the story of Eldad and Doni. A little bit more Gemara than a lot more Rashi. Talk to Gemara v'aita. So, we had here a halacha of Ulla in the name of Reish Lakish. What was the halacha? It says "b'chol kodshim lo yisaig v'lo l'mikdash lo yisav." So, we're makish n'giya l'viya. Just like n'giya b'niktzas, sh'mo n'giya. You don't have to touch kodshim with your entire guf in order to be over the issur of "b'chol kodshim lo yisaig." So, too, viya b'niktzas, d'halacha is sh'mo viya. Says the Gemara, "Kyayser Rabbin Amram b'Rav Avuha in Yoma Mishnah b'Kodshim itmar." Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael and he said he heard from Rav Avuha who heard from Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish lived in Eretz Yisrael that people quote this Reish Lakish wrong. People think that Reish Lakish learned from that pasuk a halacha b'viya b'niktzas. Reish Lakish never said viya b'niktzas sh'mo viya. Not b'n'giya kores, not even b'n'giya malkus. That wasn't Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish said a whole different halacha. What did he say? "Dei mai tamei sh'naiga b'kodesh?" If a tamei touches kodshim, Reish Lakish might like to argue with Rav Yochanan like Reish Lakish like Reish Lakish said that if a tamei touches kodshim, he gets malkus because it says "b'chol kodshim lo yisaig." Rav Yochanan like it. "Hu b'truma itmar." That pasuk is discussing truma. Meaning, if a tamei touches kodshim, he is Does he get malkus or does he not get malkus? According to Reish Lakish, he gets malkus. "B'chol kodshim lo yisaig." What does kodshim mean? What the man on the street probably would think it means. "P'ri v'koidesh v'lo sh'n'kodesh." It's the same shoresh, right? According to Reish Lakish, it's right. According to Rav Yochanan, it's wrong. Rav Yochanan says when it says "b'chol kodshim," it means truma. Rav Yochanan has a raya from the Sukkot that brings truma. "Ay, shouldn't you say kal v'chomer?" Rashi says "No, im azharim n'dadim, ein azharim n'dadim." So, it's true. If a tamei would touch truma, he would get malkus. But, if a tamei would touch kodshim, he would not get malkus. Reish Lakish says the Gemara, "Ay, k'lala hu d'hasa." Is that true that that pasuk "b'chol kodshim" is it's to tell me that a tamei is not allowed to touch kosher. Had by the possible I needed to teach me something else. I needed to tell me that a tummy is not allowed to eat kosher. Not that a tummy is not allowed to touch kosher, but rather that a tummy is not allowed to eat kosher. Now, isn't every time you eat something, aren't you touching it? It's the same as this kosher. And this says it's possible to eat something without touching it if it's base up there. But either way, that's the kosher. How can you tell me hold the coming to tell me a zero and a Marcus for a tummy that touches kosher? I needed to teach me in a zero What's that? How did you know that a tummy is not allowed to eat possible kosher? Says it's this possible. Rabbi Rabbi says tummy badly heard from the bad door. You must be this doing that from the from the issue that a tummy has to enter the base of my honest for his there. Just like a tummy if he enters the base of his high gods. But initially there, if a tummy enters the base of kosher, he also gets Marcus. There's an a zero of can. So to a tummy that eats kosher, just like he's high of kosher, so too there's going to be an a zero on ash for his there. But the bottom line is, what do we need from this? We need one thing. Rabbi Rabbi says the said rather than heard from learned from the like seeing an a zero that a tummy is not allowed to touch kosher. And here we have a messier that what did Rabbi learn from the like seeing that a tummy is not allowed to eat kosher. The kosher can't learn both a zeros from the same possible. So which one is it? Says the it's really both. I how could you learn two things? So the says tummy should not get kosher. Now you have an a zero in this possible that a tummy is not allowed to touch kosher. With the after that from the fact that you use the washing machine. I saw the what's the a zero with the kosher from the fact that we're Marcus kosher with Marcus as a result you end up having both. But the bottom line is is from the fact that Tyro used the washing machine, so that's how he suffered. And not only do you see from here and Azora that a tummy is not allowed to eat kosher, but you also have an alacha that a tummy is not allowed to touch kosher. So that's the Gamorah Tanya Kavasay the Rish Lakish. Says the boy Siga Kodesh the Mikdash not So the tummy that enters the base of Mikdash is highly careless. I've Kodesh And if the possuk is talking about tummy merely touching the kosher and not eating the kosher The only time you have careless is by here you don't have it by Negiah. Elemai must be that the possuk is referring to a tummy shall offer the Kodesh. So what is this? It's the Tanya Kavasay to one of the two things Rish Lakish said. Rish Lakish learned from the whole Kodesh Siga say in Azora to a tummy shall not have the Kodesh and say in Azora to a tummy shall offer the Kodesh. We have here a Mafurash of rice that the whole Kodesh Siga is an Azora for tummy shall offer Kodesh, but it's Tanya Kavasay to Rish Lakish and and the sense that Rish Lakish was the one who learned from the whole Kodesh Siga of the car that a tummy is not allowed to eat kosher. Rabbi learned that Asia to Masa to Masa Either way, going back to some of the rates we were talking about before and that is the alachas of Shrita. So the Mishna says that Kol Apuslin shall Shachtu Shitas Shira Shash Krita Shira Bizorin Ubinochin Ubavodin Ubiteme. So all Apuslin are allowed to do Shrita. And the Mishna gives an example of some of the Apuslin Zorin