Zevachim 61

The following recording of Daf Samech Aleph is taken from the previous year on Daf Samech and is being presented here again as a standalone recording. For now, what what why are we discussing the Sugya of Tushiya Kitzu Lashaita Kitzu Laslava? It's because the Gemara had discussed the Halacha about Mizbeach Nifkan. So on Daf Nun Tes we learned that the Gemara discussed Mizbeach Nifkan as relates to Shchita. That a Shchita of a Korban is possible if it was done at the time that the Mizbeach was Nifkan. Now we go to Gemara Rabba Lo Azan the bottom of Daf Samech Amud Aleph that Mizbeach Nifkan impacts the Mitzvah of Achilas Kodshim as well. He said it with regards to Shiyurei Mincha. With Gzeira Shava all Kodshei Kodashim. Abaye was Mosef. Abaye said it's true even for Kodshei Kodashim. Oh my Abaye, how do I know that? I know it from Midrash of Rabbi Yosi. I know it from this Braisa. What did you see in this Braisa? That Rabbi Yosi holds that a Bechor cannot be eaten as long as that. And the Gemara spoke out very very clearly in the rather complicated Treishuv. That even if you would have done the Shchita, the Kabala, the Halacha, and the Zerika, and everything at the time that there was a Beis Hamikdash and then the Beis Hamikdash was Charev. So what would happen? What would happen is it would still be it would you wouldn't be able to eat it. Bechor is Kodshei Kodashim. You see you can't eat Bechor which is Kodshei Kodashim if there's no Mizbeach. It's from there Abaye took out this Halacha that not only if there's no Mizbeach at all, but even if the Mizbeach is merely Nifkan, this precedent for the concept of Mizbeach Nifkan as we've seen. So even if it's only Nifkan, it affects all Korbanos, even something like a Bechor. In other words, even Kodshei Kodashim. The Gemara says Kisali Grovin Amora Shmaita Kamei d'Rabbi Yirmiya. So Grovin was one of the Amoraim that famously went to Eretz Yisrael to learn. Spoke at Rabbi Akiva Eiger in the Maseches Zevachim Zevachim that all the Amoraim used to go learn in Eretz Yisrael. There's a Gemara that tells a story with Grovin who was at the port of Haifa. And Rabbi Akiva Eiger says what's Grovin doing in Haifa? Grovin lived in Bavel. So he says why is you know there was a minute people used to go down to Israel to learn. But Rebbe was from the more notable ones. Right, so Rebbe goes from Bavel to Eretz Israel. So usually you have things that Rebbe brought back from Eretz Israel. Right, he also Rebbe and Rebbe Yochanan. He also Rebbe Bibi and Rebbe Yochanan. So this Gemara is just the opposite. So Rebbe goes from Bavel to Eretz Israel and he meets Rebbe Yirmiya. And he tells Rebbe Yirmiya something over from Abaya. So if you know a little bit about Rebbe Yirmiya, Rebbe Yirmiya used to speak down Kaviyochol um the Tamidei Chachamim in Bavel. So Rebbe Yirmiya heard what Abaya said that Abaya held that the Halacha of Basar b'Chalav Nifgam as it relates to Achila of Kodshim applies even to Kodshim Kalim. So he said "Bavloyi Tifsoyi Amtu d'Yosvi b'Ar'a Chashucha." Because they live in a in a dark land. "Am d'Shmeitei d'Machshol." "Lo Shmi'u Lo Had d'Tanya." "How could Abaya say that? Doesn't Abaya know the following Braisos?" Which Braisa of B'Shas of B'Masos is? At the time that the Yidden were in the Midbar, there was a Mishkan. And the Mishkan used to travel. Remember Bais Masos. So at the time that the Mishkan was traveling, meaning it wasn't erect. It was it was in the state of traveling. Kodshim d'Solim. So the Halacha is all Kodshim was Pasul. You couldn't eat Kodshim at that time. And Rashi says it means even if there was a Shchita Kabala d'Halacha d'Zrika and you didn't get a round round to eat your Kodshim yet, once the Mizbei'ach started traveling, you can't eat Kodshim anymore. The Braisa continues and says "V'Zovin U'Mitzrayim Nishkacha Kodshim U'Chitza." That's a very big Chiddush. That the Machanos of Machaneh Shechina, Machaneh Leviya, Machaneh Yisrael that existed when the Yidden were in the Midbar, those Machanos applied even at the time that the Mishkan was traveling. You would have thought that if there's no Mishkan, there's no Machaneh. Machaneh is all relevant to the Mishkan. No, that even if there's no Mishkan, still the Machanos applied. But what we need is the first part. That B'Shas Iluk Masos is Kodshim "Tanya d'Goyim U'Minan d'Braisa B'Shnei Mekomos Kodshim Ne'echalin." That you were able to eat Kodshim B'Shnei Mekomos. Now what does Shnei Mekomos mean? It's very unclear. but said I can tell you what means means whether the mission was erect or whether the mission was traveling now if that's the