Zevachim 8

Today's daf is walking the path and we are two lines from the bottom of daf zayin amud bet. The Torah is continuing along discussing the halachos of Again, a kohen who does one of the dalet avodos has a dam, sh'chita, kabala, halacha, and z'rika and has a machshava of sh'lo lishma of shinu kodshim or shinu baalim. Shinu kodshim means he's bringing a korban ola for example and he has a mind not l'shem ola but rather l'shem sh'lamim. Shinu baalim, he's bringing a korban ola for Reuven and he has a mind that Shimon should be the shaliach with this korban ola. The halacha is if a kohen has such a machshava during one of the dalet avodos, says the Mishna, kol ha'avodos she'einan b'chulu sh'lo lishma k'sheirim ela sh'lo ola u'vaalim l'shem chiyuv. All korbanos, the halacha is that this korban is going to be kosher. What does kosher mean? Rashi says it's mutar to do the z'rika, it's mutar to be makdish the emurim, and it's mutar to eat the basar chutz with the exception of Pesach and chatas. Chatas and Pesach, and not only is it like ola u'vaalim l'shem chiyuv, but chatas and Pesach, the halacha is it's going to be pasul. The korban is a pasul korban. It's as if it's nicer, it's as if it's tamei. The you can't do the z'rika, you can't be makdish the emurim, you're not going to be able to eat the basar. We had several dafin, daf alef, daf bet, gimmel, where the Gemara discussed the mekoros. How do we know there's a din lishma b'chlala? How do we know that by kol ha'avodos it's kosher like ola u'vaalim l'shem chiyuv? And then finally, the last Gemara of daf zayin amud bet discussed how do we know that Pesach sh'lo lishma is not only like ola u'vaalim l'shem chiyuv, it's even pasul. Where we're up to now is the last detail in the Mishna. We're in the first part of the Mishna and that is how is it that we know, what's the makor, that a Pesach sh'lo lishma is going to be pasul? So the Gemara "How do you know that a chatas sh'lo lishma is pasul?" It says in the pasuk in the ikar parsha of chatas "v'shachat oso l'chatas". And we learn from there "she'tehei sh'chita l'shem chatas". "v'shachat oso l'chatas", you should shachat l'shem chatas. In other words, it has to be lishma. "ashken sh'chita u'kabal" Okay, so we have a makor that the korban chatas, the sh'chita has to be done with shem chatas. How do you know kabala? "k'siv b'Gemara pasuk for that as well". It says "v'lakach ha'kohen midam chatas". "v'lakach" means kabala and we learn from there "she'tehei kabala l'shem chatas". "b'ashken sh'chita u'kabala" Okay, so we have a makor now for sh'chita and kabala. "z'rika minan" And we already know from daf alef, the Gemara doesn't have to chazar that you can't learn kabala from sh'chita and you can't learn z'rika from sh'chita and kabala. The Gemara already worked through all the potential tzadei alef shavas, the Gemara had perichas on it. So we have a makor for sh'chita, we have a makor for kabala, we still need a makor for z'rika. Says the Gemara, "the amalka v'chiper alav kohen mechatosav". We learn from there "she'tehei kapara l'shem chatas". "v'chiper" is b'lashon kapara. The kapara happened with the z'rika. Thus, we have a makor for sh'chita l'shem chatas, "v'shachat oso l'chatas". We have a makor for kabala l'shem chatas, "v'lakach ha'kohen midam chatas". And now we have a makor for z'rika l'shem chatas, "v'chiper alav kohen mechatosav". What about halacha? This dalet avodos, we only have three mekoros. Rashi says for that you have to refer back to the Gemara of daf alef where the Gemara said that halacha and kabala are always the same. That means that the Torah uses a lashon of halacha when it describes kabala. The Torah is telling me that any halacha that you know regarding kabala applies to halacha as well. So "v'lakach ha'kohen midam chatas", that's a makor "she'tehei kabala l'shem chatas". I already know that the halacha has to be l'shem chatas as well. So says the Gemara, "ashken shinu kodshim u'vaalim". We now have a makor that shinu kodshim by korban chatas. We worked through each one of the avodos. "shinu baalim minan". How do you know shinu baalim? Meaning the din lishma that the Gemara proved was l'shem chatas, that's shinu kodshim. What's the makor for shinu baalim? Says the Gemara, "makor is another pasuk". It says "v'chiper alav". That's the pasuk that was the makor to z'rika l'shem chatas, "v'chiper alav kohen mechatosav". "alav v'lo al chaveiro". Says the Gemara, "ashken mitzva l'akeiv minan". So we found a makor, z'rika, shinu baalim l'mitzva, "v'chiper alav lo akeiv minan". How do you know that z'rika is m'akeiv shinu baalim by korban chatas? How do you know that a z'rika sh'lo lishma by a korban chatas shinu baalim is pasul? So the Gemara "R' Pinchas ben Yair R' Pinchas ben Yair said in another context in the darshan a word "chatosav". His drasha wasn't "kodesh chatas", instead it said "chatosav". And from "chatosav" the vav yesaira, R' Pinchas ben Yair darshan a halacha. So too we're going to do the same thing. It says "v'chiper alav kohen", that's the pasuk, "mechatosav". It could have said "mechatas", it says "mechatosav". The vav yesaira teaches me not only alav that there's a din shinu baalim by z'rika, but that it's going to be m'akeiv. So we have a makor so far for what? Let's take a little inventory. We know that there's a din shinu kodshim by a korban chatas. We had mekoros for sh'chita, kabala, z'rika. Once you know kabala, you know halacha. So we have a makor for all dalet avodos. One makor. We also have a makor that z'rika has to be l'shem the baalim, meaning there's a halacha of shinu baalim by z'rika of a korban chatas. And I don't just have one makor for that, I have two mekoros for that. I mean that I have two mekoros, there's a vav yesaira. The second makor teaches me that it's not only the k'chila din shinu baalim by z'rika of a korban chatas, but it's even l'akeiv. Says the Gemara, "so ashken mitzva l'shinu kodshim". I have a makor, shinu kodshim l'k'chila u'z'rika b'shinu baalim bein l'mitzva bein l'akeiv. What's missing? L'akeiv b'chol avodos b'shinu kodshim. The fact that sh'lo lishma is m'akeiv. It's not only like ola u'vaalim l'shem chiyuv, but it's m'akeiv b'chol avodos b'shinu kodshim u'bishar avodos b'shinu baalim bein l'mitzva bein l'akeiv. And as it relates to shar avodos by shinu baalim bein l'mitzva bein l'akeiv minan. Meaning I know the din shinu kodshim by korban chatas l'mitzva. I have one makor, so I know that there's a din l'k'chila that it has to be l'shem chatas. I also know z'rika l'mitzva u'la'akeiv by shinu baalim. What I don't know is la'akeiv shinu kodshim and I don't even know l'mitzva, certainly not la'akeiv b'shar avodos other than z'rika by shinu baalim. The Mishna says "chutz min a Pesach v'chatas, Pesach sh'lo lishma shinu kodshim shinu baalim is m'akeiv". I don't have a makor yet for that. Says the Gemara, "am R' Yoina as in mechatas nazir". You're right. For that we're going to have to go and we're going to have to learn another parsha of korban chatas in the Torah. Meaning all the limudim that we had till now was discussing the classic chatas. What's the classic chatas? Somebody doesn't a aveira b'shogeig, had he done it b'meizid he would have been chiyuv kares. The halacha is he has to bring a korban chatas. By the way, the Gemara is going to refer to that chatas in this sugia as a chatas chelev. Why chatas chelev? Because if somebody eats chelev b'meizid he's chiyuv kares. So thus, if somebody eats chelev b'shogeig he has to bring a korban chatas. So chatas chelev is just an example of a classic chatas, a chatas that's being brought because somebody did an aveira b'shogeig so they're not kares. It's Rashi in the meshech of the sugia. So why do we call it a chatas chelev? Why can't we call it a chatas chelev shabbos? Call it a chatas dam? There's many aveiros. There's 36 chiyuvei kares in the first Mishna of maseches kares. So why are we discussing dafka chelev? So Rashi says "mishum d'sh'chich". Apparently it was sh'chiach that people would eat chelev b'shogeig. So that chatas was sh'chiach. That's why we always refer to it as a chatas chelev. So even with the initial mekoros that the Gemara brought was all from chatas chelev. Says the Gemara, "in order to come full circle and put it all together, we're going to have to learn all halachos from another chatas, specifically the chatas nazir". So we know the nazir by shloshah avodos when he completed his nezirus he brought three korbanos. He brought an ola, he brought a sh'lamim, he brought a chatas. When the Torah describes the chatas of the nazir, it says the pasuk says "v'heekriv ha'kohen lifnei Hashem v'asah es chatosav v'es ola'sav". Darshan the Gemara, "ashken sh'chita u'kabala l'shem chatas". We learn from there that the chatas nazir all the asiyos. "v'asah es chatosav". How did it be l'shem chatas? We're not talking about sh'chita specifically or kabala halacha or z'rika specifically, but rather "v'asah es chatosav", we're talking about all the asiyos. All the asiyos have to be l'shem chatas. Says the Gemara, "okay, ashken shinu kodshim". So I have now a second [laughter] makor for shinu kodshim by chatas. And if I have a second it means that it's not only going to be l'mitzva, it's going to be la'akeiv. Why does it mean that? Because one of the most important rules that you have to internalize when it comes to seder kodshim is shina hakosuv v'la'akeiv. Anytime the Torah says a halacha twice in kodshim, it means it's m'akeiv. Once it's l'mitzva, twice it's m'akeiv. So once I have two mekoros, I have a makor for shinu kodshim by korban chatas in the parsha of chatas chelev. I have a makor for shinu kodshim by korban chatas in the parsha of chatas nazir. The second one teaches me that it's not only l'k'chila, it's even going to be m'akeiv. Okay, but shinu baalim minan. What do we need for shinu baalim? We know z'rika bein l'mitzva bein l'akeiv. We need kabala, halacha, and sh'chita. Sh'chita, kabala, halacha bein l'mitzva bein l'akeiv. Am R' Pinchas ben Yair the pasuk says "v'asah es chatosav". That same pasuk by ayil nazir, "v'heekriv ha'kohen lifnei Hashem v'asah es chatosav". It could have said "v'asah es a chatas", instead it said "chatosav". The vav yesaira teaches me shinu baalim. So now I know shinu baalim not only by z'rika, I know shinu baalim by v'asah, by all the asiyos. So I know shinu baalim by sh'chita, kabala, and halacha. So what's the makor? How do I know that chatas sh'lo lishma is going to be pasul? Shinu kodshim, I have two mekoros. I have mekoros for all dalet avodos in the parsha of chatas chelev. I have mekoros for all dalet avodos in the parsha of chatas nazir. Shina hakosuv v'la'akeiv, that's why I know it's m'akeiv. How do I know all dalet avodos sh'lo lishma is m'akeiv shinu baalim? I have a possum in the partial of that teaches me being the midst of being the octave by Rica and as it relates to Cabo and I have this in the parish of so comes down to a in both parishes one in the parish of one in the parish of if you have been you may be bothered with the rashes cashew and that is that if you need to make it in order for it to be you don't have to make the Cabo and I have to make a three for three car I have in the parish of and I have the in the parish of she knew by so I know but as it relates to only have the Sarah in the parish of of she knew by or in the parish of I didn't have anything in the parish of she knew so the I have to make it was Rica but I only have one for and so how do I know it's going to be my active by all that I void the rashes cashew rashes answers based on the and I am sure but either way so at the end of the day this duration the she knew by being the midst of being