Zevachim 68

Today's daf is working daf samecha. So we will begin from the Mishnah on daf samecha amud aleph moving along in perek chata'if. So the topic of the last few dafin has been a korban that's not a zevach but rather an oif. Chata'if, oif some of the differences between the korban of a chata'if and an oif. Now one of the key characteristics of an oif is that although oifos chulin require shchita, but oifos kodeshim required melika. So the first avodah that was done with an oif in the Beis Hamikdash was not shchita, rather [clears throat] it was melika. And there's a fundamental difference between shchita and melika aside for the physical nature of it. And that is shchita the Gemara says lav avodah and as a result shchita k'sheirah b'zara. Shchita was not considered an avodah as opposed to melika. Melika is an avodah. So that melika was something that required kehuna, bigdei kehuna, all the laws of avodah applied to melika just like they did to kabalah, hiluchah, and zerikah. One of the chiddushim of melika is that although ordinarily in order to eat from an animal you would need first to have a shchita, whether it's a beheima or it's an oif it would have to be shchita. Melikas kodeshim worked to be motzi the oif midei nevelah. So that once the Torah was mechadesh that in lieu of shchita when it comes to kodeshim you do melika, not only is that the seder avodah, but the melika is now going to be matir the oif l'achilah. So the kohanim were able to eat from the chata'if even though it never had a shchita. It's very big chiddush that the melika of the chata'if was motzi the chatas midei nevelah. And as a result it was mutar b'achilah. Additionally there was no tumas nevelah. And the topic of the last daf into today's daf is what would be if the melika was done but it was done in an oif pasul. So it wasn't a kosher melika. So that's clear that as far as that avodah goes it's not going to be a kosher avodah. So if somebody is bringing an oif pasul to the Beis Hamikdash and now a pasul did the melika, being that melika is an avodah, a pasul that does melika the melika is going to be pasul. But do you say that being that a pasul did the melika it's not a melika at all. As a result we look at this oif now as if it's an aveilah. Or do we not look at it as if it's an aveilah? L'meina nafka mina? Number one, if somebody would eat it would he be over this an aveilah? Number two, tumas nevelah. Tumas nevelah when it comes to an oif has a very special oif tumah of tumah. It's called tumas beis habliyah. And the question is would there be the tumas beis habliyah? That's just a fancy way of saying would you have tumas nevelah for an oif that's whose melika was done in a way that it wasn't supposed to be done or not? That was a shtikel of the topic of the last two dafin. That's very much the topic of today's daf. Says the Mishnah, kol hap'sulin she molkin l'kodesh pasul. Any pasul that does melika the melika is going to be pasul. And the reason is like we said before because melika is an avodah. A chiddush even though shchita lav avodah and melika is in lieu of shchita, melika is an avodah. Stating that einam metamei b'veis habliyah. If a pasul would do the melika, the oif now would not be viewed as an aveilah as it relates to tumas beis habliyah. And again that's a chiddush because you would think that if the melika is pasul, so what was motzi it from nevelah? So it should be metamei b'veis habliyah. Stating that halacha is that even though kol hap'sulin she molkin l'kodesh pasul, still einam metamei b'veis habliyah. More like b'smol, if the kohen did melika with his left hand, avodah has to be done with the right hand. Oif b'lailah, or he did melika at night, avodah has to be done during the day. Shachat chulin bifnim, or if a kohen shachat an oif that was chulin in the azarah, or kodesh b'chutz, or he shachat not melika. He did shchita with an oif kodesh outside of the azarah. All of these cases einam metamei b'veis habliyah even though the Shulchan Aruch wasn't followed. A pasul did the melika as opposed to a kosher. The melika was done with the left hand as opposed to the right hand. It was done at night as opposed to during the day. Someone shachat oif chulin in the azarah. You're not supposed to do that. You're not supposed to bring chulin in the azarah. Specifically you're not supposed to shachat oif chulin in the azarah. Or somebody shachat an oif kodesh b'chutz. That's two things wrong. Number one, kodesh b'chutz. Number two, it was shchita as opposed to melika. In all these cases despite the fact that the wrong thing was done, so certainly you don't have an avodah k'sheirah, but at the same time it's not going to be metamei tumas beis habliyah. Says the Mishnah there's another list of melikas p'sulos where the halacha is that it's such a bad melika that it will be metamei tumas beis habliyah. What's that? This is more like b'sakin. If the melika was done b'sakin. So we had at the end of the sixth perek the melika had to be done. We all know this the fingernail of the kohen. It had to be done b'guf ha'etzba'os ha'kohen. So more like b'sakin or molak chulin bifnim. So not shachat chulin bifnim, but somebody took an oif chulin, brought it into the azarah, and he did melika with it. B'kodesh b'chutz, or someone did melika with an oif kodesh b'chutz. Again, the first part of the Mishnah was discussing shachat chulin bifnim or shachat chulin kodesh b'chutz. Here we're discussing molak chulin bifnim or molak kodesh b'chutz. Oif sh'lo b'zmano, or if somebody did melika with a tar that was too young. The tar had to be a certain age in order for it to be a kosher oif as a korban. U'vnei yonah she'afzu m'zmanan, or a bnei yonah that was too old. She'yavsha gapa, if one of the wings of the oif had dried out. She'nismasa einav, or it became blind. She'nikta raglav, foot was cut off. All these cases metamei b'veis habliyah. What's the difference between the reisha and the seifa? The reisha is a list of cases where you didn't have a melika k'sheirah. The seifa is a list of cases where you didn't have a melika k'sheirah. In the reisha we say that despite the fact that the melika wasn't kosher, still the halacha is it's enough melika to say that the oif is not going to be metamei tumas nevelah. It's not going to have tumas beis habliyah. In the seifa we say that being that the melika is pasul, not only don't you have a melika k'sheirah, but you don't even have an oif that had melika as it relates to tumas nevelah. Thus it will be metamei tumas beis habliyah. So what's the difference between the reisha and the seifa? Says the Mishnah gives us a rule. Kol shep'sulei b'kodesh einam metamei b'veis habliyah. The reisha is discussing p'sulin that are quote unquote p'sulei b'kodesh and therefore they're not metamei tumas beis habliyah. L'o l'o shep'sulei b'kodesh. The seifa is discussing p'sulin that are not p'sulei b'kodesh. If they're not p'sulei b'kodesh metamei b'veis habliyah. So what does p'sulei b'kodesh mean? Let's take a look at the last Rashi in the Mishnah. Shep'sulei b'kodesh b'val azarah b'cheshbon pasul. So says Rashi the first group were all p'sulin that happened in the azarah. Being that they came to the azarah b'cheshbon and the pasul all took place in the azarah, it's for that reason we say that it's not such a strong pasul. And therefore the halacha is that even though the melika is pasul, but it's not going to be metamei tumas beis habliyah. The seifa is discussing p'sulin that happened not b'kodesh, before the oif came to the azarah. That pasul is considered a bigger pasul. And being that that pasul is considered a bigger pasul, it's for that reason the halacha in those cases is that it's even going to be metamei tumas beis habliyah. So two things. Number one, the acharonim speak out that when Rashi says the definition of p'sulei b'kodesh and einam p'sulei b'kodesh is b'val azarah l'o b'val azarah, it's lav dafka. It doesn't mean b'val azarah or l'o b'val azarah. Meaning just to take one example, she'yavsha gapa. That's one