case you have a sphere you have a price that says you couldn't at the time that the mission was traveling and then you have a price that says and what are the two while it was traveling and while it was erect how do you reconcile the sphere of my love so the only answer is my even though it's far from the first of all of you said I don't understand how could entertain a possibility I buy it wanted to say that impacts even I have a price that says I wish I could do when the mission is standing and side when it's traveling must be that even though there is a mission my size cut from the salon that's cut from the salon cut from the column and I don't know what it says no you can cut from the column maybe both prices discuss the cut from the column the price that says you couldn't eat cut from when the mission was traveling the price that says you could eat the cut from all of the small or a banana what's going to what's going to a banana meaning headed rub a buyer knows a lot that you can eat cut from the column at the time of he learned it from a buyer who said three things in the names of three and one of them was a small meaning it was all top line and I don't know what it a small line there right that was all a small the max but it was all it was a member of a buyer only said in a small meaning a buyer could acknowledge that there's another time in that argues with with a small in a small world this is going to be true but it can ask me a question from a buyer saying cut from the alternative you could say not both are cut from the column but rather both are cut from the and my name is my name is something else my name is doesn't mean that there's no but rather cut from the mission or she have to go have a living in a Mishkan. The means before the living erected the Mishkan after they took the Mishkan down. But what's the punchline? The misbehave was still standing. And it starts over there that it's okay. Meaning the price of that says see look my size cut in the salon. That's talking about the misbehave. This is a dinner misbehave the price of that says that you can eat in the Mishkan could be talking even about such a good ocean. I mean the Mishkan the Mishkan means there's a Mishkan there's no Mishkan but there's a misbehave. That's the point. I have the misbehave what's the whole is that could you eat when the misbehave is here you have the whole misbehave is there because they took down the and the some other part of the Mishkan would have been you shouldn't be able to eat the and very nicely yeah I would have thought it's not I would have thought that when the are taken down then maybe it's considered so maybe there's a loop so so come on that it's not you you when you physically remove the cut outside of the but I will hear you not physically removing anything outside of the what you did was you took down the that's not you I am why not maybe it should be the says and we learn from there even though it's traveling or you might do it's still considered an excellent. Before we go we have some time just one that is that so we learn the on that that but earlier at this morning we had this idea with the stuff in the safety and safety there's many many that describe the now says that those Pessukim that in safety Yechezkel, that describe the Beis Hamikdash, says Rashi, "BeShel Yechezkel." This Rashi was on daf nun tes on the base. "Shenisnavya b'Yom Hashaini, o al ha'asid." Or referring to the Beis Hamikdash of asid. Sounds like Rashi wasn't sure. Rashi's a little bit unclear what those pessukim of Sefer Yechezkel are. The Rambam in Hilchos Beis Habechirah, perek aleph, halacha daled, says very, very clearly. Says, "Binyan Shelomo, the first Beis Hamikdash, Beis Hamikdash that was built by Shelomo Hamelech, from the first from the Torah Shelomo. So the first in Sefer Melachim, the Torah over there talks exactly about how that Beis Hamikdash was built. "D'chein binyan ha'asid l'Yibaneh is in the Bayis Hashlishi, the third Beis Hamikdash, avivish k'zavivish k'Yechezkel." Even though it's mentioned in Sefer Yechezkel, ainam mefurash umeforash. It's a little bit unclear. But, says the Rambam, what is the pessukim of Sefer Yechezkel referring to? It's referring to the binyan ha'asid l'Yibaneh is. Those keilim and that binyan is what's mentioned in Sefer Yechezkel. So the pessukim in Sefer Melachim that talk about the Beis Hamikdash, that's Bayis Rishon. That's Shelomo Hamelech's Beis Hamikdash. The pessukim in Sefer Yechezkel that talk about the Beis Hamikdash, that's Bayis Shlishi. That's the pessukim in Sefer Yechezkel. "V'Anshei Bayis Sheini, k'shebanu b'Yom