the active of both that went to an extra in two parishes in the parish of in the parish of another the says it could have said s what's the the comes to teach me the of she knew by if you want to go down this road and you want to start of you say there's a they might that same describes the of the another has to bring so it mentions the of the another they could have also it also mentions the of the another to bring it says now if you're going to send the and I say you have to send the and I say as well so I mean it was very bothered with this I mean it said the machine knew by by the is from above how are you going to answer all the how are you going to answer so the says I mean it I mean it why are you only asking from the and I say read the next in the the next says that after the brings and it brings it says he has to bring he has to bring there was a that was involved doing the that were involved and there too there's a so the is asking on cashew why is only bothered that if you the and I say how are you going to the and I say why is also not bothered how are you going to the and I how are you going to the in this so the says I mean it by the wasn't understood why wasn't bothered by that cuz knew what the answer was going to be said I'm not even asking you in this guy I know what you're going to tell me you're going to tell me that we learned from there the same thing that I'll learn from the words in this guy and that is with regards to the that were brought on that also involved the and also involved the and I but the this that we learn out from whatever is actually in that and that is that even though the technically part of the and the has to be brought by being in the net but the even though the part of the you brought by you can be brought the next day so I mean it understood that that's what the answer is going to be the I mean it is going to tell me that when the brings his in and together with his he has to bring the teaches me I like are you are you so they might but the that bothered him but so the asks another so again number one on our right now the she knew and she knew by them is that if the she knew by them is the of specifically in the parish of of the that the another used to bring then you have to the and I by the as well and what are you going to do with that first second is the whole premise of she knew by them is that why is the have to tell you something twice obviously the second time the said it's coming to teach me something something I wouldn't have known presumably to tell me that what it told me the first time isn't just a it's like but let's say there's a why the had to tell me something twice it's coming to teach me some sort of then I've added can't learn anything from the she knew by them she knew by them where I have nothing to do with the second time the mentioned it so it must be it's coming to teach me but if there's a but I can't learn it from the she knew then obviously it's not actually extra so I have no that it should be so kind of the the whole premise of this is that there's a she knew I have a the she knew let's say by the by I have a for she knew by what do I need to make for she knew now that's all presuming that I'd be able to learn from but the another so the doesn't have to tell me the of the specifically by the another cuz I can learn one from the other it's extra it's extra she knew but the says is that true I don't know I can argue that you would never be able to learn you know why because the didn't just bring a he brought another as well and that's a it's a in a carbon that it's not on its own it comes together with a there's a in this there's a there's an so that another maybe I would think if the only told me the by the maybe it's by the another that there's a maybe not by and I go and that's that if the would have only told me the of the by and not by that's an easy can you bring because you are a very good kind of a kind of a kind of another okay yes I mean a you have to even know why but but the point is this is that he's definitely not he wasn't a according to one he says the another is a but the point is that he wasn't Christmas maybe there is no what's the point the point is not extra if it's not extra how do I have a she knew hello my said you're right I hear I see the the second the she knew is not the parish of the it's the parish of the the is part of his how to bring a as well and when the talks about his but it says I would learn from this I am a for all that I void this that all that I void this have to be the same I have a second for she knew that she knew she knew she knew by them you know we needed not only to teach me she knew to teach me she knew by them so that's off the map now we have to come up with so I have a for she knew by what's a she knew by I am it says and we learn from there the I am a but the says the same that we asked that another is not extra not you don't have a she knew we could ask by another same exact that the can the she knew because the another was a complex it involved the other done that was involved it was an there was an the another again and you can the that she knew cuz the cuz so again don't have anything extra in the parish of another I don't have anything extra in the parish of so where is the she knew I get it there's a by but in order for it to be call as well that means that it's more than just that there's a it's and the coming from the angle that you know how you know it's cuz the didn't tell me once the told me twice and that's the rule in she knew anytime the repeats itself it's where is the she knew I have it in the she knew I have it in the she knew I have it in the but there's no she knew she knew is predicated on something being there's nothing extra over here I need she knew I need she knew I need so says the is that true I don't know if that's true because I understand that I need at least two of these but why do I need three says the they say I would like the of why did the have to write with the maybe I should learn with the from another with the and if that's the case is going to be extra that's going to be the she knew but the that doesn't work as because the another and with have in common that they both come with the another comes with an and a the with comes with an and an but the bottom line is they both have so I'd never be able to learn with the from with the another maybe the shouldn't have written another with the that's already good maybe don't say another and learn another from with and what are you going to tell me with the what was the in the with the with the so the that seems to be a very good but the says no cuz she can have a with the and with the there's no you can't be on your you you you can't be on your state of being a but you could be on your and now not be with the another so that's considered a so I'd never be able to learn another from those two so I need a of and with the with the with the maybe the shouldn't have written the parish of the by with the I could have learned it from the with the between with the and again it's the same you going to tell me you can't learn metzora from chates chelev because this car is chates nozer but the mission says here too you have a malach that can button the dollars. There's no dollars option. We don't work with you if you can't afford to bring the chates nozer. We don't work with you if you can't afford to bring the chates chelev. We do work with you if you can't afford to bring the chates metzora. We had it in this week's parsha. It's written in the Torah. It's baba dollars. That's considered a coolo. So if you don't only have the mother chates nozer chates chelev you get a chates nozer chates chelev that has a chomer. You have to buy the real thing. You can't get away with a dollars and maybe there is a necha desa. This same is going to be true by chates metzora. So the bottom line is we don't have a chana kasher because we don't have an extra parsha. The mission thought you know why chates nozer is not because there's an extra parsha. I have the parsha by chates chelev and then I have a parsha by chates nozer I have a parsha by chates metzora. But the mission says there's nothing extra. The Torah needs to tell me the mother chates nozer. The Torah needs to tell me the mother chates metzora because I can't learn one from the other. I can't even learn one from two. So coolo what's the to the of shiloy that it's mayim bishnayim bishnayim as it relates to chates as the mission very very partial. You know what the mission is? I'm going to tell you outside first. The mission is going to be kasher. The question is we only have one parsha. We don't have two parshas. Any additional parsha is really one parsha. I have one parsha of chates chelev. I have one parsha of chates nozer. I have one parsha of chates metzora. The Torah says this is true. But we know that all carbonas have a shma. How do we know that? Because the Torah said it by shlom. And once the Torah said it by shlom and we have the so Torah over chates and even for the three carbonas that aren't mentioned by master even that the mission says they are carbonahem the rabbis even those carbonas that every single carbon even the ones not mentioned before is in that are hookish and if shlom has a all carbonas have a shma included in all carbonas is chates. Chates is mentioned in the parsha. So Torah over chates. So the fact that there's a by carbon chates I know. I know that from the now the Torah went ahead and wrote another parsha of shma by chates by chates chelev what I need by chates chelev for. Oh it's an extra parsha. Why is it extra? Because the I know from shlom. I know from the I know it from the already. She not lucky. And the Torah did the same thing by the chates nozer. Why? She not lucky by chates nozer as well. And the Torah did the same thing by chates metzora. Why? She not lucky by chates metzora. Oh well my let's see it inside. So Torah over chates and shlom and shma chates mentioned in shlom and shma shma shlom. Mission shlom. Mission very articulate beautiful speaks it out very nicely. So the din of shma I know already from the carbon shlom. The coolo all these that we had is all so that's how I know the mission says we're not done yet. Because when the mission says coolo is lucky shiloy shma and all shiloy all the way to the chates the mission coolo and the parsha of chates chates includes all carbonas chates. Every single chates has this that shiloy is and we just saw now that not all chates were created equally. We have the chates chelev. We have the chates nozer. We have the chates metzora. And the mission fleshed out this musag that each chates needs its own independent because I can't necessarily learn one from the other. So we address as the mission three types of chates. The classic chates the chates chelev. The chates nozer. And the chates metzora. But there's two other parshas of chates that the mission didn't address yet. Outside first. The chates of if you remember from the Torah there's two parshas of chates that a person does if he doesn't have a parsha and then there's parsha parsha talks about all of this with the exception of parsha discusses if a person has a parsha he too has to bring a carbon chates. What's the difference between someone that does a parsha or somebody does a regular parsha a regular parsha you have an option to bring either a or a female sheep or a female goat. If somebody does a parsha it had to be the it had to be the goat. It couldn't be the sheep. But the bottom line is it's a separate parsha. Being that it's in a separate parsha it's a parsha so just because I have a I have a in the parsha chates chelev does that necessarily mean I can apply