Zevachim 77

Today's stuff is walking down Ein Zeilen and we're at the Mishnah about 10 lines from the top of Duff Ein Zeilen on Med Alif. Today's stuff is being learned with Ilui Nishmas Ha Chaver Naftali ben Ha Chaver Binyamin. So, the topic of the eighth perek of Maseches Zevachim is where Zevachim Kotchin meets Taruvos. Different Korbanos got mixed up. This is a huge problem in the Beis Hamikdash because not all Korbanos were created equally. Different dinim in terms of how you execute the Avodah of different Korbanos. In the context of a Taruvos, you have to know exactly how to fear us with the Avodah. In today's stuff, we're going to learn two Mishnayos, both of which are a continuation of this theme. Different Taruvos related Halachos. As it pertains to Zevachim, so says the Mishnah. Avarim Chatos, the Avarim of a Korban Chatos she nistarvu be Avarim Olah, that got mixed up with the Avarim of a Korban Olah. Now, right off the bat, this is a problem because the Avarim of a Korban Chatos are included part of the Basar of a Korban Chatos where the Halacha is it's Ne'echeles LeCharei Kohanim. The Avarim of a Korban Olah are included in the Basar of a Korban Olah where the Halacha is that it's Kulo Kallel, it has to be burnt on the Mizbeach. Now, you have a Taruvos of Avarim. Some of the Avarim have a din Achilah, some of the Avarim have a din Haktarah. What exactly are you supposed to do? So, it was a Machlokes Tana'im. Rabbi Eliezer im Rabbi Eliezer says, "Yiten Lemalah. You take the Avarim and you Makdir them." Meaning, you put them on top of the Mizbeach the way you would always be Makdir Avarim. "Veroyah Ani es Basar HaChotos Lemalah Ke'ilu Einam." I included in this Taruvos is Avarim of a Chatos and Avarim of a Chatos the din is Achilah. The din is not Haktarah. Says Rabbi Eliezer, "Chiddush, Royah Ani es Basar HaChotos Lemalah Ke'ilu Einam." I have a right to view the Basar Chatos as if it's not really Basar Chatos. Rather, what is it? It's wood. So, that when you put it in the fire, you're just adding fuel to the fire. You're not being Makdir Basar of a Korban Chatos. Being that you're not being Makdir Basar of a Korban Chatos, it's for that reason it's going to be okay. The Chachamim The Chachamim say absolutely positively that's not an option. Rather, to Uber Tzurah. So, what you have to do is you have to wait until the Basar all of the Basar it changes its form. Meaning, it starts to decompose a little bit and then Vi'eitzel LeBeis HaSreifah. Instead of eating it, instead of putting it on the Mizbeach, what you're going to do is you're going to put it in the same place that you put all Basar that's not Roy LeAchilah or LeHaktarah, you end up taking it outside to the Beis HaSreifah. So, in the event there was a mix-up a Taruvos between Avarim of a Korban Chatos and Avarim of a Korban Olah, what exactly do you do? Machlokes Rabbi Eliezer and the Chachamim. According to Rabbi Eliezer, you Makdir it. I, you're being Makdir Avarim of a Korban Chatos. Royah Ani es Basar HaChotos Lemalah Ke'ilu Einam. According to the Chachamim, to Uber Tzurah, no, it's not an option to be Makdir it. You certainly can't eat it. Rather, you wait until it comes to a situation where it's not Roy LeHaktarah, where it's not Roy LeAchilah and then you treat it the way you would treat all Basar Kotchin that's in that state. Vi'eitzel LeBeis HaSreifah. You take it out into the Beis HaSreifah. Just a few things as it relates to understanding the Mishnah and really as an introduction into the Gemara. Number one, when Rabbi Eliezer says, "Yiten Lemalah. Veroyah Ani es Basar HaChotos Lemalah Ke'ilu Einam." Rashi says that the way this works is that the Kohen has to be Mechaven that I'm putting it not LeShem Haktarah, rather LeShem Eitzim. Meaning, if he would do it Stam, then the assumption would be that it's being done LeShem Haktarah and that's not okay because a Basar Chatos you're not supposed to be Makdir. If, however, the Kohen would have a Machavah that I'm putting it there not LeShem Haktarah, I'm putting it there LeShem to add fuel to the fire, I'm putting it there LeShem Eitzim, that's where Rabbi Eliezer says there's Makom LeHako and that's where it's going to be okay. >> [snorts] >> Additionally, the Rishonim speak out that the only reason Rabbi Eliezer allows this Royah Ani es Basar HaChotos Lemalah Ke'ilu Einam is because there's a Taruvos. In other words, don't try this at home. This is not something that a Kohen anytime he decides that he wants to instead of eating the Basar Chatos be Makdir the Korban Chatos. Perfect, let me have in mind that I'm putting it LeShem Eitzim instead of LeShem Haktarah and now it's going to be okay. It's Davka in a situation like this where we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. What are we supposed to do? You can't eat it. You can't be Makdir it. The Chachamim say to Uber Tzurah, Vi'eitzel LeBeis HaSreifah. But, let's be honest, that's not the best option either. So, Rabbi Eliezer says that Bechai Gavna where it's a Sha'as HaTzrach Gadol, [laughter] over here to save the Kotchin and to at least be Mekayem the Haktarah with the Olah, put the Basar Chatos LeShem Eitzim. You'll have the Kavana that you're not doing it LeShem Haktarah and it's then that it's going to be okay. That's the first Ha'arah that the Rishonim speak out right here in the Mishnah. The second Ha'arah and that really segues into the Gemara. What is the reason that you're not allowed to take Basar of a Korban Chatos and put it on the Mizbeach? So, the Mishnah begins with this conundrum. You have a Taruvos between the Avarim of a Korban Chatos and the Avarim of a Korban Olah. The Avarim of a Korban Chatos the din is