of the key examples that we have in the seifa where the wing dried out. The wing of the oif becoming a mum, although it could have happened outside of the azarah, it's not an azarahdig pasul, but it doesn't necessarily have to happen outside the azarah. positive would be yavsha gapa in the azarah it would still be considered a pasul that's not p'sulei b'kodesh. What the Mishnah means is a pasul that would have to happen in the azarah versus a pasul that doesn't necessarily have to happen in the azarah. So molak b'lailah, being that the makom of melika is in the azarah, so that's considered a pasul of p'sulei b'kodesh. Molak p'sulin is considered a pasul that's p'sulei b'kodesh. Why? Because where is that going to happen? It's naturally going to happen in the azarah. It's an azarahdig pasul. As opposed to yavsha gapa and nismasa einav, even though these are p'sulin that technically could happen in the azarah, but they're not necessarily unique to the azarah in that they can very easily have happened outside of the azarah. And being that they could have very easily happened outside of the azarah, they're looked at as einam p'sulei b'kodesh. That's the first comment you have to make on the Mishnah. Second comment you have to make on the Mishnah is is that if you go through the list it really doesn't work because there are examples in the reisha that would seem to be einam p'sulei b'kodesh. And there's examples in the seifa that would seem to be p'sulei b'kodesh. Just to list one, kodesh b'chutz. That's p'sulei b'kodesh. That didn't happen in the azarah. Kodesh b'chutz by definition happened outside of the azarah. If somebody shachat oif kodesh b'chutz the Mishnah says it's not metamei tumas beis habliyah. Why? Because it's p'sulei b'kodesh. Because the pasul happened in the azarah. By definition it's kodesh b'chutz. Chutz means outside of the azarah. So how does that work with the klal of the Mishnah? An example in the seifa would be molak b'sakin. Molak b'sakin or molak chulin bifnim. Right? Clearly it happened in the azarah. So how could you tell me that molak b'sakin is einam p'sulei b'kodesh? What's the difference if you were molak b'smol, molak b'lailah, that's considered p'sulei b'kodesh, or molak b'sakin that would be considered einam p'sulei b'kodesh. So there are exceptions and the reason that in those cases the halacha is either metamei tumas beis habliyah or einam metamei tumas beis habliyah respectively is going to be discussed more in tomorrow's daf. But in terms of the havana of the Mishnah, and that's important in terms of Shabbat it's the longest and the Shabbat all wrapped in one. So sometimes the longest is actually the Shabbat. So partial Shabbat in the Mishnah who cares if it's Kodesh or Kodesh. So really in order to understand that we have to re-familiarize ourselves with even all of the so one of the most if not the most per as well as the ninth per it's per Misbah that it is from to the end of the so smooth sailing is a shame it's hashtag raid a lot of fun but it starts really you have a few hurdles to get over between now and then but in case but that that already will be evident [laughter] but from that on you have Misbah what is Misbah discuss it discusses a carbon that was possible a carbon whose was not allowed to be brought on the Misbah a carbon whose was not allowed to be put on the Misbah so if you have a carbon that's possible for example Mishnah down with the sheet was done by something wrong with the carbon so you don't you're not what happens if they ended up on the Misbah anyways so there's an lawyer once they go on the Misbah lawyer now there are exceptions to the rule there are times where if something's possible it's so some are some are one of the rules that are important in the of is called by some of the lawyer do called by some of the lawyer do in other words the some of the lawyer do even though they're possible but they considered a less of so you know why because the lawyer what's the longest the longest is is that it's true or what we're discussing right now is a week of so but what would be right now if the lawyer week of was done by lawyer and now the took the and he put it on the Misbah who would be in all of the lawyer do so as much as it's true the lawyer is a week of so but on some level it's a week of the whole lawyer in all of the lawyer do and by the way level two do you say that the lawyer do is not it's not allowed to go on the Misbah once it touches the Misbah all right we'll leave it there if it's not allowed to be on the Misbah the lawyer do would be in all of the lawyer do the of the lawyer do is it's a total there's a total of the lawyer do that's the the first part of the Misbah that the lawyer of the lawyer do in all of the lawyer do is a that means even though the lawyer is a week of so and you're right once that lawyer was done by lawyer for example there's no way to go and and and now a but there is a week of so and a week of the lawyer do that could be done with this when is that true when it's by so oh but so when it's by as much as the lawyer was possible on some level there is some of this lawyer it's for that reason it's not going to be to this where it's by so there it's not a week of at all because by it's a lawyer do so it's not a week of it's also not a week of with regards to the law of the lawyer law as much as it's not a week of there's no reason not to view this as a regular and that's why the lawyer it is going to be to this before we start in tomorrow so it's a short so before we start in tomorrow just one so one of the that were mentioned in the Mishnah was like the second and the truth is we really had this idea of the second in the end of the sixth per the said that even though it's done with the second and you would have thought that it's done with the second which is certainly a week of which isn't a week of should have a [snorts] second but it's not from a possible that it's supposed to be done by so the way was done it was done with the fingernail of the it was something that had to be done by so I'll tell you something interesting the in the end of the of Israel so he's discussing over there the possible in the title that says that the Misbah possible it was very important that the Misbah be made of a volume it couldn't be made of stones that it ever come in contact with a that it ever come in contact with a knife or or with a sword of some sort and the brings a from Ezra and from the Rambam and then he offers his own why is this this terrible that the Misbah isn't allowed to come in contact with a sword and he says that a is forbidden and the Misbah of course was a that was maybe shown so says the Rambam that the Misbah of the which is all about how you talking that it should come in contact with a sword which is forbidden that brings it's very nice that's what the Rambam prefers in terms of all the different that he brings why it is is that you have this of the of the of the then the Rambam says that the truth is if you think about it for a minute there was no to be found whatsoever in the they never used in English translate as iron there was no iron there was no used yet you didn't have and he says even though there were times where it would have actually made more sense to use over some of the other materials that were used we can one extra from the Rambam in the end of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the the of the the pegs that were used to keep the curtains down so you of the wouldn't make sense had they been made out of instead they made them out of why they make it out of because even though the is of the of the was regarding the of the Misbah but the they took it a step further they did not want to come anywhere near the of the so there's one exception there was one piece of in the entire Mishnah you know what that was the the knives that were used for so as the Rambam but don't worry about that because the knives are going anyways I mean the of the so it's interesting the of the that couldn't be but the that