it to chates so when the mission says everything chates the shma is maybe shiloy shma when it comes to chates shouldn't I need another car. The second parsha of chates that the Torah didn't address is the parsha of the there's some namely three that are the Torah says you have to bring a carbon chates but you have an option. We'll work with you if you can't afford the this year you can be the if you can't afford that you can bring the carbon you can even bring a carbon what are those three things shvoos and being that those parshas are unique they have this phenomenal coolo of the red so I shouldn't need maybe a separate and that's the spirit of the whole we need a for each chates. So maybe I need a a for those chates as well that shiloy is so the mission holds we're not done yet meaning chates chelev and chates and we also have a chates nozer and chates metzora. Chates of and shma that's shvoos and shvoos that's shvoos the mission and and they have a coolo that they're over the meaning how do you know that shiloy is there as well. So the mission says chates ask your mission chates chelev. Chates that's not shver because although it's true the shina is in the parsha of chates chelev and the parsha of it's not in the parsha that talks about but at the end of the day why can't I learn from chates chelev. What are you going to tell me what's the chates chelev has chates I that's easy the mission the coolo and as it relates to the others which others the ones that are so there I can say the I can learn it out from the what's the you going to tell me you can't learn it from chates chelev because chates chelev has chates. So mission has chates but you can't learn shvoos and shvoos because shvoos and shvoos aren't chates chates metzora and chates nozer you can't tell me that maybe there's a coolo that there's the by these three because chates metzora is also baba dollars. Actually by the way the metzora was baba dollars but the metzora didn't have dollars as opposed to the carbon they didn't just have dollars they had dollars maybe that's a coolo that you have dollars by the but you don't have dollars by metzora either way if you want a a more extended version of what the mission means when it says the I have a but the bottom line is the mission we have it all worked out. We have a for chates chelev. We have a for chates nozer. We have a for chates metzora. We have a for chates and we have a for shvoos shvoos mission despite the fact that they're the carbonas chates that have thus when the mission says coolo shiloy shma shiloy all the way to the chates it means every single carbon chates every chates has this that shiloy is going to be possible. So then we're going to see soon on where the mission is going to get involved with another type of chates that actually wasn't mentioned in the so we'll get to that already on the next either way excel. So we completed the first part of the mission. First part of the mission that discusses all carbonas shiloy shma shina shina mayim are kosher but at the same time for the all the way to the chates chates the mission continued and the mission said a is when we say that a shiloy shma is possible it means that if the carbon was brought what's the carbon every that's when the you did used to bring the carbon and that is considered parsha. So the all the way to the shiloy shina that's that the chates is going to be possible. But if it's shiloy it's from the mission it's not going to be possible. The chates the mission said says the mission a that elaborates on this a little bit. The carbon that was brought the shma if it was brought the same kosher obviously that's what you're supposed to do. That is the of carbon shiloy if the carbon was brought shiloy possible. That's the mission. If somebody has a carbon chates meaning he went to his and said I want this to be a carbon so this animal right now was big parsha. But it's it's nissan. He's preparing for it's not it's nissan. And now he goes and he brought this animal to the mission and the was so what's the says the mission shiloy if he brought it the same possible then it's going to be possible. Why? So she says it's possible because he brought it the same and it's not of so obviously it's going to be possible. You don't need to for that. Shiloy kosher. If however this carbon was brought shiloy shiloy then it's going to be kosher and that's the mission of the and that's what the mission is going to elaborate on right now. You know how the mission says how do you know that a carbon that's brought in the shiloy not every parsha and it's also Shilo l'shmo, it was brought l'shem [ __ ] for example, l'shem Oila. It was brought l'shem some other So we learn that from the following pasuk. A pasuk in the parsha of [ __ ] If the [ __ ] that a person is bringing is Minchat Tzoin, he decides that it should be sheep. What does sheep mean? Either I mean what does Tzoin mean? Either sheep or goats. That's the definition of Tzoin. So he does shin. Something was extra in this pasuk. And Avodas Shmuel said, "Do you know what the beer in this pasuk is? We're talking about a Dovar Habah Min Hatzo'in. Something that the Torah says has to be Tzoin. Which carbon had to be Bom Min Hatzo'in? The carbon Pesach. The carbon Pesach had to be Min Hatzo'in. So we're referring not to a [ __ ] but the Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono. We're talking about a carbon that has to be Min Hatzo'in, says the Torah L'zevach [ __ ] L'Hashem. It should be a [ __ ] Now, when does a carbon Pesach become a [ __ ] So Avodas Shmuel said, "When is it Negaya this Halacha? When is it What's this Halacha that a carbon Pesach is Shlomo?" You know what it's Negaya? It's Negaya where it was brought Shilo B'zmano, Shilo L'shmo, Pesach Shilo B'zmano when it's Hookrash Shilo L'shmo gets the din of a carbon [ __ ] Now, just to clarify, we're going to see more about Tzondeftas, but just to clarify, the way this works is that a carbon Pesach in its natural state, even Shilo B'zmano, is technically a carbon Pesach. But what we're discussing is where the Kohen had a Kavana of Shilo L'shmo. The Kavana of Shilo L'shmo is Oiker the status of this animal from being a carbon Pesach to instead having the din of a [ __ ] But Al Ko Panav Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono L'zevach [ __ ] L'Hashem. That teaches me that Dovar Habah Min Hatzo'in Yihye L'zevach [ __ ] Look at this pasuk, it's clearly talking about [ __ ] It's in the parsha of [ __ ] right? So we're talking about a carbon [ __ ] And in fact, the Halacha that we're saying is a Halacha regarding the [ __ ] That what happens if the Pesach was brought with a Machshava Shilo L'shmo, doesn't become an Oila, becomes a [ __ ] Why does it become a [ __ ] Because that's what the pasuk says. But the Torah says the Gemara, maybe the only time the Pesach becomes a [ __ ] And how did it become a [ __ ] Ayedei the Machshava Shilo L'shmo is if the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was also a Machshava L'shem [ __ ] Meaning maybe [ __ ] that's featured prominently in this pasuk is Yekuva in the sense that only if the Machshava was L'shem [ __ ] does it become a [ __ ] But maybe a Pesach Shilo L'shmo where it was L'shem Oila, maybe it doesn't have that Halacha that it becomes a [ __ ] Meaning we're using the word [ __ ] to tell me what the Pesach becomes if it was Koriv But what is the Machshava Shilo L'shmo have to be? Whatever. Maybe when the Torah says [ __ ] it's Tante B'mashma. Number one, Shilo B'zmano Shilo L'shmo, it becomes a [ __ ] Number two, the only time the Machshava Shilo L'shmo makes it into a [ __ ] when it was Machshava L'shem [ __ ] But a Machshava L'shem another carbon, maybe not going to have that Halacha. The pasuk says Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono L'zevach [ __ ] Could have said Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono [ __ ] It said L'zevach [ __ ] L'zevach is not a Kol Zevach. Doesn't matter what the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was. Any type of carbon as long as it was Shilo L'shmo, wasn't L'shem Pesach, Shilo B'zmano, it becomes a [ __ ] Once you're going down this road and you're using the word Zevach L'rabos, so why do you only use the word Zevach L'rabos, no matter what the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was? It automatically becomes a [ __ ] Maybe Zevach means more than that. Maybe Zevach means that it's possible for the Pesach Shilo B'zmano Shilo L'shmo to become any type of carbon. How so? The Torah said [ __ ] So what then is L'zevach? Maybe it's follows. If you think L'shem [ __ ] then it becomes a [ __ ] But maybe if the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was L'shem Oila, for example, L'shem Bechor, L'shem Ma'aser, L'shem some other carbon, so maybe the Halacha is it's going to become that carbon. Meaning it says [ __ ] clearly, but it also says L'zevach. L'zevach is Marba. So why is L'zevach only Marba in what the definition of the Machshava Shilo L'shmo is? Maybe L'zevach should be Marba in what the this carbon could become. And maybe the Geder Varmin Pesach Shilo B'zmano Shilo L'shmo becomes whatever you thought you wanted it to be. So if you thought Shilo L'shmo [ __ ] so that's [ __ ] If you thought Shilo L'shmo something else, becomes something else. And the Torah said first L'shlomo and then L'zevach, I would have learned it that way. Meaning Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono L'shlomo, it could become a [ __ ] L'zevach, and it could become another type of carbon as well. say L'zevach is defining the type of carbon it could become. So we learn that from the Kol B'shachat L'ei [ __ ] L'havei. It only could become a [ __ ] It's L'zevach. So the only thing it could ever become is a [ __ ] But at the same time L'zevach is Marba. What's it Marba? That even if the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was L'shem another carbon, but in terms of what this carbon can be, the Pesach Shilo B'zmano Shilo L'shmo can only become a [ __ ] So essentially what I have over here is a pasuk that's telling me Halacha not in carbon [ __ ] but really more Halacha in carbon Pesach. And tell me that a Pesach that's Koriv Shilo B'zmano, Shilo L'shmo, doesn't matter what the Machshava Shilo L'shmo is, it becomes a [ __ ] And the Gemara in the Hamshach came out that although the pasuk is clearly talking about [ __ ] which sounds like the Machshava Shilo L'shmo has to be L'shem [ __ ] it becomes a [ __ ] Then it also says L'zevach, and L'zevach is Marba other things. So it turns out the Gemara, every time you have this in Shas, where you have a a pasuk that is has a word that's all-inclusive, and then you have a word that is more confined. What do you Darshan? Klal U'Prat. L'zevach, turns out the Gemara, why don't we say Klal? [ __ ] U'Prat, Klal U'Prat Ein B'klal Ela Mashu B'prat. [ __ ] Min Midi Achrini Lo. Why don't we say that L'zevach, it's true in theory is Marba everything. But if a second later the Torah says [ __ ] doesn't that mean you have a Klal U'Prat? So you want to know why the Torah said L'zevach? I don't know. It's a Kashe on every Klal U'Prat. But the bottom line is at the end of the day I have a Klal U'Prat. Klal U'Prat Ein B'klal Ela Mashu B'prat. So what should the Halacha be? Only if the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was L'shem [ __ ] is the Halacha to become a [ __ ] But if the Machshava Shilo L'shmo was for something else, it doesn't become a [ __ ] It's true. L'zevach is a Klal, [ __ ] is a Prat, it says L'Hashem. That's the next word. Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono L'zevach [ __ ] L'Hashem. The second L'Hashem is a second Klal. What you have over here is Klal U'Prat U'Klal. Because don't the two Klals have to be the same? Why are these two Klals not the same? The first Klal says L'zevach. What does L'zevach Marba? Any Zevach. We learned Shchita. Only animals had Shchita. But there were other things that were Koriv on the Mizbeach that didn't involve Shchita. For example, the Mincha didn't have Shchita. Oifois had Melika. They didn't have Shchita. So the Klal Kama is Marba Zvachim. And the second Klal Basra is L'Hashem. And that's Mashma Kol L'Hashem. V'afilu Oifois, V'afilu Minachos. So how can you make a Klal U'Prat U'Klal? The two Klalim aren't the same. Says the Who of course is the author of the Klal U'Prat U'Klal. Said he in his Yeshiva Rabbi Shmuel Yeshiva, they used to say you could Darshan a Klal U'Prat U'Klal even if the two Klals are not the same. Bottom line is what do you have over here? You have L'zevach Klal, [ __ ] Prat, L'Hashem Klal. Klal U'Prat U'Klal. What's unique about the Prat? [ __ ] You're bringing a Pesach. Im Min Hatzo'in, we're talking about a carbon Pesach. And you're having a Machshava of [ __ ] What's the Halacha? It becomes a [ __ ] So we learn from here that same is going to be true. Doesn't matter if it's [ __ ] or anything that's K'ein [ __ ] It's K'ein a Prat. If it's a different type of carbon and you have a Machshava L'shem that, the Halacha is that it's going to have a din of a [ __ ] If the Prat is [ __ ] I could still argue that it's not all carbonos that are learned out K'ein a Prat. Maybe only a carbon that's similar to [ __ ] [ __ ] in that it's Bom Min Nadav U'Nadav. So Oila U'Shlomo Min Chatas U'Asham, maybe a Pesach Shilo B'zmano where it was Koriv L'shem Chatas or L'shem Asham, meaning that they're not Bom Min Nadav U'Nadav. So they're not Yulad from the Klal U'Prat U'Klal of [ __ ] in the pasuk Im Min Hatzo'in Carbono L'zevach [ __ ] L'Hashem. Maybe it doesn't have this Halacha that it has a din of a [ __ ] So the Gemara says, "You're right. We don't have a Klal U'Prat U'Klal. If what we had was a a Klal U'Prat U'Klal, I wouldn't know that no matter what the Machshava Shilo L'shmo is, the Halacha is it would be a [ __ ] Yet the Halacha is that no matter what the Machshava Shilo L'shmo is, it's a [ __ ] So how then do I learn it from this pasuk? L'chora Klal U'Prat Ein B'klal Ela Mashu B'prat. Klal U'Prat U'Klal, that's not Marba either. Ela says the Gemara, you have to say L'zevach Ribahu. You have to say that the way you Darshan this pasuk is, the Torah is telling me Halacha regarding [ __ ] Then the Torah uses the word Zevach. Zevach is a Ribui. It's an extra word. And it's Marba Sha'ar Carbonos as well. I. How do you have a right to use L'zevach as a Ribui to be Marba all carbonos, even more than K'ein a Prat? L'chora, aren't you obligated to look at the word L'zevach as a Klal, so that [ __ ] will be a Prat, and in the best case scenario, L'Hashem is the second Klal, so you have a Klal U'Prat U'Klal, but at the end of the day you don't have more than K'ein a Prat. You can't be Marba Chatas U'Asham. Meaning what the Gemara is saying is it's true that L'zevach is a Klal, but I'm not going to Darshan L'zevach as a Klal. I'm going to Darshan L'zevach as a Ribui. I'm just going to use it as an extra word. I'm going to Marba everything. Even things that are not Bom Min Hatzo'in I mean, if you want to go down that road, you could always do that. Anytime you have a claw a prat, so why don't you say the first claw is not a claw? It's the first claw is a re boy. I'll be mad by everything. Claw a prat ain't the claw a mash of a prat. Claw prat to claw claw prat to claw ain't the claw a mash of a prat. But if I have a claw, you say rather a re boy, you do whatever I want with a re boy. That's what the marges did. The marges said it's true based on Rebbe Shmuel's you give a misha turn to dress this man. If you look at a zev as a claw, I can't be mar by all mash of a shaliach shman in this dinner pesach shaliach shman of a shaliach shman. But I'm not looking at a zev as a claw, I'm looking at it as a re boy. So how do you know when to look at it as a claw when to look at it as a re boy? So Rashi addresses the bottom Rashi who above my pay grade, but the bottom line is Rashi says that we're the claw. Not terrible. That's why I said a little. We're the word the with the gather of the claw a prat is the mash is micro says Rashi. Where it's the shuta of micro the claw, then you could say claw prat to claw prat to claw. But when the claw is not the shuta of micro mean when the shuta of micro is not really mash of the claw, then you don't necessarily darshan as a claw prat to claw. So Rashi gives two examples of when you do say claw prat to claw. The second one is the easier one. Min a beheima claw. Min a beheima sounds like the entire animal kingdom, everything. Then it says bocker of a tzoan. Oh, that's already a a prat. So beheima the shuta of micro is all beheimas. Tzoan u bocker, that's a prat. It's mash only tzoan, only bocker. So that is a claw prat because the shuta of micro of min a beheima is the claw. But where you have the zev shlo and the taitch of the zev is not all korbanas. The taitch of the zev Rashi says it's part of the name. It's not shlo, it's it's for zev. Not shlo. It's part of the name. But the point is it's not the shuta of micro of the zev as osham and miluim maiseh pesach. That's not what it means. So being that that's not what it means, you don't have to darshan it as a claw. Maybe you're not supposed to even darshan as a claw. The gemara over here is darshaning it as a re boy. The re boy is mar by not only shlo but all korbanas. Again, what's the law of a pesach shaliach b' many shaliach b' shma? The law here is it's kosher. The reason is cuz once you think shaliach b' many shaliach b' shma, it doesn't matter what the shaliach b' shma was. It could be you thought the same shlo b' the same omer the same chataz. It doesn't matter what it was. As long as it wasn't the same pesach. As long as it was shaliach b' shma, what's the law it automatically becomes a shlo. Something happens. It's neck out the same pesach. It's chala neta a same shlo. You can see the gemara is going to say you brought the shochin. All the law is of shlo apply now to this carbon. But actually again when you name it as a shlo shlo and it's shaliach b' shma shlo shlo b' shma is kosher cuz that's included in all the korbanas and this book shaliach b' shma too. Now is it all by the same choyva? No, obviously. I mean it was a pesach to begin with anyways. If this person was choyva shlo, he can't be oitzo with this shlo. It's like all the by the same choyva. It's like going for any other carbon that's shaliach b' shma. But at the end of the day, what you end up with is a shlo shaliach b' shma. If you end up with a shlo, I mean what if you thought the same shlo and now it became shlo. Maybe that's a shlo b' shma. I'm not sure, but for sure if you thought the same omer it became a shlo, it's like the shlo b' same omer. The bottom line is that is the So as it relates to raid, last night we went through the your dua um a force in the girl stickle from Maran Rezal Levi the Brisker Rav as it relates to understanding mash shaliach b' shma by kosher. We mentioned that the Brisker Rav was mach dish that although the conventional way of understanding how a mash shaliach b' shma impacts a carbon as it relates to all the korbanas, it would make it like all the by the same choyva. As it relates to a pesach and a chataz, it would actually make it possible. Is being that there's a din b' shma that the dollar of the sadam have to have when you're mash shaliach b' shma, you're lacking the shma. And because you're lacking the shma, mamela the avoyda mamela the carbon is going to be possible. Now if you didn't have any mash at all, even though then too you didn't have a mash b' shma, it would be kosher because that's Rebbe's chiddish on the base of the base stum a kosher. But the point is the conventional way of understanding shaliach b' shma and how it makes a carbon possible is because there's a din like equiva on some level for a carbon [snorts] to be brought b' shma. And to the extent you're mash shaliach b' shma, the carbon is lacking one of the key ingredients that makes it kosher. And as a result, the carbon is now going to be possible. But the Brisker Rav was mach that that's not the way it works. The Brisker Rav said that once Rebbe said that when it comes to kosher stum is kosher, that means that if you do the avoyda of a carbon regardless of whether you're mash b' shma, whether you think stum, or even if you're mash shaliach b' shma, the carbon is always going to be brought b' shma. That's the idea of zev b' stum b' shma and as a result, it's a chala that's built into the carbon. That when you do avoyda with a carbon, it's automatically correct b' shma. If that's the case, why is it that when you have a mash shaliach b' shma, the law is it's like all the by the same choyva. Or the law is that it's going to be possible. It's because there's a new din that you have in the sugya of shma by kosher that states that if you do the avoyda and you have a mash shaliach b' shma, that mash is going to be poiseless. That mash is going to make the carbon possible. It's not that when you have a mash shaliach b' shma, the carbon's lacking the shma and it's for that reason the carbon's possible. Your mash shaliach b' shma has no ability to make the carbon lacking the shma. Zev b' stum b' shma and the means that it's built in, it's automatic. The reason when you have a mash shaliach b' shma, the law is that it's going to be possible is because that mash has the ability to possible. Just like there's a mash called chutz mano. There's a mash called chutz kaima. There's another mash that's called shaliach b' shma. That mash is a bomb that has an ability to make a carbon possible. And if you think about it, the Brisker Rav was saying a chiddish in stum b' shma by kosher. And the Brisker Rav was saying a chiddish in mash shaliach b' shma by kosher. The chiddish the Brisker Rav was saying by stum b' shma by kosher is that the taitch of stum b' shma is not that when you do an avoyda stum, that's enough in order for the carbon to be kosher. In order for a carbon to be kosher, you have to have shma. The chiddish of stum b' shma is that when you do it stum, it's automatically shma. I you thought stum, but you didn't think shma. How could your stum become a shma? It's because the chiddish of stum b' shma says that a carbon is automatically brought b' shma. And being that it's automatically brought b' shma, even when you're thinking stum, even when you're thinking shaliach b' shma, it's going to be considered that you brought it b' shma. That's a chiddish in the havana of stum. Brisker Rav also said a chiddish in how shaliach b' shma possibles a carbon. Positively you think shaliach b' shma possibles a carbon because now that it was shaliach b' shma, you don't have shma. You don't even have stum. Mamely you're lacking what you need. It's going to be possible. Brisker Rav was being mach now. Once you understand chiddish A, you can't say that anymore because the carbon is mamela it's automatically b' shma even when you're thinking shaliach b' shma. Why then is shaliach b' shma going to possible the carbon? It's because of a tzfated din. It's a concept that's unique to the sugya of shma by kosher. Something you don't find by chivas I get or b' sharma kodesh. Which states that if you have a mash shaliach b' shma while you're doing an avoyda while you're bringing a carbon, the carbon is going to be possible. As for that reason, this carbon now is going to be a