you're supposed to eat it. The Avarim of a Korban Olah the din is to be Makdir. The assumption is you can't eat the Basar of an Olah and you can't be Makdir the Basar of the Chatos. Make it this. Now, as it relates to the fact that you can't eat the Basar of a Korban Olah, that the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh Korbanos perek Yud Alef Halacha Alef says, "Kol Ha'Ochel KeZayis miBasar Olah." If somebody eats a KeZayis of a Basar Olah, bein Lifnei Zerikas Dam or bein Acharei Zerikas Dam, doesn't matter if it's Lifnei Zerika or Acharei Zerika, Lo Yichyeh, he gets Malkus. She Ne'emar says in the Torah, "Lo Sucha Lacha BeShurecha Masas HaGoyim VeChulu U'Nedarecha Asher Tidar." MiPi Achshav Lomdim, even though this is not the Posuk She'an in the Posuk, BaChazal had a Mesorah She'Zeh Azharah LeOchel Basar Olah. That in this Posuk we learn a Hazara you're not allowed to eat a Korban Olah. If this Halacha sounds a little bit familiar somewhere deep in the crevice of our mind, the Makor is the Gemara Maseches Makos daf Yud Zayin in perek Eilu Hen HaLokin. If somebody eats Basar of a Korban Olah, he gets Malkus and the Gemara says this Posuk of "Lo Sucha Lacha BeShurecha" is the Makor. But, that everybody knows anyways. It's Poshet, you can't eat the Basar of a Korban Olah. I mean, that's Kotchin 101. In fact, you see from the Rambam it's more than just you can't eat it. It's included in the 208 Lavin for which a person would get Malkus. What about the Issur to take the Basar of a Korban Chatos and to put it on the Mizbeach? The truth is that's also a Lo Sa'aseh and the Makor is a little bit more Chakaf. The Posuk says, and this is right in the beginning of Parshas Vayikra, it's perek Beis Posuk Yud Alef. "Kol HaMincha Asher Takrivu LaHashem." Any Korban Mincha that's being brought to the Eibershter, "Lo Sa'aseh Chametz." You're not allowed to bring it in a state of Chametz. So, a Mincha we always say involved carbs. There was some Afiyah or Bishul involved, but you had to make sure that it never got to the point that it was Chametz. And then the Posuk concludes, this everybody knows, "Ki Chol Se'or VeChol Devesh Lo SaKtiru Mimenu Ish LaHashem." Because any Se'or and any Devesh you're not allowed to be Makdir LaKodesh Baruch Hu. Which is the pertinent part to the Reisha of the Posuk, "Ki Chol Se'or." And being that Se'or you're not allowed to put on the Mizbeach, therefore a Mincha which goes on the Mizbeach, the Torah says, "Lo Sa'aseh Chametz." You have to make sure that it's not going to be Chametz. The next Posuk says, "Korban Rishis Takrivu Oisam LaHashem." As much as I said "Chol Se'or VeChol Devesh Lo SaKtiru Mimenu Ish LaHashem," however, if the Korban is Rishis, then "Takrivu Oisam LaHashem." Then yes. However, "Ve'el HaMizbeach Lo Ya'alu LeRei'ach Nicho'ach." But, if you want to put it on the Mizbeach LeRei'ach Nicho'ach, that's not okay. So, what does this Posuk mean? So, if you look at Rashi, "UMekora Shel Rashi is Sugya Maseches Menachos." As much as it's true "Chol Se'or VeChol Devesh Lo SaKtiru Mimenu Ish LaHashem," there is a time where you're going to bring a Korban that's made of Se'or. There is a time that you're going to bring a Korban that's made of Devesh. When is that? When the Korban is Rishis. What's Rishis? The Shte HaLechem. That was a Korban that was brought on Shavuos. And we know that was a Rishis because it was the first Korban that was brought from Chadash. The Minchas Omer was Matir Chadash Bigvulin and the Shte HaLechem was Matir Chadash in the Mikdash. But, the Shte HaLechem was a Korban. It was Chametz. It's Rishis and that you were allowed to bring. Additionally, Bikurim was brought from the Shiv'as HaMinim. Included in that is Devesh, Devesh Temarim. So, says the Torah that as much as I'm saying "Chol Se'or VeChol Devesh Lo SaKtiru Mimenu Ish LaHashem," however, Korban Rishis "Takrivu Oisam LaHashem." This is Poshet She'an in the Posuk. That when the Korban is a Korban of Rishis, Rishis of Se'or meaning Shte HaLechem and Rishis of Devesh meaning Bikurim, then "Takrivu Oisam LaHashem." Then you could bring it. However, "Ve'el HaMizbeach Lo Ya'alu LeRei'ach Nicho'ach." But, even then you're not allowed to take the actual Shte HaLechem and the actual Bikurim and put it on the Mizbeach. That's not okay. What do you do? You put it El HaMizbeach, almost to the Mizbeach, next to the Mizbeach, but >> [laughter] >> to actually be Makdir it, that you can't do even when it's a carbon races. So, So, posuk shat this is a posuk in the parsha of mincha. It's talking about how a mincha wasn't allowed to brought chametz. Ki chol over chol was aktire men isha lashem. By the way, I just told you ki chol over chol was aktire men isha lashem. There's a very important carve out to that. Carbon races takrivu oisam lashem. However, even though carbon races takrivu oisam lashem, even from sor and vash, specifically when it comes to the and bikurim, they don't have to put it on the mizbeach that already is not going to be okay. Stating all that, there's another love that chazal extracted from this posuk. Something that is b'chlal not what the posuk itself is talking about, but at the same time a very very fundamental basic critical halacha that permeates kashrus. And that is chazal said, it says in the Torah "Lo saktiru mimenu isha lashem." We learn from here that anytime you have a carbon and part of that carbon went lashem, there was a mimenu of this carbon that went lashem, the chelek that's not supposed to go lashem lo yisaktiru. You're not allowed to be makdir it. So, for example, a carbon chatos that has a chelek of it that goes lashem, you're supposed to be makdir it. There's also a chelek that's