Zevachim 98

Today's is and we have 12 lines from the bad of Zid. So the primary topic of is three mentioned in the par regarding the carbonas. First is the second is a carbonas that was cooked in a third is a carbonus that was cooked in a clean or as we saw in the gar even a mat and we discussed some raid and really the mishnas already gets into whether these are exclusive to a carbon or whether these relate to kachum as well as it relates to dam That's a the Mishna says it's only true for the is there's no as it relates to that's also it's clear that it's not exclusive to the carbas it' be true for all is it all or is it even all but certainly not exclusive to carbas where this gray area and where it's the is regarding the Is that true only for like or is that like which is true for all? So maybe would be true for all kachum as well. Today's daf really picks up as a hem of yesterday's daf discusses a fourth which is also mentioned in parishab also regarding the carbas and that is the says literally anything that touches the ber of a carbon would become stating that the gumar clarified and rashi brings it that what it means is anything any that touches a carbos in a way where it was ble from the carbon katas. So you have a piece of meat for example that now has an oblia of a carbon kas it becomes like the kas itself. So just like a katas has certain limitations. It could only be eaten in the it could only be eaten afterwards it's afterwards there's attached to it. So too this piece of meat that was now from the is going to have the is going to have the same. Additionally, if the wasel is he not allowed to eat, that's possible. Does say if somebody eats that's possible. The point is that anything that touches a carbas in a way where there's a for that you need the ter not it's merely and simply attain some esoteric but it gets the kas itself in other words it's it's a pretty basic as a matter of fact a lot of these are basic right the fact that you cook the carbas I mean that seems to be 101 there's no way to cash obviously you're going to have to break it otherwise you're going to have a a ble of why do you need a random in a discussion it is true for kachum it's not true for kachum I mean this is this is your 101 the fact of and would also seem to be 101 and this as well in a way where it's the fact that we assume now that there's these are all things that are discussed amongst the we do what we do regardless we pick it up on that note it says the as it relates to this last of which although the Torah is said by we know is true not only for it's just like which is not exclusive to this too is not exclusive to it says and how in fact do I know that this is true for as well theory says The lumped all the different types of carbon together in the same PK. And the reason the Torah did that was to teach me that the Torah said by one that they should apply by others as well. As if to say that there's that said by a carbon, but it's not exclusive to because of this Pik that brings them all together. There's a heckish. That's the one of the addresses to him that the gar is working with. So we say and it says everything. It says the long which we're going to need one part. It says every meaning just like needs a kal. So to all require a k says they were my kay. What kind of kay are we talking about? Meaning without this heish I would have thought that didn't have to be done with a kali but being that I know needs a kali and we're all I know all need as well. What is this? Are we talking about a cliches to do the it's true the Torah mentions by a carbon but not only by a carbon the Torah says it by the [ __ ] as well as the Pik says the now the context of that are the carbonos that brought at these that are mentioned in paras right so if you ask a boy in yeshiva where does it say the story of mina say parro everybody knows that it's only partially true because there's the rest of the story of that's mentioned in parish and although parish comes after a so there's a of that's mentioned in parro that's the main part that's when you stand up during you don't stand up and end the parish you stand up in par because that's the theor part of the but at the same time the tyra at the end of goes back and completes the the narrative of one of the things the Tory says over there is that brought they brought when you're learning right these are very significant so they brought two types of carbon they brought and they brought now these schloms that the brought were obviously shade sear because the entire brought it Which is interesting because we know there was only one type of that the brought with and that was the that the used to bring on. So whenever you have the concept of a there's only one type of sham rash will usually speak it out as he did in there was one the was the true as it related but there was and this was an example of a that was that was born at the time of so they brought and they brought the next says went and he did and then he took half of that spritzed it on the on the misbeh. So what do you see from here? You see that the which clearly teaches me that there's a mitzvah and that the cabala has to be done with the Torah is saying with regards to both carbonas that are mentioned by so you can't tell me that the reason the mentioned in this is because I don't need to know. I can learn from as well which that's mentioned says the maybe when it's we say that I need to learn from that I mean that that it doesn't mean for but rather what it means is that in order to do the carbon it has to be done with a sakin so too the of would have to be done with a sakin as well in other words this idea that needs to be done with that. I