problem. We mentioned that the Brisker Rav in safer brings two rayas gedolas from sugyas shas this you saw. The one we mentioned last night that's worth chazering is the Rav's [snorts] raya from the gemara on daf gimel amud aleph. The gemara said that Omar Rav, chataz shochat l' shom omer is possible. Chataz shochat l' shom chulin is going to be kosher. What's the difference? The mean a mach Rebbe the lav mean a lav mach Rebbe. And the way the gemara came out on daf gimel amud base ela mar Rebbe, it's really based on a posuk. Lo yichal es kosher b'nei Yisrael. We learn from there kosher machalin kosher ain chulin machalin kosher. Said the Brisker Rav, I don't understand the idea of chataz l' shom [clears throat] omer being possible but chataz l' shom chulin being kosher. Every chataz l' shom chulin even if you want to tell me that mash is not a mash a poiseless because the lav mean a lav mach Rebbe. And there's a posuk of kosher machalin kosher ain chulin machalin kosher. But at the end of the day, you don't have shma. Right? You didn't think shma. You thought l' shom chulin. And in this case, you don't even have stum because you didn't think stum. You thought l' shom chulin. If that's the case, how could it be kosher? Said the Brisker Rav, this is my greater greater raya. That really even when you have a mash l' shom chulin or even if you have a mash l' shom omer, it's always considered shma. And the gather of stum b' shma is not it's stum, but that's enough. No, the gather of stum b' shma is that when it's stum, you really have shma. Why then is a mash shaliach b' shma a problem because there's a din. There's something called a mash a poiseless. The mean a mach Rebbe the lav mean a lav mach Rebbe. Kosher machalin kosher ain chulin machalin kosher teaches me that in order for something to be considered a mash a poiseless, it has to be a mash on kosher. It has to be a chataz l' shom omer. If it's going to be a chataz l' shom chulin, it's not going to be a problem. But what's the kosher? Every chataz l' shom chulin tape a glei, you're missing shma because it's not even stum. The teretz is you can never remove the shma from a carbon. The only thing you could do is create a mash a poiseless. Being that kosher machalin kosher ain chulin machalin kosher, this would not create a mash a poiseless. Brisker Rav said it's very shmach the loshon of the Rambam in perek gimel chutz p'sulei hamikdashin. Where the Rambam when he talks about the concept of machshavos that a pesul is a carbon, he says sholeish machshavos hein. The Rambam says there's three types of machshavos that can make a carbon pasul. There's something called machsheves sholeish lishmah, there's machsheves chutz l'zmano, and there's machsheves chutz l'komo. Achal kodesh zar The fact that a machsheves sholeish lishmah makes a carbon pasul is because it's a machsheves peseles. That's like chutz l'zmano chutz l'komo. Chutz l'zmano chutz l'komo, you did everything right. No, it wasn't he had a bad machshava. The machshava is what's wrong with this carbon? When you have a machsheves sholeish lishmah, the poshut hahavana is not that you did everything right. No, it wasn't you had this bad thought. But you having this bad thought, you're lacking in the machshava of lishmah. The machsheves sholeish lishmah is just a heches temses to not have lishmah, to not even have a stam lishmah. Vos zogt der Rambam sholeish machshavos hein? How could the Rambam put b'chada machter a machsheves sholeish lishmah with the machsheves chutz l'zmano chutz l'komo? Said Maran agrees it's muchrach this he said. It's muchrach that really stam lishmah means that you're always going to have lishmah. It's just that when you have the machsheves sholeish lishmah, that machshava is a bomb that has the ability to knock out the carbon. No different than chutz l'zmano chutz l'komo. That's why the Rambam put it all together. The Rambam said sholeish machshavos hein. The Skrob said it's m'furash that way in Rashi Menachos daf beis amud beis, where Rashi also stells to the pasuk the lav in the Torah of lo yachshev when it comes to understanding when it comes to understanding how machsheves sholeish lishmah works. Again, clearly implying that the gever of a machsheves sholeish lishmah is not that when I have a machsheves sholeish lishmah I'm lacking lishmah I'm a mail the carbon's pasul. I'm never lacking the lishmah. Because stam lishmah says v'ochlin lishmah omdim it's automatically built into the carbon. It's just that when I have the machsheves sholeish lishmah, there's a bad machshava that has the ability to pasul just like chutz l'zmano chutz l'komo. If that's the case, it's nichlal in the lav of the Torah like Rashi says regarding lo yachshev. Another thing that the Skrob said very stark is that with this you could understand a yeshuv to Tosafos kasha on daf beis amud alef. Because the emes is the signon of the first week of daf yomi here in meseches Zevachim is all the different drashos and all the different limudim. How do you know that a machsheves sholeish lishmah pasuls? Not that from [ __ ] Hamelech, there's a hekesh Torah l'oid mincha chotas. V'lo me'orim v'lo achshav l'mincha chotas. Who gave Moishe tishmah? There's a whole uh bunch of limudim that really teaches us this halacha. Faith Tosafos, there's another gemara. There's a gemara daf mem vov amud beis on the mishna of l'shem shisha dvarim she'nizbach. With the gemara says that you know how you know that there's a din lishmah when it comes to kodshim. It's learned out from a pasuk in the parsha of the carbon ola. Vayikra alef tes. V'hiktir hakoin es hakol al hamizbeiach. Ola isha reiach nichoach l'Hashem. Ola, that's how you know she kodesh. Isha is l'shem isha, reiach l'shem reiach, nichoach l'shem nichoach, l'Hashem l'shem Hashem. Faith Tosafos kasha. How did the first perek of meseches Zevachim forget about this drasha? I have two sugiyos in Shas that seem to not be in tandem with each other. L'chura, what's these two limudim? Tosafos has a little bit of a doichek. Rashi the Skrob was machriach couldn't learn like Tosafos. So the Skrob said that the two sugiyos are the two dinim that you have in kodshim. Mem vov amud beis is the ikar halacha of l'shem shisha dvarim she'nizbach. And regarding that halacha there's a din stam lishmah. And that's why ultimately practically speaking l'maisa doesn't really play itself out so much in Av K'minan. But the bottom line is there's a din that a carbon has to be lishmah. That's learned out from ola isha reiach nichoach l'Hashem. The first perek of meseches Zevachim is teaching me the halachos of the machsheves peseles called sholeish lishmah. How do you know that if I do a shchita with a shinui bag amud a shinui kodesh the halacha is it's going to make the carbon like ola l'shem chova or by a pesach and a chagas it's going to make it pasul? How do I know by kabala? How do I know by l'shem? How do I know by zrika? That's the first perek. There's two sugiyos in Shas because there's two dinim as relates to understanding the halachos of kodshim. Either way, this is the Skrob's m'furash in the yeshiva side. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying it's likely the most famous shtikel Torah that the Skrob gave the oilam hayeshivas. But as promised, just to take this one tefach deeper and talk a little bit about the postscript. Some anecdotes as it relates to how the oilam tumbled in the Koisel Bais Medrash regarding this yesod from the Skrob. So we're going to mention three ha'aros. And all three of them are very prominently featured in the safer Ohel Yaakov This is in the madura tinyana in Harbei Hosafos on meseches Zevachim that was written by Yedidi Hagoyain, a generational talent, Reb Elazar Rubin. So we've had to discuss to quote from Sifrei Ohel Yaakov over the years. Zevachim seven and a half years ago, Bava Kamma, meseches Makos. But v'dvar Hashem atekan. But he put out that Reb Elazar Rubin right now the covered Zevachim [snorts] daf beis a new madura with about 500 extra pages. And [snorts] just to quote Reb Elazar Rubin's own thought of what safer Ohel Yaakov is. And don't kill the messenger. This is an exact quote. Gam ata yachol l'lomid b'yeshivas Brisk. You too can learn in yeshivas Brisk. Kacha es ha safer Ohel Yaakov v'toich beisacha. Take this safer Ohel Yaakov into your house. V'ata nichnas miyad. And immediately, meaning you don't have to wait a year. You can enter immediately el asher sh'mora Hagoyain Reb Avraham Yeshaya Halevi shlita. But either way, this is the hack. And a lot of the Torah of ha'Skutzkim in shiur from Reb Yeshaya Halevi, that's what's going on in the safer Ohel Yaakov. It's a must have if you're sitting down and learning Zevachim with the Briskerei. But either way, so three ha'aros all of which are in the safer Ohel Yaakov. The first ha'ara is, and just to be makdim, one of the protim in the Skrob that we mentioned last night was that the Skrob said that there is l'chura big nafka mina between his understanding of how a machsheves sholeish lishmah works versus the conventional way of understanding how machsheves sholeish lishmah works. Again, conventionally yes, the man on the street, what's [snorts] the reason that a machsheves sholeish lishmah impacts a carbon like ola l'shem chova or even worse pasul, is because there's a din that a carbon has to be lishmah. And to the extent that you have a machsheves sholeish lishmah the carbon doesn't have the lishmah that it needs. It's for that reason it's going to be pasul. The Skrob was machadesh based on everything that we just mentioned that that's not the way it works. Really because of stam lishmah the carbon has the lishmah that it needs. There's a new din that a machsheves sholeish lishmah is a machsheves peseles just like a machsheves chutz l'zmano chutz l'komo is a machsheves peseles. The Skrob said that l'chura there would be a great nafka mina between the two havanos. And that is what would be, for example, if a kohen would do a kabala, kabala sada, which is one of the four critical avodas, and would have a machsheves sholeish lishmah. Now there's still left over dam. Dam that's kosher for kabala hilcha and zrika. To go ahead and be mekabel. Could he be mesakein now the carbon by going and doing a proper kabala? Or is it already too late? Said the Skrob that l'chura it would be totally in the havana of sholeish lishmah. If sholeish lishmah is the ta'am that you're just lacking in the lishmah, that means that when a kohen does a kabala sholeish lishmah, there's no pesul in the carbon. It's just that the kabala didn't check off all the boxes that it needs in order for it to be considered a kabala. It's as if he didn't do a kabala. It's as if the dam was nishpach al ha'ritza. Okay, so that dam right now is not dam that you'd be able to go do hilcha and zrika with. But to the extent that there's more dam available, go do the kabala now with hilcha and zrika and everything's going to be okay. If however the understanding of a machsheves sholeish lishmah is that it's a pesul, it actually disqualifies the kabala, that means you did a pasul kabala. You didn't not do a kabala, you did a pasul kabala. A pasul kabala pasuls the carbon. And if that's the case, there's no way to be mesakein it by going ahead and doing a a kosher kabala. Said the Skrob in safer in his classic piece says that this l'chura would be [snorts] the poshut nafka mina between the two havanos. It's interesting, one of the important mareh m'komos in terms of the postscript of this Skrob is in the safer Yonas Eilim from Hagoyain Reb Yona Minsker sh'yem kom damai. And the Yonas Eilim to you do a lot by Maran agrees. And in the reshimois that he had left over after his