not supposed to be makdir it. You're not allowed to take the chelek that's not supposed to go lashem and go ahead and be makdir it. So, the pshuto mikra of this posuk is ki chol over chol over chol was aktire mimenu isha lashem. But at the same time, from the words lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem, we learn a very important halacha and that is you're not allowed to take the basar of a carbon that has a chelek of it that went to such as the basar chatos and now go ahead and be makdir it. So, as it relates to the ivarei oilo not being allowed to eat, that's a love. What's the love? Lo yisuch asher maser degoncha u'nedvecha asher tidor. Like the Rambam brings in perek alef halacha alef as my carbonus asher koroy who mar Marcus David Ein. As it relates to not being allowed to be makdir the ivarum of a carbon chatos, that's learned out from a a posuk in perek posuk in parshas Vayikra. The pshuto mikra of the posuk is ki chol over chol over chol was aktire mimenu isha lashem. But we darshan lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem in a vacuum. It's a mimer musgar that anytime you have a carbon where mimenu went you're not allowed to go now take the other chelek and be makdir it. As we're going to see, this aktama is mamesh pertinent. Walks us right in to the first gemara on daf ayin zayin amud alef. So, the gemara tells me the Rebbi Eliezer, what is the makor to Rebbi Eliezer that says what? That in the event that there was a taruvis of a varei chatos and ivarei oilo. Yiten lamaylo veroya basar chatos mimaylo kilo yeitzem. Which is a very very big chidush. And by the way, in light of what we just said, that really there's a love in the Torah lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem to be makdir the basar and the ivarum of a carbon chatos. So, now because he had kavana lahefech [laughter] and because you're stuck here in a matzav of taruvis of a far. Now that we said it's a love, till now we thought the halacha of the chatos is you're supposed to eat it. Now you're not doing what you're supposed to do. B'chay gavna maybe it's okay. But if it's a fight to go say in the Torah, so then b'churum my time with the Rebbi Eliezer. Says the gemara a mikra Rebbi Eliezer said that if you look at the posuk, the second posuk that we mentioned in that parsha from which we learned lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem, it says mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach. Rebbi Eliezer darshan l'reiach nichoach at maylo aval at maylo b'shem eitzem. That when the posuk said carbon races takrivu oisam lashem v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach, that whole posuk is a continuation of the previous posuk. In the pshuto mikra, it's a continuation of ki chol over chol over chol was aktire mimenu isha lashem. In the drush of lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem which is the makor that you're not allowed to be makdir the basar and the ivarum of a carbon chatos, it's in continuation of that love as well. Now, what does it say in the Torah? V'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach. So, Rebbi Eliezer, the Torah's being makdir the love. It's true lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem. But when? When you're doing it l'reiach nichoach. But being that you're putting it on the mizbeach l'shum eitzem, that was your kavana, so then already it's not going to be a problem. The rabbonan, what are the rabbonan going to respond to that? Meaning, it sounds like Rebbi Eliezer is saying very good. The whole makor not to be makdir the chatos is lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem. It sounds like the Torah was makdir it and said v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach. Says the gemara, the rabbonan are going to tell you that miyad drachmona oisam. Right before it says v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach, it says oisam lashem. Carbon races takrivu oisam lashem. Says the chachamim, from the word oisam, we learn that it's dafka oisam them. What is them? Them what the Torah's talking about m'foresh. And that is ki chol over chol over chol was aktire mimenu isha lashem. It's regarding that that you have this miyut of oisam who the eiyata maylo aval at the maylo l'shem eitzem. Aval miydi achrini, as it relates to the other love that's not m'foresh in the posuk, that's only implied from the posuk, over there like vi the halacha is that even if you're not doing it l'reiach nichoach, still there's going to be a love. So, it's true it says v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach, which is a huge qualification of the love of ki chol over chol over chol was aktire mimenu isha lashem. But it [laughter] says oisam which is a miyut. So, that qualification is limited. What's it limited to? It's limited to the pshuto mikra. And and it makes sense it's limited to the pshuto mikra. First of all, it's the pshuto mikra. But also the words right before oisam are carbon races takrivu oisam lashem. Carbon races is for sure going back on ki chol over chol over chol was like we were m'foresh the posuk. Races of sor and chametz and races of vash is bikurim. So, carbon races takrivu oisam lashem. But that oisam is also telling me that what it says after v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach, from where you would see this grace of cool that if you wanted to put it on the mizbeach l'shum eitzem, maybe it would be okay. It's true, but only regarding sor and vash. It's not true with regards to the ivarum of a carbon chatos. V'Rebbi Eliezer, what's Rebbi Eliezer going to do with the word oisam? Can't ignore the word oisam. Oisam definitely sounds