was used for I think it's possible back of the envelope that's why the couldn't be done with the second because isn't a so if isn't a you're not allowed to have a second that's the of the which isn't a here so says the Rambam the second of the doesn't bother me that it's going to be used with which isn't a it couldn't have been used with but regardless the Indian lawyer Indian should Indian >> [laughter] >> I guess a little bit as it relates to this tell you something fast the of the the in his in in was sent to about a patent that a doctor in Paris had invented and the question was posed to the of the is this patent something that us in the of can incorporate or not what's the background so we know that the of is made up of two parts there's and is the of the gums and removes the that every boy is born with after the is taken off the then takes his fingernail and he removes a layer of skin that was beneath the on top of the gate he removes it he like pushes it back almost like you would roll up a sleeve it stays there and it ends up you know staying on the gate and eventually takes some sort of form as the child gets old but and there are two independent distinct parts of the itself is the that's the removal of the that gets completely removed from the gate and then afterwards to further expose the gate so to speak the is going to remove this layer of skin he doesn't completely remove it but he rolls it up it stays on the gate and the you say to it is that even though that layer of skin is not because if it was it had to be removed but he's furthering the gate so to speak from the and further exposing the gate to show that this child is not an is equally as important as the Mishnah says in the of the so there's you have to do the they're they're both equally important now the minute has been to do with the fingernails matter of fact the Rambam in of the of the discusses the of the says the Rambam you cut off the entire that covers the and the of the of the of the of the the takes his fingernail and he removes that that membrane that layer of skin of the of the of the the of the of the of the of the of the so the minute always was to do with the fingernail there was this doctor in Paris that came up he invented a tool a utensil that would do and the was asked to the is that okay is there a to do with the or or could it be done with the and the thought was is that we know what is trying to accomplish you're trying to scale back the layer of skin and this doctor had created something that was actually going to do a better job than the old fashioned way of doing it with a fingernail thus giving the so it's interesting number one the way of the begins the he says you know recently there was a big where people they want to be the of and he says "But after all, now they're taking it to the next level. They're up it the empty." Not only do they want to be mashina the way metzitzah was done, but now I've heard about a doctor in in Paris who wants to even change the way priya is been done. He wants to do priya with a kayli as opposed to be doing priya with a tziporen. So he begins the shaila discussing, is there any halachic reason to dafke do it with a tziporen or not? So he says, "The emes is based on the Torah halacha, I don't have any makor. The Rambam says it, I don't have a makor. But two things that as you can see are Number one, he says, "We know minag Yisrael taira." And the emes is so much of what we do is based on Torah shebaal peh. It's based on the mesora that we have dating back to Moshe Rabbeinu." Says the Yachin U'Boaz, "Can you prove to me that when the Torah says pri eitz hadar it means an esrog?" So you can show me a gemara in which you're going to narrow it down to certain types of fruits, but that it's an esrog you won't be able to prove. None of us. We have a mesora. The mesora is that our father took esrog in the days of the Zaydes, the Alter Zaydes, the Bubbes, everybody, presumably dating back to Moshe Rabbeinu. That's mesora. Shalo vicha esrog. So that's why today if somebody would take something other than an esrog, are you a How could you take something other than an esrog? So he says, "Mayim chaim it's the same thing." He says, "And the truth is every single mitzvah has nuances of it that you can't necessarily prove in halacha, but it's based on mesora, it's based on Torah shebaal peh." So he says, "It's possible that the minag Yisrael, the Rambam brings it, the Shulchan Aruch brings it, was to do priya with a tziporen. Mesora, this is the way it was done dating back to to Moshe Rabbeinu. The emes is the mitzvah of priya was given to Yehoshua bin Nun. But but dating back to Yehoshua bin Nun, so the bottom line is is that even though I can't prove it to you in halacha, it doesn't necessarily mean that's not the way it's supposed to do. No less than even though I can't prove to you that pri eitz hadar is an esrog." That's what he said. It we know is an esrog. But he says, "Besides, I'm going to find you a makor. You want a makor? I found you a makor." And it's a Yalkut Shimoni. Listen to this. In Tehillim. It's on the pasuk kol atzmotai tomarana, Hashem nich moicha. Omar Dovid, Dovid Hamelech said, "Kol atzmotai tomarana, I was shocked, right? But more than that. Bichol eivorai I I am meshabeiach bichol eivorai kim hamitzvos." Dovid Hamelech turns to Hashem and says, "I use all my eivorim, every single eiver that you created me with I use for mitzvos. Biroshi ani roif bikorev bifilasi." I was shocked with my Dovid. Bisairos roshi, with my hair, which which mitzvah is he mikayem? Lo yisakif parosh roshcha. Tefillin ani mariach, ani maniach biroshi. Bitzaveri, what do I do with my tzavar? I put on tzitzis. With my eyes, ureh es moiseh. Bifiy, what do I do with my mouth? Tehilas Hashem yidaber fiy. Bisifosai, says Dovid Hamelech, what do I do? Tivana sifosai tehila. With my beard, lo yisashkes pas goncho. Bilishoni, ulshoni tegech kicho. What do I do with my layv? Bilivi tzafunti emrasecha. Trachten lernen. Bichotzei, that's the tzitzis that I put on, kinaged alef. He says, "My right hand, ani koisev bo My left hand, I put on tefillin." Dovid Hamelech was right. Tzipornai, what do I do with my What do I do with my fingernails? Lasos priya, I do priya. Oi, u'likas oif, and I do u'likas oif. Oi, shneihem yachad, or both. U'voyain listakel al halivana. I also look at my fingers when it comes to havdala. Mayai, I'm skipping a little bit. U'teiros bisaiach mayai. Regel, you mean my right hand, chalitza. Regel smoel, koideim lishalosh pisius achas fila. When I go back, shaloshes pisius, first my left and my right. Kriya, kriya, what do I do with my knees? Kriyas birkayim bitfila. Hagid, mitzvas milah priya. Hagidis milah priya. Birkayim, my knees again, ani oiseh sandek with you love them. I'm sandek bishas milah priya. Kach nemer kol atzmotai tomarana Hashem nich moicha. Beautiful medrash. Says the Yachin U'Boaz, "One of the things Dovid Hamelech said was tzipornai. I use my fingernails to mitzvos. What do I do with my fingernails? Number one, I do melika. And number two, I do priya." Says the Yachin U'Boaz, "Melika tzipornai, when it comes to melika it's machik. Dos amishnu. Molech bisakin is posul. So molech bisakin is posul even metamei tumas meis av layv. So that is going to be posul. So if the fingernail is ikuva when it comes to melika, so doesn't make sense that the fingernail should be ikuva as well when it comes to priya. So even though it's not a mefurash makor maybe, but it's the ganz fine makor. I have a Yalkut Shimoni that puts fingernails with regards to priya and melika. Bichod umachta, when it comes to melika it is machik. That's our mishnah. Molech bisakin is posul. So the rule is when it comes to priya, it should be When it comes to priya it should be machik as well. And then says the Yachin U'Boaz, "You're going to tell me Ah, it's a medrash. This is your makor?" So he says, "I'm going to ask you something." He says, "You know what the makor to sandek says? Everybody goes crazy about sandek. It's