Nochin Avodin Ubiteme. Now one of the women the mission mentions is not to remember when we started the second paragraph so we mentioned the here the mission to discuss all the that are not allowed to do they can't do they can't do the mission gave a whole list of absolute colors should be more than the garden came up with my whole list of and what did the mission not mention? So what happened to so we spoke out they said in the that based on the the says that what's the definition of a a is there a so just like someone that is is considered a so too someone that is a child of a but not a in other words a past is also going to be a in other words so once the mission says she don't you don't have to say in our mission you have to say why do you have to say because our mission is mentioning the that are so is but you would have thought that maybe has a commercial that is and when you say is possible I know possible too because it's a but when I say it doesn't necessarily mean that is that's why the mission has to say and by the way as well don't think that's something you could think of when it comes to them I'm going to the mission really has as well on the base didn't mention a word about the mission of the base mentions but that's the mission that discusses the that are but the mission discusses the that are possible mentions but the mission over there did not mention stating that is another mission is a mission that the mission says as follows as the the the the that I could always have a miracle that I could always have a choice puts me in sight of the division gives a whole list of that I know about the way it's not a mission but it talked away. It's a mission that is a whole the says pick a few to do how do you know that women can't do so I'm talking about that is the Israel the Israel Haggadah shows how do you know a woman can't do a Haggadah so you started talking about Aaron but Aaron the makes so good to each one of the that I mentioned in that mission over there how do you know that a woman is not allowed to do the entire and my problem is why do you need a problem to tell me that a woman can't do a paper grade the mission paper grade all of this is it's my girl so I know you guys are good to see the top of the Israel I don't know you know what they had to be done during the day I would have to allow to be done at night so all of what I do is had to be done during the day that means that I would have to mix this I say I don't know if it's a mix of my girl always why do I need but you know what I got for this and for that paper grade it's all a mix of my girl and it gives a I heard many years ago from my mission later he said it I believe the Malcolm said it over and over said that the moral says what's the how do we know that part of the mission so it's okay not a part of the mission so the moral says you know how you know that we know that because are part of from tell me and being that a part of from tell me they're part of from tell listen to the because feeling is tell me what's the heck is it says not which is Talmud Torah. Uksev basrei ukshaltum lo is ayotcha. Rashi in Maseches Kidushin So, once you know the Nashim patur from Talmud Torah, you know they're patur from tefillin. Tefillin gomel al me Talmud Torah. Ma Talmud Torah Nashim pturim, so too is tefillin Nashim pturim. And once we know that Nashim patur from tefillin, and tefillin is a mitzvas asei shehazman gerama, so that teaches me to all mitzvas asei shehazman gerama the Nashim are going to be patur. So, that's the rest of the story. You know that Nashim patur from mitzvas asei shehazman gerama, it's all worked out from tefillin. Nashim patur from tefillin, tefillin is a mitzvas asei shehazman gerama, pturim since nobody wears tefillin during the day. Number two, you don't wear tefillin on Shabbos. So, tefillin is a mitzvas asei shehazman gerama, and Nashim are patur. So, we learn from there, it's a big enough that Nashim are going to be patur from all mitzvas asei shehazman gerama. Now, how do you know that Nashim are patur from tefillin? Because it's ishkash leTalmud Torah, and we know that Nashim are patur from Talmud Torah. Said the Malbim, "Macharishus. We know the rule is that in kodshim, dover halomed behekesh einu chozer umelamed." It's a halacha pesuka, it's a halacha leMoshe miSinai, that when it comes to kodshim, a dover halomed behekesh, something that I only know miklal a hekesh, can't be chozer umelamed. So, said the Malbim, "What's the miklal of mitzvas asei shehazman gerama? It's a dover halomed behekesh that's chozer umelamed. Tefillin is worked out hekesh from Talmud Torah, and that's now going to teach me to kol haTorah kulah. That only works for shaar parshiyos in the Torah. But, by kodshim, dover halomed behekesh is einu chozer umelamed. So, if that's the case that by kodshim you don't have the halacha of mitzvas asei shehazman gerama, Nashim are going to be patur." So, the Malbim said, "That's the teirutz? That's kasha. Teirutz as a kasha? Why do I need to tell me that Nashim are patur from doing avodah? Typically, it's a mitzvas asei shehazman gerama." So, if the Malbim, "There's no mitzvas asei shehazman gerama when it comes to kodshim, because mitzvas asei shehazman gerama is a dover halomed behekesh that's chozer umelamed. And by kodshim, dover halomed behekesh is einu chozer umelamed." So, the Shach was moisef based on the that we spoke out only a few weeks ago. Tosfos Kidushin asks a very, very famous kasha, One of the most famous question in Shas. Kidushin tes the more of there says mitzvah only fathers are mothers are what's the first one Mila. So a father has an obligation to mouth his son not a mother. How do you know that? It's a possible. It says so it's a father's not a