like a a word that's coming to be m'mayet. Says the gemara, Rebbi Eliezer is going to tell you oisam who the halacha of kevish mizbeach. Aval miydi achrini like Rebbi Eliezer says there's another halacha that chazal darshan from the words v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach. And that is that not only are you not allowed to take the sor and vash and put it al gabbei mizbeach. And not only are you not allowed to take l'chura the ivarum of a carbon chatos and put it al gabbei mizbeach, but even on the kevish of the mizbeach, even that's not okay. We learned that from the fact that it says v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach. El mizbeach is any chelek of the mizbeach and the kevish is a chelek of the mizbeach. Even though it's not the makom makdirah, still it's like it could be okay. Says Rebbi Eliezer, when the Torah said oisam, oisam was coming to say that the ribui of kevish mizbeach is true only for oisam. On the love of ki chol over chol over chol but as it relates to the love of lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem, that you're not allowed to be makdir the basar and the ivarum of a carbon chatos. With regards to that, you don't have the ribui of kevish. So, I'm asking to you rabbonan that oisam is coming to be m'mayet. But it's not coming to be m'mayet l'shum eitzem. It's coming to be m'mayet that there's no din kevish mizbeach when it comes to that love. The chachamim, meaning what are the rabbonan going to say? M'minan no that if it says oisam, oisam sounds like that whatever you learned from these words v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach, it's dafka nigayei carbon races takrivu oisam lashem. Oisam is not m'mayet one thing and now let's pick and choose and let's decide which one thing should have been m'mayet. Oisam is m'mayet everything. The bottom line is what emerges is that the makor to the machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and the chachamim is really how to learn p'sukim. It's Torahs Kohanim 101. That's what's going on over here. Says in the Torah lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem. K'pshuto, it's going b'hemshech to ki chol over chol over chol was but chazal darshan it as a mimer musgar. This is the makor that the basar of a chatos, the ivarum of a chatos, or really the basar and the ivarum of any carbon where mimenu is isha lashem, you're not allowed to take the chelek that's not supposed to go lashem and be makdir it. Stating that, the Torah says in the very next posuk v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach. Rebbi Eliezer held in that posuk we said that only time you're not allowed to do that is if you're doing it l'reiach nichoach. But if you would put it l'shum eitzem, it would be okay. And that's the eitzah going to Rebbi Eliezer. You put it l'shum eitzem, you have kavana lahefech, not l'shum aktara, but kavana l'shum eitzem. Even then, the rishonim said Rebbi Eliezer said, "Don't try this at home. I'm only allowing you to do it because you're stuck." Meaning, it's not the most l'chatchila thing, but the bottom line is this is an eitzah just based on the qualification that Torah gave to the love. The chachamim said that it's true it says v'el mizbeach lo ya'alu l'reiach nichoach, but it says oisam lashem. And oisam is a miyut in this qualification. The miyut is it's a qualification for the love of ki chol over chol over chol was, but it's not a qualification for lo yisaktiru mimenu isha lashem. Which means if you would take the ivarum of a chatos and you would put it on the mizbeach and you would have a mind l'shum eitzem, you're you're being over a fight to go say in the Torah. There's no kavana that's going to allow you to get out of it. And for that reason, the chachamim say that's not an eitzah. To eat it is obviously not an eitzah and you're running into the other love that the Rambam brings in perek alef halacha alef as my carbonus. The eitzah the eitzah and the only eitzah is to ubartzu rosam v'eitzu l'veitz astreifa. Either way, so the way we have [snorts] the machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and the chachamim in our mishna is they were arguing with regards to the ivarum of a carbon chatos that when it mixed with ivarum of a carbon oilo. You have a kosher chatos, you have a kosher oilo. The kohen so badly wants to do everything the right way. The problem is he doesn't know who's who, what's what. He's stuck. According to Rebbi Eliezer, there's an eitzah. The eitzah is being makdir everything, have a mind l'shum eitzem. According to the chachamim, there is no eitzah. And it's for that reason to ubartzu rosam v'eitzu l'veitz astreifa. We're about to see right now that there was another version of the Rebbe and the that the had. Meaning sometimes you find that there was a time what exactly a time of previous generations was. And when he was so if he was going to present the time and he sometimes had to pick and choose which version which of the time that he wanted to be >> [snorts] >> the should go down in the so the now is going to say that the version that picked is a version but heavy idea there's another version that clearly for whatever reason chose not to pick. Says the like the like the following time the time you bring to the all my who that said when Rebbe never argued all the very this very wow this whole is that we just thought never really happened says Rebbe Rebbe never argued a very and a very they agreed that what meaning everybody holds that there's a din of we however and even though it says it's only coming to be a coming to be a this okay additionally I'll be the never should I there was never a between and the in