a mitzvah. Sandek d'Rabbanan is more chashuv. It comes from the Darkei Moshe. Remember Rema wrote a perush on the Darkei Moshe. That's where it comes from. You know where the Darkei Moshe got it from? He got it from the Agudas Mayim Mayim. You know where the Agudas Mayim Mayim got it from? He got it from this medrash right here. The Agudas Mayim Mayim is in the end of the third perek in Hilchos Milah. The very very end of Hilchos Milah. I'll read it to you." Says the Agudas Mayim Mayim, "Had >> [clears throat] >> umisavin, mashachrim umisavin. People they they really want this. It's like a taiva. Lech atzinoik bishas shinima al habirkai baal habris. Bizeh yesmach Dovid Hamelech The pasuk kol atzmotai tomarana Omar Dovid lifnei Hakadosh Baruchu, ani meshabeiach bichol eivorai umikayem bemizvos. Ad borka, ani nasan sandek l'baal habris bishas milah." So says the Binyan Tzion, "The whole makor to sandek says this medrash. So if you're going to machavek with priya with a tziporen, machavek with sandek. And everybody makes a tumel. This is minag Yisrael taira. It's part and parcel of our mesora Yiddishkeit that to be a sandek at a bris is a very big deal. People give it to chashuvim and to to parents, people they want it. It's a tremendous koved. So the bottom line is that it's no less a makor. So just like no one would be mevatal sandek, how can you be mevatal doing priya with a tziporen? Fascinating. I heard something else interesting. That is that the Tziyeish Chayes, my tziyeish was asked a very very similar shaila. Same shaila. Doesn't mention the doctor of Paris, but a very similar shaila. Is it okay to do priya with a kayli or does it have to be done dafke with a tziporen? And he has a similar teshuvah. Very similar teshuvah. There's some nuances. I ain't shure. If you want to take a look, I think it's siman sameach in Marches. Shailos U'Tshuvos Marches. >> [snorts] >> But the bottom line is that siman sameach. But one of the things he says at the end, he says he digresses from priya and tziporen to metzitzah b'peh. So I'll read it to you in Hebrew. "Minhag metzitzah hu gets lanu b'peh. U'viyamenu recently himtziu haroifim samam asher moil k'mo ya metzitzah." So he says, "Is that okay? Do you have to do metzitzah b'peh?" So says the Tziyeish Chayes, "K'var hoireh shokeik hagoyim boifis sador, Ram Moshe Sofer zal of Pressburg." Also known as the Chasam Sofer. "K'mo Moshe isei mitzvas bishmo bisforim chadashim ki ikar metzitzah lach mishum sakana." The Chasam Sofer said that the real purpose of metzitzah is mishum sakana. Like the gemara says in Maseches Shabbos, "Hai umna d'vuin mayis sakana d'mavir eis." But moil doesn't want to do metzitzah b'peh. You see, it was a topic back then, even in the gemara. So on umna d'roifim that doesn't want to do metzitzah d'mavir eis, why in the gemara says because sakana? So he said, "I've seen printed bishaim the Chasam Sofer that kol sheyeish lo derech acher shinifkam binisayin k'mo ilo hasra sakana k'mo ya metzitzah." That it doesn't necessarily have to be done dafke b'peh. So whether he did or whether the Chasam Sofer really said this or not is very controversial. Ram Shick held that that the Chasam Sofer but then came the Keren Orah. I don't have where abouts my paper. But the bottom line is this. Says the Marches at the end, "The Chaim Orah that metzitzah doesn't have to be done dafke b'peh midivrei haYalkut kapitel lamed nun. The chashuv kol ha'eivorim asher oiseh mitzvos." Because Dovid Hamelech goes through all the eivorim that he uses and how many times was milah mentioned in that medrash? He said, "We do use the the tziporen to do the priya. You have the gid to do the milah and the priya. You have the birkayim for the sandek. Why didn't Dovid Hamelech mention that he does metzitzah b'peh? When he mentioned priya, he could have stayed on the topic of milah. And he could have mentioned b'peh. So he says, "Vice versa, doesn't have to be b'peh." The whole idea is just lo hashra'as sakana. And being that it's lo hashra'as sakana, it's not something that necessarily has to be done. And then he says something. We'll end with this. And that is that he mentions that you know there's a machaber in the last Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in the Hilchos Milah discusses a very interesting minag. Once upon a time there were two mohelim at a bris. And one mohel would do the milah, another mohel would do the priya. So they would machavek one mohel with the milah, another mohel with the priya. The Shach says that you shouldn't do that on Shabbos. So a milah bishabbos, which of course is doicheh Shabbos, but you shouldn't have two mohelim on Shabbos. And the reason is because milah involves chillul Shabbos. And as a result, you don't want to have a mohel do a chatzi mitzvah that's going to be doicheh Shabbos. So if you're going to do the entire mitzvah to be doicheh Shabbos, then I hear. But to do a chatzi mitzvah, to do the chaticha tzorech orelah, which clearly involves chillul Shabbos, that's why milah sh'lo b'zmano is not doicheh Shabbos. So to do a chaticha tzorech orelah without being mikayem the mitzvah because moil lo yifros kiulu ilo, we don't want that. So if you're going to do the chaticha tzorech orelah, you have to do the the priya as well. Because we want you to complete the mitzvah. Because only if you're completing the mitzvah is it doicheh Shabbos. So even though there was this minag Yisrael that there were two mohelim, there was one mohel that did the milah, one mohel that did the priya, stating that, says the Binyan Tzion, brought down in Shulchan Aruch in the last Kitzur in Hilchos Milah, not to do it on Shabbos. The Rama argues. The Rama says it's okay. You get one mohel could do the milah, one mohel could do the priya even on Shabbos. And even though you're not finishing the mitzvah, you don't have the priya, doesn't matter. As long as you do a part of it, that's going to be okay. You know what the Rama's raya is? Kotzn. His raya is because they used to do the avodah in the Beis Hamikdash. And a kohen would get up and he would do the shchita. Even though shchita was only part of the avodah, you had to do kabala, halacha, and zrika, still we know there was a who rolled the way. It always was. And the kohen that did the shchita was left after the one that was going to do the kabala, halacha, zrika. There's even a tumel of a who was able to do the shchita on Shabbos. But Rashi, perek arba achim, amud sameach gimmel amud beis, right we've spoken about. But the point is is that you didn't need one client to do the shchita kabbalah l'chatzos I how could I do the shchita? It's only a chatzi avodah. The truth is, it's true it's only a chatzi avodah. But, we're assuming that you're going to fear ice avodah. And being that it's part of an avodah, the possuk it's something that's okay. So, it's the same thing says the Ramah. You're right, chitas is not the entire maiseh milah, but it's part of the milah and being that it's part of the milah milah itself is shabbos, it's for that reason it's going to be okay. The Maiseh the Tzeisch Chayis says that you know the minag today is that people don't have two milahs, they have three milahs. It's fascinating. They have one milah would do the milah, another milah would do the priyah, and then they would somebody to do the they would somebody to do metzitzah. And he says that he heard that in the kehilla of Brod on shabbos they follow the Bais Yosef and they don't have not three, not two, they only have one. That they only have one and the he says he doesn't really understand because the maiseh d'halacha is like the Ramah. But, then he said he heard that there are kehillahs that on shabbos they do two. And they knock out the one person that's going to do metzitzah. So, they two as opposed to three. Brings what the minag in Sulkaver was, that's where he was from. But, the bottom line is is that he says that he heard that there are places with that follow the Ramah. Say yes, two milahs, but not three. Not three, they take