only know from how I know it says took after and we know that that was an we know it was an and we know he used the so you see clearly that needs not just for but it needs for as well. How do I know that for caution? I know that from this if you take a look at rashi rashi says what does it mean that is so the rash is on the top of the second line so is clear that when we say that had to be done with a and when we learning out from a that all had to be done with a all had done with a cle doesn't just mean an ordinary cle it means a clear if you remember we've spoken not read on this in the beginning of that it's the truth is that did not have to be done with the Mishna says and then it says makes the why does it say and why does not say it should have said either or no mention of when it comes to it's says he brings it from the or you don't need a k that was used for shirus is just another way of saying so it's for that reason it doesn't equally not like in the beginning it's really discussion throughout So it's it's a big but here's a nice tucked away at the end of where clearly says that had to be done with again so you have a that's all the cut from together. Why did it say because teaches me that not just has to be done with a either or not a but why did that mention is only allowed to be eaten by and not only so to all can only be eaten is kadash right all is for kachash even though by kachum ordinarily there's kachum kin there's kach kadasha we spoke Once from the clea that who brought the carbon mka the ani the the carbon mka was brought with le it was brought with hearts it was brought to messes and being that the mka was brought to messes the took his the few that he had and and he went to the mikt to give something to the said that carbon is always going to be the carbon it depends it depends on where his mind is but for to write a check and bring a carbon is not such a for the even though his carbon was was of an inferior quality but it comes with la and as a result his carbon was always so it's only eaten by and only so we learn from there that all kadash says what are we learning from are we learning right you can't be learning wasn't eaten so there's only three options really is out but it says that which is oh you're going to tell me that there's another type of gadash even though ordinarily was kalen but the was treated like it was only eaten but the cross have a different card to tell me that it's from so again why do I need a hack to tell me that just like So which would be the only other one is I have a for so it's true you found a that has a how I know that is only eaten but this time the has a different so moving along in the it says in that to be everything to why did That's what we need. Just like says that anything that touches a carbon it's from the carbon it's not only true by it's going to be true for other as well. So just to pause for a minute and go back to the beginning of the D. We started with a question this is the answer right here. So this whole which is going to continue now this whole was brought for this one line and this of this one line we have this what we need is is that the mentions all their together one of which is to be all what are we learning out from the price continues why does it mention what do we learn by from just like an asham its womb and its amniotic sack and its fetus don't have any kadusha. So too old or kachchin the uber and its ancillaries don't have kadusha as well. Now you want to know why an asham's ubra doesn't have kadusha cuz can't have an uber. Asham had to be a mean that anam was a z can't have an obviously there's no there's no shilly there's it's not possible for there to be kadusha. So we learn from says the if that's the case what comes out of this parenthetically two things number one is because we know it's not truth the of a carbon is kadesh so what's this the must mean that the is only after it's born but while it's still inside the mother's womb it's at that point that this is true that there's not going to be number two you see from me you could learn because at first glance you would say how could I learn about an uber from a zer is uber doesn't have kadusha. So in a cave is shouldn't have kadusha either. One is one is a fa for a zaka to have an orbit. So what kind of lemon is that? Wouldn't you think that in order to learn something it it should have to be something that's you see from here the continues the next carbon mentioned in the wasim. The muim is referring to the special carbonus that were brought during the That was and we learned from there that although we know that no leftover boser had to be burnt but it's only meaning it's only after the was done you did the and now you have leftover boser so the leftover baser the Tyra says is noer you have to burn it let's say you have a leftover carbon let's say you were mocked as a carbon you set it aside you thought you were going to be mocked of it at the end of the day you couldn't be mocked of it so do you have to burn that carbon so the is How do you know that? I know that from the miluan because by the miluan they didn't burn any leftover carbonas. Now the reason they didn't burn any leftover carbonas says Rashi in his second reason is cuz there were no leftover carbonas just the way it was. There were no leftover kebabs. But again bottom line we're going to learn from there and we're going to say that just like by the there was no idea that if you had a leftover car burn it what would be the precedence for that? Maybe there's like a noiser. So you would maybe that's no we learn from the but finally what do we learn from piggle not just like the parigle which is mentioned twice in