Ezra, yidden in the times of Ezra, when they built the second Beis Hamikdash, banu k'vinyan Shelomo." They built it like Shelomo Hamelech's binyan. "U'mei'ein divrei hamifurashim b'Yechezkel." And with mei'ein divrei that are mentioned in Sefer Yechezkel. Interesting. So the first Beis Hamikdash is the Beis Hamikdash that's described in Sefer Melachim. The third Beis Hamikdash, the Beis Hamikdash of the asid, that's what's described in Sefer Yechezkel. What about Bayis Sheini? So Bayis Sheini was a little bit of both. It had a little bit of Bayis Rishon, and it had a little bit of Bayis Sheini. There's a classic introduction that the Pnei Yehoshua gives to Maseches Middos. Now Maseches Middos deals with the second Beis Hamikdash. Maseches Middos are the dimensions of the second Beis Hamikdash. And the Pnei Yehoshua asks, "So why was it important for Khazahl to transcribe exactly what the second Beis Hamikdash was like? I mean it is not really that much relevance for the because it was a transient Beis Hamikdash. It stood for 420 years. But but why did it have to be written? That's what the addresses in his and he says I'm going to tell you why. Because the second Beis Hamikdash has in it a combination that has certain qualities of Beis Rishon and certain qualities of Beis Shlishi. So it's good to know Beis Shlishi cuz there elements of Beis Shlishi that are going to be relevant to Beis Shlishi. Unbelievable. So being that there's elements of Beis Shlishi that are going to be relevant to Beis Shlishi, it's for that reason thus we have Beis Hamikdash because it actually is something it actually is something that's going to it's something that's going to be in the He says how do I know that he quotes this this then he says what's Beis Shlishi was a little bit Beis Shlishi but not completely Beis Shlishi. So he says the Beis Hamikdash is says Beis Shlishi is the Beis of and really in order for the for Beis Shlishi we have to be on the of being ready for for Beis Shlishi. He says the second Beis Hamikdash could have would have and should have been Beis It could have been the Beis Shlishi. In fact it's the says in Beis Hamikdash that we can't and that would have been the end of the whole story. It would have been the would have came and But the didn't have because they didn't have that's why they weren't But the point is is that really the could have been to It was Beis Shlishi was supposed to have been Beis Shlishi. But because they didn't want it wasn't Beis Shlishi. But being that it was supposed to be Beis Shlishi it had a little bit of Beis Shlishi in it. But being that at the end of the day it wasn't Beis Shlishi it couldn't be completely that way. And what we ended up with was Beis Shlishi. See right Beis Shlishi is like a it's a the has a little bit of Beis Shlishi and a little bit of Beis Shlishi and Beis Shlishi if to say the Beis by the by and then you have this like in between this what what's this doctor trying to say because the whole is this man of that's what it is. It's this man that was supposed to be at the end of the day it wasn't and it's for that reason you have this this little bit of this little bit of confusion but the point is that Rashi says that it's either by or it's it's by or the Rambam it's really both. It's by that's the what the of was for but by hand in a little bit of by and it's for that reason we have a because this is going to be relevant because when we build by by the it's going to be important to be aware of some of these details of by just one final and that is so the mentioned idea of Jerusalem. That you know a little bit more better. So uh drop more more talk to you more about so help us in the long run. was made out of a bottom. And that's a because that's in contrast to the of was was made out of was two wooden boards around it and it was coated with with copper. The of was not that way even though didn't house the base of but rather it house the but the that was in despite the fact that was a was a different it wasn't was in fact it was made out of stone. It says three times in the Torah that supposed to be made out of a bottom but we know wasn't made out of a bottom. It was made out of a bottom with and Shelly actually elements referring to three other misbehave one is the misbehave of the second one is the third one is was also made out of the fire that came down from the main part of the scribe that after the was brought and the meaning the balloon fire comes down from that remained on the until the times of the and the day that built the base on that you fire came down again and destroyed and it was at that time that the went