out the metzitzah and he's mamish matmir. He says cuz metzitzah is the one you have the least concern about. Cuz metzitzah is all about sakana. And being that metzitzah is all about sakana, so sakana certainly would this is a question of pikuach nefesh. So, he says you want to tell me you want to go mamish like the Bais Yosef? I hear. I mean, that's something I can't. You know, even though we pasken like the Ramah and the Ramah said it's okay, but you want to take on a chumrah, you want to follow even in an Ashkenazi shita of the minag of the Bais Yosef? Okay, I hear. I'm not going to be goyer on that. But, to go like the Ramah to have two, but to say on shabbos we're drawing the line we're not going to have three, we're not going to allow somebody to get up and do the metzitzah? That's a that's a question of sakana on shabbos. That's a question of sakana. Don't worry about sakana, there's no question of shabbos regardless. We have talked away in this mishnah. Who would have thunk it? See, you have a mishnah that mentions a sakana possul which is discussing halacha of melikah. Bottom line is is that from this mishnah the Orach Chaim felt there was a makor to this kapeda to do priyah dafka with a tzei priyah. Either way, zachter gemara amara Rav said smol v'laila ein metamein b'bais avliah. So, if the melikah was done with the left hand or if it was done at night, it's not metamein b'bais avliah. ZAR v'SAKIN if a ZAR or some other possul did the melikah or if the melikah was done with a sakin, so then it's so bad that it even has tumas avliah. It's metamein b'bais avliah. Says the gemara, maishnos smol is l'hachshir b'yom hakipurim. What's the reason that smol is not metamein b'bais avliah? It's cuz it's psulei bakodesh. And like we spoke out, it's in ol layardo. And being that the melikah works with regards to an ol layardo, it's considered a melikah with regards to that it shouldn't be metamein b'bais avliah. Now, why is smol in ol layardo? It's because we find in another place that you could do avodah with your left hand. And once there's is lay shair of a makom acher, that's enough of a reason to say that it's going to be a ol layardo. What's the makom acher that smol is is lay shair? Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur they used to use the left hand. The k'tores on Yom Kippur involved both hands. Rashi says not to be a minag. That's a psul to be in the hand to use his left hand. It's for that reason it's for that reason that you find is lay shair of a makom acher and that's why it's a ol layardo. That's why it's not metamein b'bais avliah. Laila also is lay. Where do you find avodah b'laila? That's easy. Layvav u'mtorein. All haktores was done at night. ZAR nami fake the gemara is lay shair b'shchita. But, if that's the case, why did Rav say ZAR v'SAKIN metamein b'bais avliah? Which would suggest in ol layardo l'chaira ZAR also has a shair of a makom acher. Which would make it an ol layardo as it relates to an ois, it should not be metamein b'bais avliah. And where do you find ZAR? You find ZAR b'shchita. ZAR could do shchita. True, he can't do melikah, but it's is lay shair of a makom acher. Zochter gemara shchita lav avodah. That's why it's is lay shair of a makom acher. Is lay shair means there's a place where you could do avodah b'laila. There's a place where there's an avodah that was done with smol. The fact that a ZAR could do shchita doesn't mean you found an example where ZAR could do avodah. To the contrary, shchita lav avodah. But, the gemara says v'laila is that true? And this is a a repeat of Zevachim daf yud daled amud bais. Rav say Rav say Rav said shchita is parah b'ZAR psulah. This week's parsha read ZAR was not allowed to do shchita of the parah adumah. The reason is a lo chukah cuz it says a lo and it says chukah. So, everything that it says in the beginning of parshas chukos is like it. But, the bottom line is if you see that a ZAR can't do shchita with the parah adumah, doesn't that suggest that shchita is an avodah? Otherwise, why would there be a kapeda for for a ZAR to do it? The gemara says shani parah. The kochi b'da gabai they bring a raya from parah. Parah adumah is not kochi b'da even though looked like kochi b'da gabai. It kochi b'da felt like kochi b'da. Are you shochted it do hazois, but it wasn't done in the makom mikdash. It wasn't done in Har Habayis. It was done on Har Hazaisim. It was done in the Har Hamishkan. Noichach lav avodah, but it wasn't actually done in the Bais Hamikdash. Being that it wasn't done in Bais Hamikdash, it's not even kochi b'da. It was never brought in mikdash. It's kochi b'da gabai. Kochi b'da gabai is a whole 'nother story. But, the gemara says like kochi kochi b'da gabai kochi b'da kochi b'da. Madach the shchita that you find by kochi b'da gabai is the halacha is that it requires a kohein. Then certainly kochi b'da should require kohein. Meaning, certainly kochi b'da should be avodah. So, the gemara says you're right. But, amra Rav Idi Idi have a maiseh lav avodah b'yei kuna. Meaning, just because something requires kohein doesn't necessarily mean it's an avodah. It's true, the shchita of the parah adumah requires kohein. So, from that standpoint it would be logical to say that shchita is an avodah. And even though shchita is k'shaira b'ZAR, it doesn't mean it's not an avodah. To the contrary, you have a where ZAR is allowed to do avodah. Which would make it an ol layardo. Which would make it not be metamein tumas b'bais avliah. But, the gemara says no. The reason shchita is k'shaira b'ZAR is because shchita is really lav avodah. So, there is no example of where ZAR is able to do avodah. You can do shchita. Shchita lav avodah. If shchita lav avodah, why do you need a kohein for shchitas parah adumah? So, the gemara says we did have a maiseh don't you need a kohein in parshas Tazria you need a kohein for tumas negah? Just because you need a kohein doesn't by definition mean that it's an avodah. Bottom line is shchita lav avodah. Shchita lav avodah, there's no example of where you find that a ZAR is able to do shchita. Therefore, it's an ol layardo and therefore it's going to be metamein tumas b'bais avliah. The gemara says the nail of mebom. I still have an example where a ZAR is able to do an avodah. True, not shchita. But, I have an example where ZAR is able to do an avodah. Find the bomis. So, why don't we say that it's is lay shair of a makom acher? So, again it shouldn't be metamein tumas b'bais avliah. So, the gemara says mebom layal. If you can't learn from bom. Rashi says the bom is like gabai mikdash. Nice loshon Rashi. Bom relative to mikdash is like that's not considered is lay shair of a makom acher. But, the gemara says v'laila is that true? The answer is yes it's an ol layardo. How do you know if part of the korban became psul yoitzai, the halacha is an ol layardo. So, the gemara says shani yoitzai kochi b'da bom. Now, you know that because yoitzai is kochi psul yoitzai by a bom. Why not? There's no chitzos by a bom. But, the bottom line is is that you see from there that the fact that something is is lay shair of a bom is a reason to say an ol layardo. So, say the same thing regarding the ZAR. So, the gemara says yoitzai is like the real reason that there's an ol layardo by psul yoitzai is not because it's kochi b'da bom. The real reason is cuz of a possuk like yoitzai as I will. But, that is agav the gemara just mentions like a remez, but it's not the real makor. Because you can't use is lay shair of a bom as a real makor. So, what's the bottom line? Rav Shita is that if a ZAR would do melikah, the halacha is it would be tamei tumas b'bais avliah. It's like an imp psulei bakodesh. And the reason is because the halacha would be if a ZAR would do melikah, it would be an ol layardo because you don't find anywhere that a ZAR could do avodah. It's is lay shair of a makom acher. I I have two examples where ZAR could do avodah. ZAR could do shchita. That's an avodah. Shchita lav avodah. Or ZAR could do avodah in a bom. Yeah, bom k'lapi