the but both times the mentions the par mentions it by the carbon. So we say are going to have what's so means the itself becomes if there was the the itself becomes pigleag means that the were brought together with the schlam also became pigle which means that is piggle at the time that the k was doing the with the carbon was methag something else the came with the schlan so it's methaglin the came with the itself became bottom line is this is the Dr. There was a bryo that was mentioned the name Raba that had a little bit of a different version of which learned out from these respective carbonas mentioned in this it says we learn. So the the topic of of this morning's daf or at least the beginning of it until it segus into 500 des digressions but as we'll see soon but but the primary topic of the daf is a now that of is actually mentioned twice in the it says regarding the and it says regarding the as well it's a in the regarding the and said that you want to know what we learn from I learned this I've called I don't learn I learned it from but then says from so why did the mentioned by so learned it from learned it from bottom line is why do I need the byas so the says because mil and katas are very different one is a piece of meat and the other one is something that's baked something made out of flour so it says the gar just based on the on the chemistry of the meat and of the of the would have been maybe it applies to one versus the other the other versus the one says only I would think being that it's soft. It has more of a to be meat is different is from the meat is tougher. Either way is why you would think it's only true from only true for that's why I needed four says that how do I know that is true for all not from like the brighter that we just brought but rather it's learned out from okay so what then do I learn from could only be brought from and could only be brought during the day so when the div with his right hand. So to all had to be brought from had to be brought during the day had to be brought with his right hand. What does it mean? Carbon could only be brought from as opposed to so you can't take your and and turn it into a carbon says how do I know these and this is referring to the and it said it has to be and we learn from there two things. It couldn't be from the it had to be his own hard-earned money. Additionally, he couldn't use my money. So that's a that part. So you see that has to be Michelle noticer. So too I learned from there. They're all is the same thing. So what were the three things said we learned from Kas? Number one, you can't use meer money. Had to be number two, it had to be and number three. Why do I have to learn that from? Why can't I learn that from the general that says and from there I know that all had to be done during the day? Why would you think only has to be done during the day? Isn't there a beyond that teaches me every single has to be done during the day? Doesn't matter what type of carbon it is. So the says you're right. It's true. We're really not learning it from we just mentioned that says the gar continues. What's the third thing the Bryce has said we learned from that just like had to be done with the right hand so to be done with the right hand why do I need to learn that from every time it says in the oruna it means now every carbon it says had to be done by so it always says kahuna once it says kahuna I know it's I know it's with the right hand why do I have to learn kach from kas from this heckish can I not learn it from this pik right here says the gar you're right we're just mentioning it and again alternatively the corruption you can say the t of this holds corruption it's that it's not true that every time it says it means every time it says it means but not every time it says kahuna doesn't mean we had this earlier in the so just because it says k it doesn't mean y if it says means y not not every kb had to be done was done with anah but not all were done with the it was done with a miso where did the play a role so being that it doesn't say by how do you know all has to be done with the right hand that's something I learned out from the carbon now finally it said the fact that a was allowed to benefit from the bones of a carbon is learned out from the carbon how do I know it's true by kachen just like has shin is going to have this as well. Before we go v just one you know we've mentioned many times the onab brings this idea of so the says and the says I was asked the question that why does the bring the before the we just learned per and 101 is is the always came before the always came before the why does the mention the and then the kas and we've spoken out galdade throughout our lim of to answer this kasha but somebody asked me when we asked the kasha the first time that he doesn't understand what's the kasha isn't that the p I mean the pik that this today's d the pik says, "Where is it?" I can't find the here on the side. The Pik mentions the before the so what's the grace of I mean the says I mean the says so it's definitely a good as a matter of fact the last time we spoke at this raid we spoke at from who said that every time the Torah mentions it always mentions before the in the always comes first and that's based on his that he mentions but he says much more but the truth is I think the question is a because had the quoted the verbatim I don't think the would have had a he would have been quoting the says would have Then you're right. I don't think the wrong would have said because all the all the would be doing is is quoting a parish but the did not quote the verb the had before like the does but says then the says and then afterwards so