away. What's the if is right that the that was used in was not was the the fire should have gone away earlier. I mean if the assumption is that why would the fire have been on the presumably because you're bringing there meaning when the was in and and in all those places, that's what they were doing with it. But if you're going to tell me that the in was so the was made out of and we know wasn't made out of was made out of a dome and and the obviously didn't use the in so if they didn't use in why was the fire still there? So you're going to have to say the holds like a different which he holds like the time to the of the of the was made out of the of was made out of it was it was now it was filled with stone. Now nothing holds of was not like Ravuna, but the reason we're who the Rav Nosson is that he has a kind of to support him at the very least that it wasn't Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach. So, you have already a raya that Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach wasn't used in Shiloh. So, Ravuna can go connect it to a braisa that seems to suggest that Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach was used in Shiloh. Again, Ravuna said that even though Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach was made out of avanim, it's a mizbe'ach avanim, the mizbe'ach of Shiloh was made out of avanim. That would seem to suggest that the mizbe'ach that was used in Shiloh wasn't Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach. So, the Gemara kasha after you tell me it wasn't Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach. We have a braisa that says that the eish that came down to make Moshe Rabbeinu into it sounds like that they must have used it throughout those hundreds of years. That means in Shiloh they were using it because otherwise the fire would have gone away. So, clearly they used it. Meaning that braisa seems to be not like Ravuna. Ravuna now might not can't argue with a braisa. So, the Gemara, Ravuna has a different braisa that's at odds with that braisa. Once he has a kind of the mesaye'a le, so immediately he has a right to argue with the braisa. What's that braisa? Another braisa that says that the mizbe'ach that was used in Shiloh was not Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach. So, meaning it's not that not everybody holds that most this fire that came down to make Moshe remained with the whole kiyus throughout the years. So, it's for that reason, so fake Rashi, you're asking good, the obvious question. So, why do we have to run to Rav Nosson to find a braisa to support Ravuna? The Gemara said that had Ravuna known the halacha, he quoted a braisa. The time of Rav Nosson bar Yaakov omer, it says avanim two times. One is the mizbe'ach of Shiloh. The mizbe'ach of Levi Gevon, so that braisa is my first Rashi's kasha. But either way, let's just see one last Gemara of Nachman bar Yitzchak omer, Nachman bar Yitzchak said mailin astalka, when astalka le vatola, meaning really it could be that Ravuna's right. That the mizbe'ach that was used in Shiloh was not Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbe'ach. It was the mizbe'ach of avanim. What's the kasha? If it was a different mizbe'ach, why did the fire have to remain on Moshe Rabbeinu's When we say the fire was there, it wasn't there with the gun gun sky. Wasn't there 100%. That means when the style of the gun break, but at the same time it wasn't there with all its intent. Mighty, what does that mean? Have a mash Rashi says that when they used to do the Torah on the of so wings and flames would come from the ash that was on the of my show which was the minute I shall my and it would help the the hot Torah. You're right. That's not the that was being used. The that was being used was the new that was the but at the same time the fire from was in the play the role in the hot Torah and that's why he was there. He said a little bit differently. Have a knock out. It was like a guest. The used to used to bounce around a little bit. Sometimes the fire would be on the of my show and sometimes I guess for the hot Torah purposes it would actually jump but the point is was there around. Nobody's arguing that was around. The question is was it used in or was it not used in was it used in meaning the that was used in was also on the or perhaps no it was the of I you'll ask me a question if wasn't used in so what does it mean that the what do you need the fire for? The is either and the holds like the kind of the price of that holds that it's not true that fire went away way before the times of or the fire just facilitated