mother's great question. Why do you need a possible tell me that a mother doesn't have an obligation to mouth his son? Typically it's a mission of a why is it a mission of a bonus we do in the day number two be a solo it's a classic quintessential mission so why do I need a possible tell me that a mother don't have to do for their son that so because we spoke out the guy in the magic with the magic says I have to do with the magic that just like there's a lot of man it's only magic of the lots of the same is true when it comes to a child then other be a magic meaning email in the guy in the says that there's a deep guy in this magic you know what the deep guy is when you do this Mila you being magic with a carbon the child is a carbon that's why the Sunday is like a magic of the Taurus and that's why there's a lot of that that we have been has to be standing by the mile cuz there's a lot of actively the magic there's a lot of that he has to be standing there the carbon has to be that's why the my mother that's the beginning of the fourth paragraph of but the bottom line is is that Mila's question oh Mila's question there's no magic of cuz it's a double element of in the language of the one last and that is places over there and that of all of this one is base the first one is the bottom places this is the top places base a much smaller places places ask another question we have a mission that mentions all the avoiders that notions are excluded from and the more of token for each individual avoiders great places why I need a to tell me that a woman can't do the avodah? In order to do the avodah, you had to wear big day kahuna. Could a woman wear big day kahuna? So, if that's the case, and each is always this man every issue is that this man is always can't do the avodah. It's talking about what she was wearing the big day kahuna. In given the big day kahuna, they have it could be only when there's a to wear the big day kahuna and you're not wearing the big day kahuna. Then there's but being that issue presumably doesn't have the big day kahuna. As a result, as a result, she wouldn't be considered a big day kahuna if she wasn't wearing the big day kahuna. But first the issue the big day kahuna it's talking about what she was wearing the big day kahuna. But in this says I don't understand how could say that it's talking about a woman was wearing the big day kahuna. There's no way a woman could wear big day kahuna. It's not possible. The Torah says a man's not allowed to wear a man's clothing and a man's not allowed to wear a lady's clothing and a lady's not allowed to wear men's clothing. The big day kahuna tied to the big day kahuna was the men's clothing. If it was men's clothing and it's so how could say the issue the big day kahuna the big day kahuna says I don't even understand that can entertain such a possibility. But it still needs to know what would be if she wore so be over the issue but still at the end of the day the avodah would be an avodah. She wouldn't be a big day kahuna. But that's what says the issue. I think that this is a to something that the says in the the tells the to go over there tells the story of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Loi. Every time it says in Shas Ahu Chosid, it's referring to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Loi. And the Gemara there tells a story that Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Loi was very, very poor. He was so poor that him and his wife had one article of clothing that they used to share. And the Gemara says that when Rabbi Yehuda would go outside, he would wear the clothing. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Loi's wife would go outside, she would wear the clothing. And the Gemara says something beautiful. The Gemara says that when Rabbi Yehuda would put on that article of clothing, he would make a brocha, "Boruch sh'asanu el." He felt so blessed. He felt like he had so much. He was so sameach b'chelko that even though he was such an oni v'evyon, he literally had to share one mail, one robe with his wife, but at the same time when he put it on, he would make a brocha b'shem umalchus, "Boruch sh'asanu el." But either way, that's what the Gemara says. Frank, the Marsha, Monashak. Was this beg of a beg of ish or was it a beg of isha? If it was a beg of ish, how was his wife allowed to wear it? And if it was a beg of isha, how was she allowed How was he allowed to wear it? So I beg to differ. Frank, the Marsha, Monashak. Says Tosfos, you have to say that it was a beg that wasn't meyuchad l'ish and it wasn't meyuchad l'isha. And such a beg, anybody is allowed to wear. The It's true. Something that's meyuchad dafka l'ish, an ish is not allowed to wear. Something that's meyuchad dafka l'isha, an isha is not allowed to wear. But something that's lav dafka for an ish or for an isha, so an ish or an isha could wear. Says Rabbi Yisrael Bingle, maybe that's what Chaim Tosfos meant. Maybe Tosfos held there wouldn't be an issur l'yulbash if a woman would wear the bigdei kehuna. Why? Because it wasn't meyuchad l'ish. If it wasn't meyuchad l'ish, at the extent that a woman would have a din to do the avodah, so she'd be allowed to wear the bigadim. She'd be allowed to wear the bigadim. Make a Tosfos there should be an issur l'yulbash. What came to mind was the Ramban that we spoke about. What the Ramban says that these bigdei kehuna were meyuchad l'kohanim. These were the bigadim. Again, something that umolu mikra omri, we'd never be able to say. But it's an unbelievable he says that the big day Kahuna will be garden that the used to wear. So if kings used to wear it, not queens, so maybe you have to know who exactly used to wear it, but either way it's just a little bit of red.