the event a volume that is supposed to go on the and a volume that is supposed to go on the but then they found out that the volume of one of the was from an animal that was a which of course is not allowed to go on the so you have a now of a volume that are to go on the and a volume that are from a that's a as a result of which are not going to go there was no there either because everybody was in agreement Rebbe Rebbe in such a situation even Rebbe holds there's no you're not taking a volume that's from an animal that was a and putting it on the what was the is this they volume where there were a volume of a regular that was with a volume of an that's a and now you're not sure what to do Rebbe says go ahead and be the and here you have the of and that's what's going to be okay the said that you should not go and be so according to Rebbe the Rebbe and the is as presented but in a different case the case is talking about now where you had culture that when culture in that case everybody holds it's talking about we had culture and and it's also not a case with a with a because of a because everybody would hold the case is where the is possible because it's from an animal that's a in such a case you have the between Rebbe and Rebbe holds the said it's not going to be okay so the Rebbe might not the but not me what's Rebbe meaning the seem to be consistent the hold that it doesn't matter if the is with the never or the is with either way you don't put it on the Rebbe seems to be between Rebbe and Rebbe you can't put on the Rebbe you could put on the like the what's the difference Rebbe because it's like because it's not something that's allowed to go on the but not me Rebbe is also not just one thing just push it an observation in the the is not asking Rebbe you're inconsistent [laughter] because you hold that when the when the you're allowed to put it on the how come when it comes to Rebbe do you hold that you can't put it on the additionally the not even asking in the right the hold where it's a very and a very you're allowed to put on the but when it comes to Rebbe you can't put it on the that it's like push it is different to the there's no in the world that's a that's a different where the holds the two should be the same and I can't see any in the world to be is where you had culture that when Rebbe Rebbe culture that was with what's the difference over there the are consistent Rebbe is inconsistent now the reason that's so meaning the reason a very a very is obvious to the different because there everything is culture additionally it's based on a the is to take the very to put on the is we said and we said all right it's the whole first part of the there's a qualification but here we're talking about a volume that were mixed with culture a volume the are consistent never put it on the Rebbe says no not SO FAST WHAT IS THE IS THIS REBBE OR IS THIS WHO CARES possible is possible is possible since when do we rank my of and we're going to say this I don't want it going NEAR THE THAT YEAH JUST PUT ON THE have you're stuck you're in the anyways and it's going to be okay right it's very very says the Rebbe who know Rebbe took the first crack at it he said could be what's going on over here is this Rebbe that Rebbe says where it's it's okay to put it on the talking about where it wasn't a regular the was a subtle it was a moment the cataract of the eye of the animal but and it's going who holds all the way to being that Rebbe holds it comes to so that's the reason where the is with a of it's going to be okay but the is Rebbe the even Rebbe who's making when it comes to he was only making with the but it doesn't hold that this is something you're allowed to do and if that's the case shouldn't really help you now the truth is that I'm asking a very question in the and that is maybe Rebbe said as a Rebbe and he doesn't mean that that it's a Rebbe you're allowed to go ahead and put it on the but you're asking what's the between a is of Rebbe versus a of Rebbe I'll tell you the the is a of Rebbe Rebbe is a more cooler Rebbe Rebbe ALL THE WAY AS OPPOSED to Rebbe where all of is it's all the way but the for some reason is not being all made on that the holds that's not enough of a if you would have a of that you could be a Rebbe where it's Rebbe that would be okay the closest thing you have to that is Rebbe and even Rebbe said but the you know so the bottom line is shouldn't really help you so the is Rebbe Rebbe took the second stab at it he said you know what's going on over here in Rebbe case it's talking about going to Rebbe it's talking about with a volume were ready on the okay being that the volume were ready on the so there the is that Rebbe is right Rebbe is and once it's on the Rebbe is the is you're allowed to put it on the this is really based on a come on just explain this a little bit better >> [snorts] >> Rebbe says we're talking about where the was with Rebbe in all the way what's the in all the way is still not allowed to put it the was on the anytime the is in all the way if it's on the you're allowed to go and put it on the so again it's talking about the to the Rebbe made it's not a regular Rebbe it's a Rebbe Rebbe but being that Rebbe in all the way when it's on the Rebbe you're allowed to go ahead and put on the Rebbe Rebbe Rebbe Rebbe Rebbe can't be that's the case because then Rebbe would say that if you had an animal that's a Rebbe Rebbe even if it wasn't with the culture animal the minute it's on the if you want to put on the you're allowed to put on the if he holds like Rebbe Rebbe and he holds that anytime it's in all the way if it's on the you're allowed to put it on the the fire of the okay so what does