petira, there was a shiur that he wrote he heard me Hagoyain Reb Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik. And it's mamash this sugiyo, this chidush of the Skrob as it relates to sholeish lishmah. And there's some ha'osofos in the Yonas Eilim's notes that are very important, they're critical in terms of the hashlama of understanding the Skrob. One of the ha'osofos that the Yonas Eilim said is that when he heard shiur from the Skrob, and when the Skrob said over this shtikel, he linked to another nafka mina. And that was the halacha is that if you have kodshim that's pasul, so the halacha is it requires s'reifa. Stating that there are times that in order to burn the kodshim, you first have to have what's called ibud tzura. You need the kodshim to decompose a little bit. If the kodshim is fresh meat, you're not going to go ahead and burn it. It's considered a bizayon. Once it's nishtana a little bit, it's not so perfect anymore, so then we're a little bit more comfortable allowing you to go ahead and burn it. The rule is that if the carbon is pasul, ba'atzem the basar of the carbon for example has a pesel, so then you're allowed to burn the basar even without any ibud tzura. If however there's something wrong with the gever or there's some studies to get sold, so then the halacha is you wouldn't be allowed to burn it unless there's ibud tzura. So Reb Yona Minsker said he heard from the Skrob that the Skrob said this would be another nafka mina. If the reason that sholeish lishmah is is simply because of what it's lacking, it's lacking the small. So then it's possible it would require an absolute in order for you to be able to burn this possible. If however, there's a positive soul of she lay the small, it's a that's like a which the would not require cuz there's a soul of bomb inside this carbon and there the law you'd be able to burn it I feel under but the bottom line is so don't ask me this in the classic understanding of how she lay the small works versus the understanding of how she [snorts] lay the small works. We mentioned last night that the said that the meaning of from the base on the base because the on the base on the base done with the stomach is or stomach is possible, right? Rather said stomach is but he was running but in the not 100% sure how does know that stomach is maybe really stomach is possible, right? The had a few attempts failed attempts before it finally came up with the from in the show on that member of base. But the bottom line is the is very open to the possibility that maybe stomach is not going to be maybe stomach is going to be possible. Said the I don't understand how the market have a side that stomach is possible. There's so many we move them in the first paragraph of talking that talk about she lay the small where the is not an appropriate she lay the small and it's for that reason that the law is that it's not a piece of us and the carbon's going to be like the if stomach is possible then how could a bad she lay the small be how could it be better than stomach? It doesn't make any sense. For example cooling [snorts] cotton cotton cooling cotton that's the the law of she lay the small is going to be cotton. Like the that's a that's a how could it be a a a that says that cotton she lay the small is not going to be a piece of us. In other words, it's going to be a and at the same time stomach should be possible. There's no way that she lay the small cooling could be any better than stomach. Or for example, who [laughter] had a that in the event that you have a of she lay the small but it's the same right? So the law is then it's going to be cotton cuz if it's the same it's going to be cotton. The same it's going to be possible. In that here too, how could it be cotton? At the end of the day how could the wrong be better how could the wrong be better than stomach? So said the it's that from the fact that the was willing to entertain the side that stomach is possible despite the fact that there are clearly moving that teach me where you can have a she lay the small and it's going to be that that means there's to down the a piece of us whether it is a piece of us or not a piece of us even if you hold stomach is possible. It means I could hold stomach is possible and it's still enough that I'm going to have now another brings is right? The only time a of she lay the small if it's do me do me that. Right? If someone has a mind to bring a a mission that's a she lay the small but a mission it's going to be it's what do you mean it's if anything it's stomach and you're telling me that stomach is possible. Can't be better than stomach. Even if you hold stomach is possible it's still for me to know is this a piece of us or is this not a piece of us? Meaning at first glance if stomach is possible who cares it's about a piece of us or not a piece of us? It's stomach and stomach is possible. But the said you see not that way because if that were true then the would have proved that stomach is >> [laughter] >> from the fact that she lay the small is and from the fact that there's a law of and from and the didn't do that. So if that's the case it's said that even if you hold stomach is possible it's still the a Why is it said the was like that because if the carbon's going to be possible out stomach if the carbon's going to be possible out stomach that would just mean that the carbon is lacking the a okay if you want to go ahead and be able to let's say to be go ahead and be more than that. And when it comes to straight for said the of you wouldn't need an but if there's a piece of us and now you have that nice which is even if you hold stomach is possible. It's even if you hold stomach is possible and that would have enough now if you went ahead and you did a with the wrong a so you can't be if you want to burn it you wouldn't need any cuz now you have the but the point is the said that this of a she lay the small being a a piece of us it has enough if you hold stomach is possible that's cuz you have if you hold stomach is possible it has to be that's the way she lay the small works but really it has enough even if you hold stomach is possible and you said it's that way in the victory on the base on the base of talking what the stomach is possible and we weren't able to get from the fact that all those are not possible vice versa whether or not they're considered possible or not is even if you hold that stomach is possible. So here's the law and I'm reading this is quote from the safer of on the base on the base it's page 11. So he writes as follows the law of she lay the small maybe more than the law of she lay the small in the law of she lay the small is brisk. There is some law of may the law of she lay the small or she lay the small of the law of she lay the small the law of she lay the small of the law of she lay the small of the law of she lay the small this part already we'll read that is so that dick was a law of she lay the small in the middle of she lay the small when she lay the small was saying over this from the and the fact this last piece that we just said so [snorts] he asked the following the says on the law of that a she lay the small or she lay the small only passes the carbon if the the is being done the mission of the law of she lay the small meaning the only time will pass a carbon is if everything other than the law of is perfect. If however, the one doing the was not someone that's able to do the or it's being done in an where it's not so either so then the law is the wouldn't pass so an example would be if a was doing the with his left hand being [snorts] the is not a way to do the so if you would then have a she lay the small of the law is it has to be mission of the law of the law is it would be possible so the law of he said the said that even if stomach would be possible it's not but even if stomach would be possible it would still be that if one would have a she lay the small it should be considered a piece of us because of the after mentioned after minutes, right? Have enough could you do a new could have enough could you burn it without a so so the that he asked was that I don't understand. Where would it be a gay or the second then that the should be a piece of us and it should say that now the carbon's going to be possible to the level that it has this bomb on it that you can't do a new or if stomach is possible that means when you have the she lay the small there's two reasons now that the carbon's possible. It's possible because you're lacking the I isn't it built into the carbon? Yeah, if you hold stomach is but if you hold stomach is possible that means you have to have the she lay the small and if you don't have the it's possible in the it's also possible because you had the she lay the small and the she lay the small in and of itself is a bomb that makes the carbon possible. In other words, if you hold stomach is possible every time you have a she lay the small there's really two that are doing over here in this carbon. Number one, you have the of a carbon has to be and so forth and so on. Let's use the vernacular of the you have the of the in that additionally you have the problem that there's a piece of us. You have that and that and that right? You have that other also. The point is there's two over here. If there's two meaning if there's a of stomach is possible without the of the a piece of us then how does the a piece of us make it possible? Why is it different that if the the is the small? It's not the mission of the law of she lay the small we have a so that the only time a piece of us has the ability to pass is when if everything other than the a piece of us is good. If you hold stomach is possible by every time you have a she lay the small there's another you know the other is so felt in the and if you hold stomach is possible you don't get that built in. The whole of is is to explain stomach is but if stomach possul, you don't have that. And to the extent there's another reason that this korban is possul, then the says no ability to possul it because it's no different than if the kohein did it be atzmo. This is the kasha that our going Rav Mordechai Dick Shlita asked in middle of shiur. So, going back to the Shnei Hazov shel Rav Yisrael Rubins, he writes, "The going Rav Tzvi Kaplan Shlita, shiur Rav going Rav Yisrael Halevi Harbei oidos kushiyos, thought a lot about this question." He said, "You have to think about it a little bit more." And he went right to the shiur. The next day, he thought it over and the whole kasha fight this down. And he went ahead to explain. And this will say about parallel also. And that is, Rav Yisrael said, "What would be if uh kohein would have a machshavas piggul bishas shchita? And then he would have a machshavas piggul again bishas kabala. And then some driten mol bishas ilucha. And then some fierten mol zricha, he would do it bishas zricha also. It's possul that all four machshavas pigguls would be considered machshavas pigguls. In fact, he would get malkus for the piggul that he had bishas shchita. Nach a malkus for the ilucha and zricha. You could ask, "But I don't understand. Why should he get malkus for the machshavas piggul that he had at bishas kabala ilucha and zricha? Once there was already a machshavas piggul that possuled the korban bishas shchita, so at that point, the korban's already a possul korban. So when you have the machshavas piggul bishas kabala, it's no different than if you had a machshavas piggul bishas you're doing the avoda be atzmo. Where the halacha is that it's not permish ilav avoda ilav avoda. The teretz is possut. The teretz is because the reason that this korban is possul is the same as the reason