mikdash that's like that's like saying ZAR could do chul. That's not considered is lay shair of a makom acher. Therefore, the halacha is it's going to be tamei tumas b'bais avliah. ZAR ein metamein b'bais avliah. It's only sakin that's metamein b'bais avliah. So, Rav Yochanan argues he said that a ZAR is not metamein b'bais avliah. In essence, we have a machlokes Rav and Rav Yochanan whether ZAR that does melikah is a metamein b'bais avliah is a not metamein b'bais avliah. Great the gemara. T'na we don't t'na mishnah. What was the first line of the mishnah? Kol hap'sulin shemalku mikosam psula. Pishla me Rav Yochanan. Pishla me according to Rav Yochanan kol lasuya ZAR. I understand why it says kol. It's even coming to be marbeh ZAR. Ela l'Rav kol lasuya mai? What's it coming to be marbeh? So, the gemara says lasuya smol v'laila. Meaning, what did the reisha of the mishnah say? Kol hap'sulin shemalku mikosam psula and it's not metamein b'bais avliah. So, isn't it a meforesh mishnah? Now, it's interesting that the gemara doesn't ask from the fact that it's a meforesh mishnah. I mean, really it's a meforesh mishnah. Kol hap'sulin. What does kol hap'sulin mean? Means all the psulin. Usually it's a reference to the first mishnah of the second perek that talks about the yoishav and and the ZAR and the the whole list of psulin that are not allowed to do avodahs. They can't do kabbalah l'chatzos they could do shchita. And now the mishnah is saying they can't do melikah. And not only can't they do melikah, but it's not going to be metamein b'bais avliah. But, it it seems to be a meforesh mishnah. Kol hap'sulin shemalku mikosam psula v'einam metamein b'bais avliah. >> And you would think that's the cash but it's not the cash. The word call call is last year isn't it coming last year is the ask the cash so why did the ask from the mission and the says because the mission itself you can think is maybe referring to a tournament. A tournament that does the for sure that is going to be a year to and for sure that is going to be that it's not the base of Leah. And the reason is because to play with people. So without the word call had it just said I would have thought that it's referring to mayor. But being that it says call and call is last year. So it's really it's coming to be all the other such as the and the etc. So to write to to ask call last call last year may. So they says last year is small the light of the year. You know it's coming to be that people that are physically possible. But if it was done in a way of it was done with the left. It was done at night. says small the light of the year Tony. That's mentioned before is in the mission. So the says Tony the parish. So the mission of first said it as a red mess. Call. The light of the year and small. And then he explained what for previously we mentioned explicitly small the light of the year. The says touch my ears. You have no right from the mission. But I think the beginning of the mission but I think you have a right from the end of the mission. Right the rule of the end of the mission was that anything that's that is not the base of Leah. Again it says call. That cloud is always coming to be something. Last year is coming to be bizarre. That is bizarre. Who you would have thought maybe is not the base of Leah. It's considered the base of Leah and it's not the base of Leah. Last year may. So the says who live according to you. What are you going to be from the safe? Just like there was a cloud and a call in the ratio. Yeah there's a cloud in the safe as well. It said The is it's the base of Leah. What's that coming to be my bro? Hello ratio last must be It's coming last year. So as opposed to doing you would check it. Safe for last year. It's coming to be my in the ratio. It's not the base of Leah. And the safe it is the base of Leah. So that those two things sound similar to what the mission had discussed. But it's not what the mission had discussed. The mission had discussed cool in the spring. Cool in the hood. Cool in the spring. And cool in the hood. Here we're discussing cool in the spring. And cool in the hood. The bottom line is cool in the spring. The is it's the base of Leah. The is it's not the base of Leah. Cool in the hood is the base of Leah. And therefore it is the base of Leah. That is bizarre. That does the cool. It is not the base of Leah. If a bizarre did the cool. Cool or any possible that matter did the cool. Ain't the base of Leah. I heard two things. One regarding bizarre. And the other one regarding bizarre. There is by And by the other one and I'm not sure which one is and which one is there. He said bro It's time to get Now by the is going to be there. But by the is going to be there. Says the why? Why do you think that should be Why do you think that should be there? Because it's there and there. And if it's related What's this with You could do on a bomber. You could do on a bomber. Just like you could bring it on a bomber. You could bring a on a bomber as well. So has the same that has. And if you're going to tell me that there aren't this holds is no bomber is then for the same price in is not a bomber. You have to say there's no bomber. Because already said Yes it's a bomber. The two are told me they have a say There's a bomber. There's a bomber. And if there's no there's no is. It says in the term when the term talks about bringing on a bomber. It says the word walk. So either you walk in then it's a way to walk in or you don't walk in. And then you have this and you have this. You can't have it both ways. How could you distinguish and differentiate between a and between the night. Cool is the same whether the cool is done on a bomber or the cool is done on It's an that was cool. You do the cool with your finger nail. In one case you're doing it you're being on the back. In the other case you're being on a bomber. But the cool is fundamentally different. If you do the cool in the cool if you do it on a bomber. If you do it in the cool you have to have a is the the cool is being done from a is. If you do it on the or on a bomber there's no is involved. necessarily need a coin. It's a different type of cool. For that type of cool it's going to be okay. But as a And if that type of cool is going to be okay. So this cool of a bomber and the cool of the are the same cool. Thus we view it as there and there. As opposed to the cool the cool of a bomber and the cool are not the same cool. Being that they're not the same cool one is from one is not from is. It's for that we don't look at it as there the cool. The previous rate by we discussed the end of safe for small where God reveals himself to the king. And he tells David I want you to buy the field of a rabid a busy a rabid the Jebusite. And it's on that field that I want you to build the back. And I want you to bring us to our college park. And as we went through based on and soaking that event of God closer telling David the king to buy that field wasn't just a one-off event but really it was a coming full circle for something that is expressed over 20 times in the tire. Where our college park says that when the are going to enter Canaan there's going to be a time there's going to be a place where I am going to identify one coin in the land that should be the gift card that's going to be as we discussed my house and it's there that I want you to bring us moving forward. It's there that I'm going to want you to come visit me three times a year. Safe for my walking picks up exactly where safe for small ends off. And that is with David the king's son small mayor going and not just bringing us on the going in of a rabid a busy. But he actually builds the base of cash. Takes some years to build. And the time finally arrives for all the to come from all over the world and celebrate in the inauguration this very very monumental event the cool of the base of cash. And in the says that small mayor is is in the base of cash. He's standing in front of the back. Negative call call Israel. In the presence