this have to do with Rebbe I can't be what's going on here time of Rebbe you have to say Rebbe the reason Rebbe holds that if the was with the Rebbe the is but if the was with the Rebbe is it's based on a because in the of Rebbe there's a it says Rebbe Rebbe and we learn from here that where it's and there the is all the way Rebbe now what's this it says Rebbe Rebbe Rebbe Rebbe right the word Rebbe Rebbe Rebbe now we learn from here that when it comes to a that's a Rebbe Rebbe where the Rebbe with the animal is and it's a Rebbe is that's where you're going to have a problem if however it's all the way Rebbe in that case it's going to be okay so again the question was what's the between Rebbe and Rebbe it's very simple by Rebbe there's no when it comes to Rebbe it says Rebbe it has to be if it's in the it's not going to be a problem Rebbe what did Rebbe do with that says the Rebbe the word Rebbe they know it's an exclusionary word I just like the word Rebbe is but it's coming to be something else Rebbe when the is physically in the animal that's when there's an issue all that Rebbe but let's say an animal has a and then the goes away the animal has a all in that case you're all it's going to be Rebbe yes sir. How does Rebbi Eliezer know that? I mean, that's a very basic halacha. Right, you would think that the first thing you would be mimaite from the word bom is what the rabbonan be mimaite. That's very fundamental as opposed to all lomdei the case that's only the gate of eighth perek in Zevachim. A case of a taruvus, right? You would think that's the more obvious case. So, the Gemara says Rebbi Eliezer darshens it from bom bohem. The way he actually explains it there's really two miutim in the pasuk. It says ki mashchisom bohem mum bom. So, it's not bom bohem one word has two drashos. That's usually what bom bohem would mean. But rather it's it's bohem bom, right? It's two separate drashos. That from one we mimaite the halacha of taruvus and from the other one we mimaite the once it's over a mum. Meaning, if there was one miut anochi nami Rebbi Eliezer would not have a makor for the halacha that there's no psul ba'al ashmum ba'al taruvus. But there's two miutim. It says bohem and it says bom. What do the rabbonan What do the rabbonan do with the second miut? Bom bohem lo darshei. Which means they are doresh bom, but they're not doresh bohem. So, one they're doresh, the other one they're not doresh. That's for that reason according to the rabbonan, all you have is a miut for when the mum passes. If however it's in a matzav of taruvus, for that you don't have a miut. So, the bottom line is just hit the pause button for 1 second. According to Rebbi Yehuda, the machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbonan is in a situation where there's a taruvus, yeah? But the taruvus was where you had kashrei evarim of a korban oila that were nis'arev with evarim of a korban oila ba'al ashmum. According to Rebbi Eliezer, put it on the mizbei'ach v'shum eitzin ro'eh. According to the chachamim, that's not going to be an option. Rather to ubar tzurason. Meaning, our Mishnah had the machlokes in the case where there was evarim chatus and evarim oila. Maseches Beitzah because Rebbi Yehuda had the same exact machlokes in a different context. What's the makor to the machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and the chachamim? Very similar to what the machlokes is according to the Torah of our Mishnah. That is it boils down to an exclusionary word in the parsha of mum. It says ki mashchisom bohem mum bom lo yeratzu lachem. According to Rebbi Eliezer, there's two miutim in this pasuk, bohem bom. One is coming to be mimaite that once the mum passes at that point there's no issur ba'al ashmum anymore. The other one's coming to tell me that the only time there's a problem is if it's bom, meaning it's ba'en. If however it's in a taruvus, at that point it's not going to be an issue. The chachamim hold there's only one miut because they hold of the miut of bom, they don't hold of the miut of bohem. If there's one miut to fast the mum pun intended to fast a and the more obvious miut would be that when the mum is there that's when it's going to be a problem. If however the mum passes, then already it's fine. But being that you don't have a second miut, so as far as we're concerned you have the issur of pigul in a matzav of taruvus. You have the issur even in a matzav of taruvus, so why you going to go ahead and be over an issur being makdir ba'al ashmum because you have in mind l'shum eitzin that in and of itself is not going to be an option. But the Gemara asks a very obvious follow-up question is and that is e hachi o ba'azoi ro'eh? Ro'eh? What did Rebbi Eliezer say? Rebbi Eliezer said that when you have a taruvus, which according to Rebbi Yehuda's version of the machlokes evarim charem and evarim of a ba'al ashmum, the reason you could put it on the mizbei'ach is because you can have a mind l'shum eitzin and we're going to view the evarim of the ba'al ashmum as if it's just adding fuel to the fire and as a result everything is going to be okay. Why are you having a mind l'shum eitzin? Why the shtikel Torah? Ha'Rachmana achsharei freit die Gemara. The whole issur ba'al ashmum we're saying is bom. It's only when it's ba'en. The minute it's in a taruvus, there's no issur at all. So, if there's no issur at all freit die Gemara, why do I need Rebbi Eliezer's shtikel Torah of l'shum eitzin? Rachmana achsharei. This is something that's mamash mutar. This is something that you're allowed to go ahead and you're allowed to do l'chatchila. Zogt die Gemara, you're right. Aber Rebbi Eliezer coming to you. You have to say that when Rebbi