that right now you're right to possul in the korban. It was possul bishas shchita because of piggul. Right now bishas kabala, it's right for piggul. The way we look at it is like a piggul arichta. But the bottom line is, it's one big psol. When we say permish ilav avoda bedavar ilav avoda, that means that if you're going to have a machshavas pisul now and there's another reason, there's some studdies reason why this is anyways possul, so then this machshava doesn't have the ability to possul. But if the reason that the korban is possul is gufa because of the machshava that you're having right now, well then it's possut that this halacha wouldn't be true. The halacha of misha ilav avoda bedavar ilav avoda means down minay this psol that you're trying to impart on the korban right now. If there's another problem, well then you can't make it more problematic with this machshava that you had. This machshava is not going to have the ability to impact. In the case where you had the machshavas piggul bishas kabala and you had already had the machshavas piggul bishas shchita, the reason the korban is anyways possul is not for a davar studies, it's for the same reason that you're trying to make it possul right now. It's literally hainu ha. And it's for that reason it's not a davar studies, it's not a davar studies, you don't have the svara of misha ilav avoda ubidavar ilav avoda. Now you're going to say, "What do you mean? It was independent machshavas pigguls." It's true, it's independent machshavas pigguls. But at the end of the day, it's the zelba psol and we look at the piggul in totality as one chefza. And being that down minay the piggul, everything is perfect, so it's for that reason the machshavas piggul is going to be machshavas piggul. So Rav Yisrael Halevi said that l'churi you have to say that even though the Brisk Rov is being mechadesh that there's two dinim when it comes to shilo lishma, one din is that a korban has to have lishma. Another din is that a machshavas shilo lishma possuls the korban. And if you hold that stumah is possul, they're really two psulim because the din that a korban has to have lishma will only be satisfied if you actually think lishma. If it's stumah or worse, if you think shilo lishma, it's going to be lacking that. And the machshavas pisul is a tzveite zach. But at the end of the day, trivayu midin shilo lishma karsi. They're both coming from the same place, from the same shoresh, and that is there's a parsha of lishma when it comes to kodshim. Now the parsha of lishma when it comes to kodshim is achas shnei shtayim. It's made up of two subcategories. One is you have to have lishma and the other one is a machshavas shilo lishma is going to possul. But at the end of the day, the psol of I'm missing the lishma and the psol of I had a machshavas shilo lishma are like two machshavas pigguls. They're both the same. And being that it's possut that as it relates to the halacha, as it relates to the halacha of misha ilav avoda bedavar ilav avoda, that if you would have two machshavas pigguls, you would be chayev for the second machshavas piggul. Hagam once you had the first machshavas piggul, the korban's anyways possul. It's because it's only when the other psol is a davar studies that we say the halacha of misha ilav avoda bedavar ilav avoda. So too, as it relates to these two oifanim of psol shilo lishma, the only time we would say that a machshavas shilo lishma would be a problem is if down minay the machshavas shilo lishma there'd be some davar studies of why the korban's possul. The fact that it's possul also felt lishma, clappy machshavas shilo lishma is not a davar studies. It's hainu ha ha ha hainu. And it's for that reason, it's for that reason, said Rav Yisrael Halevi with the hazbara of our going Rav Tzvi Kaplan Shlita, that is the reason, that is the reason why hagam it's true if one would have a machshavas shilo lishma and he did the avoda be atzmo, the halacha is machshava wouldn't be a machshava. But if you hold stumah is possul and you have a machshavas shilo lishma, the halacha is it's still going to be a problem. And the reason is because be atzmo clappy shilo lishma is a davar studies. But stumah possul clappy a machshavas shilo lishma, even though they're two dinim in the Brisk Rov's shikul daas, even though they're learned out from two different parshas in the Torah, one is learned from the parsha of ilu, the other is from the parsha of shlamim, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, trivayu midin shilo lishma karsi. And being that they're both coming midin shilo lishma, you can't view it as a davar studies. If you can't view it as a davar studies, it's for that reason it's not going to be an issue. And this was the teretz that Rav Yisrael Halevi said beyom machras kishinichnas with Yeshivas Brisk to be meyashuv the kusha atzuma from our going Rav Mordechai Dick Shlita. That's the first ara from the sefer Avodas Avraham. The second ara is, we mentioned that the Brisk Rov's big raya to his yesod is from the Gemara in Zevachim menachos. At first glance, it feels like a checkmate, right? Chatos sheshachto l'shum ola psula. Chatos sheshachto l'shum chulin kashair. Faced the Brisk Rov, "How could chatos sheshachto l'shum chulin be kashair? You could tell me Torah from today till tomorrow. D'mina machshava d'lo mina l'shma, d'lo mina machshava. A possuk lo yichalu es kodshei bnei Yisrael, kodshei machalim kodshei bechulin machalim kodshei. But at the end of the day, it's not lishma and it's not stumah. And if there's a din that a korban has to be lishma or at the very least stumah lishma, then how in the world is this kashair? Said the Brisk Rov, "It's muchcha from here that stumah lishma is automatic. And [snorts] even when you have a machshavas shilo lishma, it's still stumah lishma." Stating that there's a Shulchan Aruch of what governs or what defines a machshavas shilo lishma. One of the dinim in that Shulchan Aruch is kodshei machalim kodshei bechulin machalim kodshei. And that's why chatos sh'l chulin, the halacha is that it's going to be kashair. Very compelling. So in Avodas Avraham, this is on page nun zayin, he brings from the sefer Zevach Yitzchak. So the sefer Zevach Yitzchak is also a sefer on Maseches Zevachim. It was written by our going Rav Yankel Lieberman Shlita, who was from the great talmidei Rav Yisrael Halevi, Rosh Yeshiva in Rav [ __ ] Zalman's Yeshiva. Incidentally, when I was in Brisk in Ireland kodshim, I had the zchus to hear chaburas from Rav Yankel Lieberman. He's a bonafide pam matik margolis ki yodua. But either way, so he wrote a sefer called Zevach Yitzchak on perek asheichat dam mayla. That's the 13th perek in Maseches Zevachim. And he wrote another sefer on the 14th perek, perek poras chatos. But either way, this [snorts] is in the back of his sefer on poras chatos. It's in siman gimmel. So he has a little bit of a marocha on this Brisk Rov. So he writes that the kasha of the Brisk Rov, the raya, this compelling checkmate yuf to yuf to of the Brisk Rov bothered him very, very much. Because dam is it's makom to think that when we say that kodshei machalim kodshei ve'ein chulin machalim kodshei, d'mina machshava d'lo mina l'shma, d'lo mina machshava, it could be it's a very, very possut svara. I mean, the Brisk Rov didn't understand. At the end of the day, every time you have a d'lo mina typically it's also not stumah. And if it's not stumah, then how could it be kashair? Must be it's automatically stumah. Came [snorts] Rav Yankel Lieberman, "L'churi there's makom to claim not that way. If somebody would go ahead and he would do the avoda and then he starts spacing out. I don't know, he starts thinking about some narish zach. Is there a hava mina in the world that that narish machshava that he's having would be oiker the stumah lishma? Of course not. In order to be oiker the stumah lishma, the machshava that you have has to be something that's in the conversation, something that's mayin yona to chep zich with the stumah lishma. If it's not mayin yona to chep zich with the stumah lishma, how in the world would it ever be oiker the stumah lishma? You're bringing a korban, you're doing the shchita, you're thinking about what's for dinner tonight. That doesn't shter the stumah lishma. It has no shiyachus to the to the daas and the kavana and the lishma of the korban. So it's possut that in order to be oiker the status quo of stumah lishma, it would have to be a machshava that may in yona somewhat to be able to rerun and to cheppa and to have an ability to be oiker on some level to stumme lishma. So, if that's the case, those loch to gemara. The gemara say chatus l'shum chulin, being that the lo mean lo machriva, there's no shiyachus to katchin. And if it has no shiyachus to katchin, it's like he was spacing out, thinking about what's for dinner tonight. And as a result, it has no ability to go ahead and be machriv. What's pain of the Briskover? Meaning I'll tell you stumme lishma is a very pashta zach. Stumme lishma means if you think stumme, it's kosher. If you think sh'lo lishma, it makes it oy stumme. I wait every chatus l'shum chulin be a machshava sh'lo lishma as I say that it should at the very least not be stumme. Tairus says no, when the gemara says the lo mean lo machriva, what the gemara is saying is that machshava is not mayin yona b'chalal to the machshava of a korban. And it's for that reason, it doesn't have the ability to touch the stumme. If it doesn't have the ability to touch the stumme, it's going to be kosher takka because it is considered stumme. Not because it's automatically stumme, but because it's so stumme. I it's not a stumme, it's not a stumme. Any machshava you have makes it oy stumme. You agree that's not the case. Tairus says it has to be a qualified machshava. The lo mean lo machriva means it's not a qualified machshava. It's not a qualified machshava. It has no ability to impact the stumme. This is the kasha of the Briskover. So, he writes that he went to a Me'or Levi, Soloveitchik, Briskover's son. And he asked him to make this kasha. And the Me'or told him that he remembers that he once asked this kasha to the Tatta. He asked this kasha to the Tatta and the Briskover didn't really have what to say. He was maskin. He was maskin to the kasha. Briskover was maskin to the kasha. And then he was moysef that in the ehrste madura of the Briskover's shtickel, he brought this raya and then he said this pick book. Said could be what the gemara means when it says the lo mean lo machriva that the machshava is b'chalal not mayin yona to have the ability to be oiker the status quo of stumme lishma. The truth is, if you take a look at Yona Minsker's shiur that he wrote down, that he wrote from the Briskover, he brings that the Briskover asked this kasha and then the Briskover was mefaktik precisely for this reason. So, Reb Yona Minsker heard it from Furish, mepeck kotzei somana g'rish. And Reb Me'or Levi said that he saw in the k'sovim, in the first edition of the Briskover, in the madura kama, the Briskover brought the raya, but then he said I'm not 100% sure. Aba l'maisa, aba l'maisa, it's still shver. Right? You can't walk away with this happy because the Briskover in the first madura asked the kasha. Why? Because in the madura that we have and in the madura that you have on your Smorum Shaffer, the Briskover is not mefaktik. And the Briskover brings it as a clear checkmate raya. So, if that's the case, I don't think so. Right? The fact that someone else asks the kasha makes some people happy. It doesn't end the conversation. At the end of the day, you still have to be meyashev it. And in fact, the Briskover himself, you see in the later