of literally all the Jews. The cup of mine. And then he lifts his hands up to the heavens. The and he he says a feel. He turns to our college park. And he says that I want this place to be a place. It's a feel. That if a year would come and would have him you would listen to his feels. Who found this out feels That your eyes are going to be open to this place by night and by day. This is the place that you told David the king you want to rest your now. And then he goes on and starts describing different feels that you didn't make David. The measure of the race. And he asks our college park who please answer those feels. Says for example if there's going to be a year that's going to sin. And he's going to want you to promise me I shall that if he comes to this place. He comes to the cool of cash. That you are going to answer his feel. He says if there's ever going to be a time in history where he might be a mother. There's going to be a famine and people are going to be starving. The crops aren't going to be growing. If you didn't come and they have in here please our college park who I'm asking you I'm begging of you. Tell me that if they have in here you're going to answer their feel. He said What if there's a for? There's going to be a time where people are dying. And they're not going to know where to turn. They're not going to know what to do. I'm begging from you I shall. If they are going to come and they're going to have in here promise me that you're going to answer their feel. If someone's going to have someone in their family that's not well. And they're going to go to the doctor and the doctor is going to say I can't help you. Promise me that if they come to this place right here the cool of cash that you're going to answer their feel. And he goes on and on and on. There's going to be a war and there's going to be that are going out into battle and they're going into harm's way. And they're going to be scared and they're going to be nervous and maybe the odds are going to be stacked against them. Promise me that if they're going to come to this place and they're going to have him you're going to answer their tfila. He goes on and on. It's 50 plus psukim of HaMelech thinking of any tfila that a Yid may ever daven in his lifetime that would come to Hakadosh Baruchu and he would daven for in this place. And he says, "Hashem, I'm asking you one thing, that if the tfila happens here, please listen." It was a big ask. It was a big ask. HaMelech was never told that this is what the Beis HaMikdash was going to be. Beis HaMikdash was a place where the Yidden would bring korbanos. Beis HaMikdash was a place where they would come, the oileh regel, three times a year. HaMelech raised the ante. HaMelech goes out on a limb and he says, "Eibishter, I'm asking you, make this place a makom tfila. Make this a place that if a Yid comes and davens, al kol tzarah shelo yitaveh, 50 psukim of description of what that tzarah might look like, that you are going to answer." And HaMelech finishes his tfila and he waits and the Yidden are standing around him and they're waiting and there's a deafening silence in the room. And then all of a sudden, the pasuk says, "Vayeira Hashem el sheinis." Hakadosh Baruchu revealed himself for the second time to HaMelech. K'she'ne'era eilav b'Giv'on, years earlier, Hakadosh Baruchu had revealed himself to HaMelech. That was the first time. This is the second time. Vayomer Hashem eilav, and Hashem tells "Shamati es tfilasecha, es tchinasecha, asher hitchananta lefanai. I heard your tfilos. Hikdashti es habayis hazeh, I was mikadesh this bayis, asher banisa, that you built, lasum shmi sham ad oilam, v'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim. You asked and I answered. You asked that if at any time in the future a Yid is going to come and a Yid is going to daven and he's going to ask for something, I should listen to his tfila, that this should be a place that will have a special koach tfila that no other place in the world has. Granted. V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim. You go through these psukim, I can't go through all these psukim right now, they're very, very moving. But there's one idea that I think is worth mentioning. And that is, Hakadosh Baruchu's response was, "V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim." The Chasam Sofer, in one of his teshuvos about Eretz Yisrael, it's in Yoreh De'ah, siman reish lamed daled. The teshuvah was written to Reb Efraim Zalman Margolies. It's a teshuvah that as a chaburah we're going to go through more during the course of this trip. Discuss, what exactly does it mean, "V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim"? Specifically, Reb Efraim Zalman Margolies asked the Chasam Sofer that the pasuk says regarding Eretz Yisrael, "It's a eretz asher einah Hashem Elokecha bah, meireishis hashana v'ad acharisah." The whole land, the whole country is a place that Hakadosh Baruchu has his eyes on. But it seems like the Makom HaMikdash is not just a place where Hakadosh Baruchu's einayim are affixed to, but it's "V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim." And Reb Efraim Zalman Margolies asked the Chasam Sofer, "What's the difference between einai and einai v'libi? It sounds like the whole country is eretz asher einah Hashem Elokecha bah, but the Makom HaMikdash is "V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim." And the Chasam Sofer writes back in this teshuvah to Reb Efraim Zalman Margolies, "I'll tell you the truth. He says, 'Years ago I heard a teretz, it was al pi kabbalah, and I don't really understand it.'" Imagine, Chasam Sofer saying the teretz is above his pay grade. "I'll tell you the words and you can make of it whatever you want to make of it. But lulei demistafina, I think it's kedai to tell to a meshech chochmah. That's not just a classic meshech chochmah, but it's a classic Ben Ish Chai classic meshech chochmah. Where Reb Simcha of Dvinsk literally addressed this point. We know that a Yid every day puts on tfillin. Tfillin shel yad, tfillin shel rosh. The tfillin is made up of four parshiyos, right? What's inside the tfillin? There's four parshiyos of the Torah. Shema, V'hayah im shamoa, Kadesh, Vayeh ki veyachol. Four parshiyos in the Torah, that's what makes up the tfillin. Stating that there's a difference between the tfillin shel rosh and the tfillin shel yad. The tfillin shel rosh has the four parshiyos in four batim. They're in four different compartments. The tfillin shel yad, all four parshiyos are in one bayis. And Reb Simcha in parshas Bo, on the mitzvah of tfillin, he says, "Why is it that the tfillin shel rosh is made up of four batim and the tfillin shel yad is made up of only one bayis?" Says Reb Simcha, "I'll tell you pshat al derech pnimiyus haTorah." Says the Gemara says in the first perek in meseches Brachos, that just like the Yidden put on tfillin every day, Hakadosh Baruchu also puts on tfillin every day. We put on tfillin shel yad and tfillin shel rosh. Hakadosh Baruchu also puts on tfillin shel yad and tfillin shel rosh. And the Gemara says, "Hanich tfillin d'maryei alma mach sivbei." What does it say in the Eibishter's tfillin? Our tfillin is Shema, V'hayah im shamoa, Kadesh, Vayeh ki veyachol. What does it say in the tfillin of Hakadosh Baruchu? So the Gemara says, "You want to know what it says in the tfillin of Hakadosh Baruchu? Mi chamcha Yisrael echad ba'aretz. Asher Yisrael am noysha b'Hashem." The tfillin of Hakadosh Baruchu have parshiyos that talk about how amazing Klal Yisrael is. It's parshiyos that bring out how special we are and how Hakadosh Baruchu views us differently than he views all the other nations of the world. Says Reb Simcha, Hakadosh Baruchu told HaMelech, "V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim." What's the difference between einai v'libi? This is the question that Reb Efraim Zalman Margolies asked the Chasam Sofer, where the Chasam Sofer said the teretz I heard is a shtick of above my pay grade. Says Reb