it's not an exact quote so is an exact quote I think it'd be a little bit more of an art. Regardless, it's a very nice that makes this whole and and and there's so much raid about the it's almost verbatim. It's not verbatim, but it's almost but the bottom line is is that the punchline that the was bothered with is why that's so so all this raid is a little bit either way it's to me. So going back to what do you have to do? You have to you have to watch the bag. What happens if we also know it's only true for the carbon it's not true for shim. It's not true for example for the carbon. So what happens if damas would be in a bag and then dam would be on top of the damas. So there's two layers of blood now. So it says that that why because the dam is in the bag. What's the question? But what rubber wasn't sure about was what if the m of what if went on the bag and then dam went on top of the do you still need kibos meaning doesn't need kibos and the oil is the d that's touching the bag but on top of the d so do you need kibos because of the or do you not need what's the do you say that the reason of kibos is because of the once The dam touches the bag. That's enough to require the is considered to be touching the bag. Even though there's of but it's considered to be touching the bag there would be says there's no of so we're mentioning damaged with regards to the damas that's was the primary topic of of the of the peric. So we conclude the and that is with me if somebody has a bag of that's tummy and he's sticking the bag in a mah toy if this on the it's considered a thus the isn't going to be a if the person is a butcher that it's not going to be a because a butcher is accustomed into having blood on his bag. Thus, he's not. If he's not, it's not going to be a problem. Really to fully appreciate this. In order for something to be a it has to be, it has to be something that is on of the bag, then the person has to be if it's not on of the bag, even if the person is. It's only if it's not, he's not at all, it's not even. So, we're discussing over here a little bit of that. It's not on the bag. So we're not discussing a a question of anyways only question whether or not it's a person is not so says it's a ordinary person is on his bag it would be a butcher he's not as a result it won't be a problem what if a person has rashi says like grease he has dirt on his bag it's going to But if he's in the business of selling things that involve again he's not but said what I'm not sure about is what if he has dam on his begg and on his big what's the is it not says the I don't understand the if he's only a butcher so the dam is not a but the revol is and if he sells revolve so then the revolve is not a but the dam should be a kat He does he sells he's a butcher and he also sells says do you say that even though a butcher doesn't care about and doesn't care about but if you're a butcher and you're you have blood and you have grease so everything that already or maybe no he's not because he's a butcher he's not about the rev because he's a he's a because he sells rev says says the take what comes to mind is is a well-known a scary says right where else do you have the word rev has to look and he has to look a certain way and and it's that has a big we've spoken that a few times at the who talks about looking in a mirror right it's a whole discussion we if you're allowed to look in mirrors. I mean, a woman's allowed to look in a mirror. The question is, is a man allowed to look in the mirror? Is there an issue of the Pharisees famously said that of somebody that walks out of the street, he's afraid that he might have feathers, you know, old school back in the day, but he's afraid that he may have some suffic even if he only has a suffic that he may be dirty and he may look less than says it's to look in a mirror that's supposed to be when it comes to these says in general person has to be careful that when he appears in front of people he should look good. whereas has dropped 10 degrees from what it once was. We have to be very careful to uphold to make sure that it doesn't continue to fall. He was what I had to say. So the Pharisees says he says that if the says that so it's very serious and what's at stake and that's why it's so what's so what's big deal what's so about it is is that this and the bottom line is when looks a certain way it's it's it's when he looks another way to the contrary it could be a biz for the so it says you want to know if you're allowed to look in the mirror you're allowed to look we're not going into the now of course you're allowed to look. So he says certainly now we have to go out of our way to make sure that we uphold it's a person's allowed to look in the mirror to make sure that he looks handsome. But either way that's on that note but a little bit of rage. So really that Zion B has in it a garra that's tucked away that is very various idea and there's many many raid suggestar together but just going back to to the gumar and we'll we'll figure out how much time we have in terms of how much raid that we can speak out. So the garra was discussing the of and the gor mentioned in the context of a carbon that comes in contact with a carbon is meaning it's meaning it's comes in contact with the is eaten like the so just like the is only the is only going to be and although usually is eaten this carbon is only going to be just to play it out. Meaning the second day you're not going to be able to eat the anymore. The reason is is because you have it a carbon kas a that's ple that you're not allowed to eat and as a result you won't be able to eat the or let's say the kas was possum you're not going to be able to