maduras, seemed to be very persuaded. He was very satisfied with this kasha. Or with this raya. And if that's the case, l'chora, why was he so satisfied? B'frat, mayin kor mikra soferis u'l'say mikra soferis. So, Reb Yankel even said a doven nefla. He said, "What does it mean when we say chatus l'shum chulin is kosher? What's the taich of kosher? What does kosher mean?" So, what did it start then? Does kosher mean it's kosher? It's 100% kosher? Oy yesh lo may, it could be that kosher means that it's kosher that you could do this rika and you could be maktir the emurim and you could eat the basar, but it's still going to be like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev. In other words, chatus sh'lo lishma is always possul. That Reb is being mechadish chatus l'shum ola, katchin mechalel katchin. There, it's going to have the din of a chatus sh'lo lishma with the ganz ganz guidance, going to be possul. As opposed to a chatus sh'shum chulin, there it's going to be kosher. It's not going to be a bonafide chatus sh'lo lishma, [clears throat] but at the same time, it's not going to be better than a ola sh'lo lishma, sh'lamim sh'lo lishma. It's going to be kosher, but at the same time, being that it's with a machshava sh'lo lishma, it's still going to be like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev. If you take a look at the Rambam, the Rambam when he brings this halacha in hilchos t'liya mikdashin, the Rambam says it's kosher aba l'lo ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev. If the Rambam said it's like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev, what does that mean? That means as much as we're saying the mean lo machriva and the lo mean lo machriva, as much as we're saying there's a possuk lo y'challelu katchin mechalel katchin v'chulin mechalel katchin, but it's not the taich, it's not a machshava b'tzelus at all. Because if it wasn't a machshava b'tzelus at all, it would be kosher 100%. It'd be a mahajin bin mahajin. But it's not. It's like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev. If it's a like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev, that means epes vos in akira it is. Because if not, then it would be kosher l'gamrei. From the fact that it's like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev, zoy say meirus, zoy say [clears throat] meirus, it's for sure a machshava that has an ability to be oiker. If it has an ability to be oiker, it's a real machshava of the horizon ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev, then it's not stumme. Zogt the Briskover, must be. Must be you can never budge the stumme. What you need is a real machshava b'tzelus. And inasmuch as this is epes vos in akira, but it's not a [laughter] fightigal machshava b'tzelus to make it possul. But the bottom line is that's what the Briskover saw. That's what the Briskover saw that it's possul that the gether that the gether of why it is that chatus sh'shum chulin is kosher is not because b'chalal the machshava has no shiyachus and as a result it's stumme. Lo y'challelu could be it would have the ability to be oiker the stumme. You can't say the machshava is not mayin yona. The raya is like ola u'l'bayim l'shem choyev. Now, the Tairus says because stumme is eingebaut, that's built in. And even a machshava sh'lo lishma doesn't have the ability to be oiker the stumme. I if that's the case, so why is this Why is the halacha that every time there's a machshava sh'lo lishma it's possul? That's the Briskover's chidush and must be there's a new halacha called the machshava b'tzelus. That's the second hora'a. The third hora'a, and this is also from the safer of Avram, and I'm reading from page yud ches. Really it starts on page tes zayin. So, he brings that there's a a kuntres that was printed in chelek men aleph of the Yeshurun Journal. This was on omud tof kuf chof vov. Now, this kuntres was a a gilyon from Hagoyon Reb Yuboruch Zinkel, the Me'or Rosh Yeshiva. And he named this kuntres the Reb Yuboruch kuntres ohrus b'divrei Maran Reb Zalman Leib. So, I didn't look up the kuntres. I don't know if this is just general on all the Briskover's toyris, but there's a few ohrus that are brought here in safer Avram that are specific to this shtickel. So, he has a whole regime of different ohrus that Reb Yuboruch Zinkel asked on the Briskover. I want to mention one of them. This is really really gishmak. He said as follows. That everyone knows that this shtickel as it relates to sh'lo lishma is whose shtickel? It's the Briskover's shtickel, right? I mean this is obvious, right? Everyone knows it's a shtickel Briskover in its safer. So, his ohrus was that if you take a look at Kovetz Shiurim, and this is in chelek bais, siman chof bais, it's muchach that Reb Chaim Brisker, Reb Chaim Brisker held like the Briskover. So, what's the context? The context is Reb Chanan said that he heard from Reb Chaim, Reb Chaim asked that Toisfus in Seder Menachos what would be if somebody makes tzitzis lishma, but also sh'lo lishma. So, one of the places in the Torah that you find the idea of lishma is when it comes to making tzitzis. Tzitzis has to be made lishma. What would be if someone has a machshava of lishma and sh'lo lishma while he's making tzitzis? So, Toisfus says l'chora would be possul. Why do I say that l'chora would be possul? Because just like you find a mincha, where if you would do the k'mitza of a mincha lishma and sh'lo lishma, the halacha is it would be possul. So, just like k'mitzas a mincha lishma and sh'lo lishma is possul, so Toisfus in Menachos men bais, omud bais, dibra macha macha, so too if somebody would make tzitzis lishma and sh'lo lishma, the halacha is it would be possul. So, Reb Chanan said that he heard from Reb Chaim, Reb Chaim said my raya ikko min mincha l'tzitzis. I'm quoting Reb Chanan. What shiyachus? Bishlama b'korbonois, bishlama when it comes to korbonois, avso sh'lo lishma ein o mepasel al lishma. The reason korbonois the halacha is that if you have a machshava sh'lo lishma, the korban is possul, is not because when you have a machshava sh'lo lishma, you're lacking lishma. D'ha ein tzorech lishma. Because you don't need lishma. U'chida min b'gemara d'stumme lishma koyi. Which means said Reb Chaim that it's automatically lishma. And even when you have a machshava sh'lo lishma, you can't make it sh'lo lishma. U'behech said Reb Chaim, you say d'avsuhu mishum d'havi machshava b'tzelus. That when you think sh'lo lishma, it's a machshava b'tzelus. Okay, ein machshavas chutz l'zman u'chutz min koyim. It's literally what's going on here. It's literally a machshavas chutz l'zman u'chutz min koyim. U'mishum hachi said Reb Chaim, af im chishiv lishma b'sh'lo lishma lo mahani meidei. That's why if you do a k'mitza and you have in mind lishma and sh'lo lishma, the halacha is it's going to be possul. Why? Shari soyf soyf ikka v'zeh nami machshava sh'lo lishma b'tzelus. Meaning because even though you thought lishma, who cares? The mincha wakes up in the morning lishma. The problem is that you have the machshava b'tzelus sh'lo lishma and that's why it's going to be an issue. Macha ein kein b'tzitzis. As opposed to tzitzis, d'lo mishum less of the machshava b'tzelus. There, the problem is not because of a machshava b'tzelus. The chol ha'chisaron b'tzitzis hu rak machmas heder al lishma. It's because he's lacking the lishma. Harei b'zeh shayi ikka leimeir. Over here you could say d'k'sheh chishiv lishma b'sh'lo lishma, shayi domi. D'saydin of the machshavim nami lishma. So, said said Reb Chaim, said Reb Chaim, I don't understand Toisfus lishma. Toisfus is saying that just like k'mitzas a mincha is possible, so too if somebody would be tzitzit is possible. But kmitsa, when you're dealing with kotchin, the geddaf shalom is that the machshava of possible. So you could say if you had in mind shalom it's a problem because it's very nice you had in mind but the minute you had in mind shalom that's a machshava of pesul. That's a bomb that knocks out the whole kmitsa. However, when it comes to tzitzit, there's no din that a machshava of shalom is possible tzitzit. There's a din you have to have shalom. There I can hear that shalom is just the opposite. If I had shalom and I had shalom it should be fine. Right, in shalom it's perfectly logical to cut the baby in half in that way. When it comes to kotchin, you have to make sure you don't have a machshava of pesul. Okay, shalom shalom. I had a machshava of pesul. You had a machshava of pesul you had a machshava of pesul. And when you understand what the make you anyways always have the shalom. Right, every time [laughter] you have a machshava of shalom it's really shalom shalom because the shalom is built in. We're not going to get into that. But it's possible that's really the way it is. Every single time you have a machshava of shalom it's shalom but that's shalom. That's diamond. But it's possible why shalom shalom is going to be a problem because it's very nice you had shalom but you had the machshava of pesul. When it comes to tzitzit, I don't care about a machshava of shalom. There's no din machshava of shalom is an issue. What is the issue? When I have a machshava of shalom I don't have the shalom. Well, if I had shalom and shalom couldn't I say I did have the machshava of shalom? And as long as I had the machshava of shalom it should be okay. But Rebbe Elyashiv one thing I see from you we're not trying to answer the question now. That's for another day. But one thing you [laughter] see from this is what Chaim said. So what's going on? Plagiarized Chaim said the most famous Chaim of all time is not even the Chaim shalom. So I'll tell you what Rebbe Elyashiv brings. Says if you take a look at the safer Aleph Bet Amar. The safer Aleph Bet Amar was written by the talmidim of Agnon Rebbe Aron Leib Shteiman. And Rebbe Aron Leib was the Brisk. And he was very known with Maran Chaim. There's a lot of different things that we know very very very authentic from Rebbe Aron Leib as it relates to the Brisk. Either way, so in the safer Aleph Bet Amar and this is on page kuf kaf they bring that they asked this question to Rebbe Aron Leib. This question was asked. They said everyone says over this question from the Brisk and it's printed in safer. This is the Brisk's most famous piece. Rebbe Chaim brings that he heard this from Rebbe Chaim to ask on Tosafot that Beit Hamikdash. So what's going on over here? The honor of Rebbe Aron Leib. Here's the quote. This was really the Brisk's question. The Rebbe Aron Leib said Rebbe Aron Leib said and what happened was the Brisk said over this question of Rebbe Aron Leib. Rebbe Aron Leib said Rebbe Aron Leib said Rebbe Aron Leib said Rebbe Aron Leib was dining. The whole Brisk. So Rebbe Aron Leib said that the and Rebbe Aron Leib they were walking back and forth in the Brisk and they were fighting over this question. They were fighting like fire. The said that shalom this is the way shalom works and Rebbe Aron Leib wasn't asking. I'll show you the side until the end they said you know what? We're going to go to we're going to go to the the Supreme Court. We're going to go to the we're going to fight in the Brisk. I'll show you the side. And they came to the and they came to Rebbe Chaim and the his side and Rebbe Aron Leib was his side. The Brisk. And Rebbe Chaim said the asking. Rebbe Chaim said Rebbe Aron Leib said Rebbe Aron Leib said Rebbe Aron Leib and that's why Rebbe Aron Leib brought it in the name of Rebbe Chaim. Rebbe Aron Leib said it's true Rebbe Chaim brought it. But the didn't hear it from Rebbe Chaim. Rebbe Chaim heard it from the Either way, now you know the rest of the story and we're going to stop