Eliezer said his shtikel Torah of l'shum eitzin, he was talking to the chachamim. And what he wanted to say was like this. L'didi, according to me Rachmana achsharei, the Torah says it's kosher. Aber l'deidchu, according to you that don't have the drasha of bom, o idili miut, at the very least could you be moideh that basar ba'al ashmum k'eitzin dami? There should be an eitzah of putting it l'shum eitzin. Meidei de'havei basar chatus. And what's the taina? The taina is just like basar chatus when it's nis'arev with basar oila. Evarim chatus and evarim oila. According to Rebbi Yehuda, even the chachamim will moideh you're allowed to do it. Why? Because as long as you didn't have a mind l'shem re'ach nicho'ach, it's going to be okay. So, this what the taina is. What Rebbi Eliezer's taina to the chachamim is that even if you don't hold of the mind shtikel Torah of bom, aber idili miut, it should be lo garua from chatus and oila. We see if you do it l'shum eitzin, being that it says in the Torah of olam mizbei'ach ya'aleh re'ach nicho'ach, then it's not going to be a problem. So, in this case, even the case of ba'al ashmum should be okay. But the Gemara says rabbonan chachamim is like asur l'eitzin. You can't compare taking a kosher korban chatus, which the din is l'achila, and putting it on the mizbei'ach where if you didn't do it l'shem re'ach nicho'ach, you did it l'shum eitzin, then it's going to be okay. To take an animal that's a ba'al ashmum, which is mol l'gviya, which is something that's disgusting to give to Hakadosh Baruch Hu there with all your shtikel Torah and all your chishbonos, that's not going to be okay. So, really the pnei emes taina of Rebbi Eliezer is based on the word bom. I hear his whole shtikel Torah of ro'eh, it was only the divrei chachamim. Now, Toisfos says asks a very very obvious gishmak pshat over an other. And that is, what's Rebbi Eliezer telling the chachamim? L'didi, Rachmana achsharei. Aber l'deidchu, o idili miut. Let me ask you a question. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold of that l'deidchu idili miut? According to Toisfos, no. Because if Rebbi Eliezer held of the l'deidchu idili miut, then Rebbi Eliezer would not have needed this pasuk of mum bom lo yeratzu lachem. Because you would anyways have the eitzah of idili miut. So, Toisfos says that it sounds like in the chashbon of the Gemara, Rebbi Eliezer is being tovei'a from the chachamim something that he himself doesn't hold of. And Toisfos says, oops, anochi nami, anochi nami. Got a little ahead of ourselves in a minute. But anochi nami, and what you and you find that sometimes in Shas Toisfos amol, you find such an inyan where the Gemara will say l'didi aber l'deidchu and the person who's making the argument of l'deidchu doesn't really hold of the l'deidchu. That's what Toisfos talks about in this Toisfos. But either way, we're going to go back here. But before we do, what's the very quick sikum? The Mishnah said evarim chatus nis'arev evarim oila. According to Rebbi Eliezer, yeitin l'ma'alah v'ro'eh. According to the chachamim, that's not an option to ubar tzurason. What we saw is that this is only one version of the machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the chachamim. There was another version. The other version was Rebbi Yehuda's version. Now, Rebbi Yehuda had nasi, Rebbi chose the other version, not Rebbi Yehuda's version. Aber l'maisa, there is a version of Rebbi Yehuda and according to Rebbi Yehuda the machlokes is l'hegyana not in the case of this Mishnah. Because in the case of this Mishnah, everybody would be moideh that the halacha is you can go ahead and be makdir l'shum eitzin. What was the machlokes? The machlokes was where the taruvus was kashrei evarim and evarim from an animal that's a ba'al ashmum. In that case, we have the machlokes. Either way, zogt die Mishnah weiter. Evarim ba'alei evarim ba'alei mumim. What would be if you have kashrei evarim of an oila that were nis'arev with the evarim of an oila that's a ba'al mum? Rebbi Eliezer omer Rebbi Eliezer says, in karav rosh echod me'hen, yikrevu kol ha'roshim. In the event that what the head of one of these animals you were already makdir, at that point you could be makdir all the other ones as well. Kru'ayim shel eched me'hen, if you were makdir the kru'ayim of one of these animals, yikrevu kol ha'kru'ayim, then you'll be able to be makdir all the kru'ayim. The chachamim omer [laughter] The chachamim say, afilu karvu kulam chutz me'eched me'hen. Even if you went and you were makdir everything with the exception of one, that one you can't be makdir. Yeitz l'veis ha'sreifa. You would have to take it l'veis ha'sreifa. So, here too it's just a few words before we start this last very short Gemara. Number one, Rashi says, the mefarshim, that the case he's talking about where you had one animal that was a ba'al ashmum and that one animal's evarim was nis'arev with many animals that's not ba'alei mumim, that are kosher animals. Meaning, anytime you have a taruvus, you always have to know what the ratio is. So, the case is where the ba'al ashmum is the miut and the kosher are the ro'eh. That's the case. When you understand that's the case, the machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and the chachamim flows very nicely. So, again, you have over here a situation where there are 10 sets of evarim that are all from a kosher oila and then there's one that's from a non-kosher oila. Rebbi Eliezer omer Rebbi Eliezer says, in karav rosh echod me'hen. If one of the heads you were already makdir, then yikrevu kol ha'roshim. Kru'ayim shel eched me'hen, yikrevu kol ha'kru'ayim. What's the svara? The svara is because Rebbi Eliezer, we