eat it. The reason not be able to eat it is is because there's a why don't you say that should be of this of problematic that was answered so what's the militar you have to know if that maybe should be considered mik based on the red that is a carbon something to think about and right climb. So those are the classic cases of of but that's all non related but when you're learning the next year and a half right when you're learning says I'll prove it to you says in the regarding the the carbon they let a break a bone of the carbon said there were certain bones of an animal that have marrow in it. There's inside of it. It's what's in terminology known as said when it says in it means to eat the carbon to eat the flesh of the carbon. Do you eat all the flesh? No. You can't eat the flesh that's inside the bones, the marrow, the you're not allowed to touch cuz includes it. I don't understand. Why don't we say this is checkmate? It's proof that not when it comes to when it comes to asks a famous says I don't understand everybody knows 101 anyone that ever learned the beginning of this or has ever encountered the laws of the most basic principle of that the only time you say is if the two things happen simultaneously. So if simultaneously a person is going to sit down, he's going to do something that on the one hand is a mitzvah but on the other side is a mitzvah. So if the two things happen at the same time, we say right says in his but that's only if the two things are happening at the same time. But what if at 2 o'clock in the afternoon I'm going to be over and then 4:00 I'm going to be over the two things have to happen if they don't happen exactly at the same time then you don't say what's from the fact that includes in it that you don't say when it comes to you know why you don't say because the two things aren't Again, play it out. When are you over the you're sitting down and you break the bone, right? You crack the bone, the crackle. You over afterwards when you put the the into your mouth, that's when you're going to be first. you're over the and then afterwards to repl that every and from the fact that implies even to the and that's how he answered his with the ble of the garb that's not that's a classic it's exhibited when you don't say cuz the two things aren't happening concurrently and if it's not the you don't say doesn't give a ter but it's your dua that the pisto right here it's a great but on this says a ter a very very short ter says the it's says pisto are like that come out of so it says Tyus I'm going to tell you and Tyus doesn't explain what this is referring to but it's clear that it's referring to ouris in other words that it show you need to happen simultaneous in order to say but that's only true if it's possible to be and at the same time but let's say I'm going to be at the same time as but not but at the same time it's not possible for me to it otherwise Sounds a little convoluted. The point is the point is is that when this person is going to be by eating the it's true he's doing it after he already was but at the same time it wasn't possible for him to be without being you can't eat the without first breaking the boat. So being that you first have to break the boat in order to get to the even though you're not doing them says the it's not going to be of because although it's true it's not but at the same time at the same time this I'm doing of is something that I need to do in order to be the mitzvah. So am I being the mitzvah at that moment? No I'm not being the mitzvah at that moment. I'm not the mitzvah until I actually eat. I digest the whatever the the definition of ail is but but at the very least has to be in my mouth and when I break the bone it's not in my mouth yet granted but at the same time I can't eat it without breaking THE BONE SO BEING THAT that is necessary for the mitzvah it's looked at as it's looked at as now the emphasis is there's precedence for this for this in another and that is a appears a few places one of the is and that's with regards to the infamous soil somebody was what does he do so it's a mission the first mission was said one day he works for himself the next day he works for so he satisfies the count to count as rabbi would like to count at least It's very nice. You worked out the financial situation. So the accountants all figured it out. But the problem is how's first supposed to get married. How's he supposed to do that? He can't get married. Why? He can't marry a and he can't marry because he's a not to get married is also not an option. So what's the option? So how in the world is so what's he supposed to do? and the famously says came around and they were and many places I don't send the problem can't get married he can't marry that has that says that a man's not let him marry why do you say let I say approve This is and says many roots of each ter that says is worthy of a week of ra is is more than the next but's first is as follows you want tell me says no there's no because the two things don't happen at the same time because it's not you know why are you all six that's already you don't need once there's a that constitutes already starts when you want to know Why doesn't it's says you know why there's no clear first and only afterwards and it's printed in I think it's somewhere there one of the last isn't this is the pisto said that even though the of the carbon doesn't happen simultaneously way with the but there's no problem. Why is there no problem with the because at the end of the day you need to break the in order to be able to eat the so even though when I break the I'm not doing the mitzvah that's true but I need to break the to do the mitzvah. So