Simcha, "I'm going to tell you poshet pshat. Einai means Hakadosh Baruchu says, 'I'm looking at you.' It's a hashgacha protis. Einai means I have my eyes on you. I'm watching you." Hakadosh Baruchu says that in the Makom HaMikdash, einai, I am going to see you. I'm going to be watching you. Libi means that I'm going to care for you. I'm going to want you. I'm going to love you. Eretz Yisrael is a place that einah Hashem Elokecha bah, meireishis hashana v'ad acharisah. The Makom HaMikdash Hakadosh Baruchu said was a place "V'hayu einai v'libi sham kol hayamim." Says Reb Simcha, a person puts on tfillin shel rosh, it should be on the moach, like we say in the leshem yichud, if you say the leshem yichud. A person puts on tfillin shel yad, it should be connected to the leiv, as we say in the leshem yichud, if you say the leshem yichud. Says Reb Simcha something incredible. He says that as it relates to the tfillin shel rosh of Hakadosh Baruchu, as it relates to the fact that Hakadosh Baruchu says, "Einai, I'm watching the Yidden," over there, Klal Yisrael is divided into four groups. Why four groups? Everybody knows that we take dalet minim on Sukkos to represent the four types of Yidden. You have the min that has a ta'am v'reiach, that represents the tzaddik. You have the min that has no ta'am and no reiach, that represents the rasha. And then there's ta'am b'reiach and there's reiach b'lo ta'am. Says Reb Simcha, the Yidden are divided into four groups. When it comes to the hashgacha of Hakadosh Baruchu, when it comes to the fact that Hakadosh Baruchu watches us, doesn't see all the Yidden in the same way. How could he? If there's a Yid that's a shomer Torah u'mitzvos and then there's a Yid that's not a shomer Torah u'mitzvos, it's impossible for them to be viewed as the same way. And that's why the tfillin shel rosh of the Eibishter, which is connected to "V'hayu einai," that's divided into four groups, because really Hashem looks at the four types of Yidden in four different ways. But the tfillin shel yad, which is connected to the leiv, that represents the ahavah that Hakadosh Baruchu has for Klal Yisrael. Says Reb Simcha, when it comes to the love that Hashem has for Klal Yisrael, it makes no difference if you're the tzaddik that has a ta'am v'reiach, if you're the rasha that has no ta'am and no reiach, or if you have a reiach b'lo ta'am and a ta'am b'lo reiach, because we're all banim laHashem Elokeichem, u've'ein kach u've'ein kach kruyim banim. And being that u've'ein kach u've'ein kach kruyim banim, there's no four compartments. Every Yid is a Yid because he's a Yid. And they're all the same. And that's why we don't divide the Yidden. When it comes to hashgacha, says Reb Simcha, we have no choice. We have to divide the Yidden. But when it comes to the leiv of Hakadosh Baruchu, when it comes to the ahavah, the love that Hakadosh Baruchu has for Klal Yisrael, we're all the children of Hakadosh Baruchu. And being that we're all the children of Hakadosh Baruchu, it doesn't matter if we're we're doing is right or if what we're doing is wrong. Sometimes the ahavah parent could have for a child is greater if he's doing what's wrong than if he's doing what's right, because absence sometimes makes the heart grow fonder. But the reality is there's no four batim when it comes to the tfillin shel yad, because the tfillin shel yad is connected to the leiv. That represents the ahavah, the love that Hakadosh Baruchu has. And when it comes to the ahavah, u've'ein kach u've'ein kach kruyim banim, a Yid is a Yid is a Yid. And as a result, we're all the same. Eretz Yisrael is a land that einah Hashem Elokecha bah, meireishis hashana v'ad acharisah. A Yid that lives in Eretz Yisrael there's a special hashgacha. The Rabbeinu Bachya talks about it throughout his Pirkei Avos d'Rebbe Eliezer. We have several Rebbe Bachya's on this topic. In chutz la'aretz, we're underneath the mamshalah of different intermediaries. The hashgacha protis that a Yid has when he lives in Eretz Yisrael is different. That's what the Gemara says in the end of Kesubos, kol hadar b'chutz la'aretz, domeh k'mi she'ein lo Elokim, because he doesn't have the same level of hashgacha protis. And that's the idea of eretz asher einah Hashem Elokecha bah, meireishis hashana v'ad acharisah. But HaMelech davened to Hakadosh Baruchu. His tfila was that when a Yid comes to this place, when a Yid comes to the Makom HaMikdash and he davens, Eibishter, don't judge him. Don't look at if he's a Yid that has a ta'am v'reiach, he's reiach b'lo ta'am, ta'am b'lo reiach, or b'lo ta'am b'lo reiach. You should look at a Yid because he's a Yid. And answer his tfila, whether his tfila is because he did aveiros and he's asking for slicha, whether his tfila is because he doesn't have parnassah, there's a rav ba'aretz, whether his tfila is that there's a kol nega and there's a kol machlah and he's asking for a refuah, whether his tfila is he's about to go out to war and he's hoping that he's going to come back alive and he's going to be successful. Regardless of what his tfila is, don't judge him." And the Eibishter turned to HaMelech, and the Aibershter said, "Your wish has been granted." Eretz Canaan, Eretz Yisrael as a whole, is Eretz Asher Inecha Asher Melecha Bah. But Eretz Yisrael B'frat, when it comes to the Makom Hamikdash, when it comes to the Beit Hamikdash, over there it's going to be Ainei V'libi Sham Kol Hayamim. Over there, I promise you, Hashem tells HaMelech, "I'm not just going to look, but I'm going to feel. I'm going to open up my heart, and over there no one's going to be judged. Over there, it doesn't matter who you are. Ki Veisi Beit T'filah Yikarei L'chol Ha'amim. For everybody, even for the Umos Ha'Olam. It's going to be a place where Hakadosh Baruch Hu says, "I'll answer your t'filah, regardless, regardless of your background, and regardless of how you live your life, and exactly who it is you are." But if you are medayek L'shonei Hazav of the pasuk, what did the Aibershter say? V'einai V'libi Sham Kol Hayamim. We're not going to digress into lomdus now, but it's brought in the Rambam in Perek Zayin Hilchos Beit Habechirah, and it's brought in the Ra'avad over there, and in the Noam Elimelech, that when Hashem said Kol Hayamim, what he meant to say was Kol Hayamim Ad Hayom Hazeh. Regardless of whether the Makom Hamikdash has kedushah today, doesn't have kedushah today, you could go on the Har Habayit, you can't go on the Har Habayit, has nothing to do with this conversation. Here, the Aibershter could not have been more clear. V'einai V'libi Sham Kol Hayamim. I think it's poshut. Every Yid comes to the Kosel, every Yid comes to the Makom Hamikdash, and he feels he feels different. This This is something a little bit different. And if I may, I think he feels like he belongs here. He feels like he just feels like he belongs. People come, they put on their pop-up yarmulkes, and they start crying, and they start davening like they've never davened in their lives. It's a real feeling. It's a real feeling, cuz this is a place where Hakadosh Baruch Hu's heart is open. And because Hakadosh Baruch Hu's heart is open, it's a place where the Aibershter promised HaMelech, V'einai V'libi Sham Kol Hayamim. Ki Shamati Es T'filascha V'es T'chinasecha Asher Chanan Ta'l'fanai. Hikdashti Es Habayit Hazeh Asher Banisi L'sum Sh'mi Sham Ad Olam. V'einai V'libi Sham Kol Hayamim. This has nothing to do with what was. This has nothing to do with what will be. This is the way it is right now, today, in Golus, today, deep in Golus, in a world of Anoichi Aster Hester Panai Bayom Hahu. In a world where maybe we're all judging each other too much, but this is a place where the Aibershter is not judging anybody. This is a place where we're all on one bias. It's a place where you Ainei V'libi Sham Kol Hayamim. We should be zocheh that all of our t'filos here in the Makom Hamikdash should be answered, and we should be zocheh to have the Shechinah come down, where it's going to be B'galei B'herbei Meinu Amen.