saw this earlier in the perek, he holds of another ro'eh. You're allowed to be toleh and you're allowed to assume that the one that you were makdir was the not good one. Now, shame on you, but l'maisa right now it's out of the picture. It's not in the taruvus anymore. As a result, everything that you have left over is already good and if you want to go ahead and be makdir, you can be makdir. The chachamim say, afilu karvu kulam chutz me'eched me'hen. Even if you be makdir with all of them with the exception of one, I have to assume that the one that's left over is maybe the one that's not okay and therefore yeitz l'veis ha'sreifa. That one would have to go l'veis ha'sreifa. So, just from the machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and the chachamim, the front shita of Rebbi Eliezer that says once you makdir one, everything else is going to be kosher, it's obvious that in the taruvus there's only one bad one. And really all the other ones were the good ones. Again, I ain earlier in the perek. This is the first odor that needs to be spoken out, that the Torah speaks out right here in the Mishna. The second order, which is very obvious, and that is when the Gemara said on Amud Aleph that Masisa De Lo Yika Karban, the Mishna on Ayin Zayin on Amud Aleph, that says the Machlokes Rav Eliezer and the Chachamim, which from Eitzem, whether it works or doesn't work, it's talking about Eiver Chatos and the Seder Korban, the Eiver with Lo Yika Karban, which Tana? The Tana Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the Machlokes Rav Eliezer and the Chachamim is Davka in a case where had Eiver Korban Sheirim that were Nisar with the Eiver that's a Bal Ba Shmo. Now, the Gemara said it on Amud Aleph. Why did the Gemara say it on Amud Aleph? Because that was the first Mishna that we hit, and it was clear that that Mishna is not like Rabbi Yehuda, because according to Rabbi Yehuda there's no Machlokes Rav Eliezer and the Chachamim in that case. What does everybody hold? Everybody holds over there Yikrevu, right? Really, that Masisa De Lo Yika Karban is true for this Mishna as well. But we know really all these Mishnayos are one and the same, right? All the Mishnayos in a Perek for sure is the same. It's a Reisha and a Seifa. So when the Gemara made the comment on Amud Aleph, Masisa De Lo Yika Karban, there the Gemara was making it from that Cheilek of the Mishna, but it's equally as true from this Cheilek of the Mishna. You see clearly that Rav Eliezer and the Chachamim have a a different uh understanding when it comes to Eiver Korban Bal Ba Shmo, right? Rav Eliezer over here doesn't say that what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to put it on the Mizbei'ach the Rayan. The Chachamim don't say that Tu Ba Tu Ras Ba Eitz Ba Beis HaSreifa, it's a different Nusach Machlokes. And the reason is because again, the Tana of our Mishna is not Rabbi Yehuda. The same Masisa De Lo Yika Karban that we had on the Mishna on Amud Aleph we have over here on the Mishna on Amud Beis as well. Either way, Amar Rav Elazar, Rav Elazar said Rav Eliezer Elo Shnayim Shnayim. Even Rav Eliezer that said that Im Korban Rosh Echad Mehem Yikrevu Kol HaRoshim, that's only true if at the very least you have now two that you can put on the Mizbei'ach. Aval Echad Echad, Rav Eliezer is never going to allow you to put one on the Mizbei'ach alone. Rav Eliezer is only going to allow you to put two at a time. I mean, it sounds like from Rav Eliezer once you put on one then you can do whatever you want. No, even Rav Eliezer only allows you to put two on a time. And Rashi says the reason is because if you're putting two at a time, you have a Migo. Which Migo? What we always call the other Migo. Because [snorts] once you're putting two, being that you know one of them for sure is okay, so there's a Svara, Migo De Hai Lav De Issuruhu, Hai Nami Lav De Issuruhu. But if you're going to put one at a time, you always have to be Choshesh that maybe that one that you're putting is not okay. Even though you already put one on, and Rav Eliezer holds Toylin, it's true he holds Toylin, but it's Bitzirof Migo. So if you're Mamish right now going to put two together, it's then and only then that it's going to be okay. Amar Rav Yirmiya, Amar Rav Yirmiya asked the question from the Seifa of the Mishna. Chachamim say Af Ilu Korban Kulhu Chosher Me'achareihen, Yaitzu BaBeis HaSreifa. That even if you've been Makriv all of them with the exception of one, that one would have to go to Beis HaSreifa. What does it sound like? It sounds like the Chachamim hold that last one would have to go to Beis HaSreifa. But according to Rav Eliezer, if I count for sure that one you'd be able to be Makriv. Right, what are we trying to do in the Seifa? We're trying to bring out the Shitas HaChachamim on the biggest extreme. Even if you were Makriv all, THERE'S ONLY ONE LEFT, even then the Chachamim hold it's not okay. One left, even Rav Eliezer holds it's not okay. Because if there's one left, you don't have the Migo. So even Rav Eliezer is going to hold it's a problem. So the Gemara said Amar Rav Yirmiya bar Abba, Taklifa Azbera, Mag Echad Zug Echad Enachna. You have to say when we say there's one left, it means one Zug left. Enachna, there's one left, even Rav Eliezer would hold it's not okay. If there's one Zug left, it's over there that Rav Eliezer holds it is okay. We are going to stop here, Be'ezras Hashem, tomorrow the Daf is going to continue on this theme. Now we're going to be talking about where different Dam's, different bloods were mixed up, so we're getting involved in Teruvos BaZrika. So it's getting more and more fundamental, but for now we are going to stop here.