it's like I mean that that's enough for it to be considered. So what so you can't do without so it's true already and you don't have the but you can't without it's no different but says something very gives three other like we said with tons of raid you know what's Tyus discussion even this should be end of the discussion. Why is this typhus throughout Shaz 15 25 lines long with all the it's you have a it's not once it's not it's over checkmate right there's certain that end the conversation like for example let's say the would say that it's okay so it's not anymore so I'm going to give you five reasons why there's no number one and I'm tell you four other tell me it's we know but it's not The is is 101. So why why is Tyus even going just said it's not you know why wasn't going because it's not true about this because the truth is not that it's not you know why it's not because it's THE BOTTOM LINE IS that right maybe it isn't has the ter on shore of this that's the beer in this over here and the same all the other places appears because the whether we should look as or not on the one hand it's true it's not but then again you can't do the mitzvah without doing what you're doing so even though you're not being the mitzvah at the time that you've been but you're doing something that's necessary in order for you to do the mitzvah bottom line is the ego was saying this to it's very obvious over here the question is what's the what's the end of the day I'm not doing the mitzvah so and if you take a look right here and they both stayed come out the same way and that is that although it's true that when you break the bone you're not being but being that you have to break the bone in order to kind of mitzvah breaking the bone is considered that the mitzvah started it's just to keep it simple I know the London might not be happy with this but just to keep it simple at it's at the very least a mitzvah and being that it's at the very least it comes out is not just some random event it's not I was over the at 2:00 I mean can say it's 4:00 oh it's not I'm off by two hours no when I was over the although I wasn't the mitzvah but I was doing the mitzvah I was doing something that that's enough for to be considered. And even though it's posit maybe according to the shalom that says you make a not we spoke about the place brings himself maybe but but of course is no according to the when it comes to a mitzvah but over here what's being is not the what's being is THE MITZVAH WE just have a issue it's a technicality we have a problem is enough to make it to allow the mitzvah to be. But the point is it's not just a random event. YOU'RE RIGHT. IF ONE IS now and the other one's later, but being that I'm being in the mitzvah and granted mitzvah itself is not, but I don't need the because I'm going to do the mitzvah and the mitzvah is what's going to be. But at the end of the day, the issue was the fact that I'm being the mitzvah that's enough for it to be a bit. But I'll just tell you this whole all this raid is there's another important and this is another classic another classic that is in so the the discusses the laws of now one of the that we're all familiar with is that a is not obligated to go into avar and return an discusses why a is not allowed to go into the bas of why don't you say that gets involved in without going through the gets involved in and of the going into the such and said it doesn't work you know why why it doesn't doesn't work because because going it's not just a question of it's in the course of the discussion of which again we all know is learned out from a but but there's a concept of in that conversation theor discusses and the says maybe the should says no in brings I don't understand what was that you should say in order to say it has to be you need at the same exact time say in this case is it going to be a sees his friend's a in the base oh's been looking all over for this I see it it's in the cemetery I'm a I here. But maybe I can go in cuz when I get the and I bring it to so what kind of habit is this? What's going on over here? When the client walks into the first when's it going to be when he goes back to and he knocks on his door and he he gives it to him. So it's not if it's not what's the I'm skipping also known as the over here. It's not a problem. It's true says the Ramban that when this co would walk into the Bakar at that moment is he being the mitzvah no he's not the mitzvah he's not the mitzvah until he knocks on door but at the same time he's being in the even though he wasn't going at that point says who cares and says I'll prove it to you says One of the classic examples of saying is you're not allowed to cut off. So what if a child was born and he has a negative on the do you do you don't do so that's an example of when you say ask why it could even be but always brings me as an example of what's going on over here when are you over the is of cutting off the nega when you cut off the nega when you cut off the nega the child's not you have to do and you have to do that means you didn't do it yet so how do you say I And the ter is because even though when you do the you and once you're being in the mitzvah that's enough for it to constitute the says the same thing is going to be regarding as relates to you're asking you're asking that what was the to say when the goes into the first he's not the mitzvah yet. So what's the cash again? The is not the terrace of the room is not but at the same time you're being so this of the seems to be back and forth with unsure of the way it's based on this idea of maybe it's enough seems to be we're going to leave about a week's worth of raid on the table.