A Critical Distinction between Positive and Negative Commandments

The latter part of the daf discusses the schita of an over kohen. And the Mishnah says, schitas over kohen nevela umitameh bemassa. Meaning, in the world of hakol shochtim, and all the people that are not Israel, and lechatchila debedi'avad, then maybe there's a benefit if there's at the very least a god willing bagav, but the over kohen is in a class of his own. The over kohen is excluded after a ach schitas over kohen nevela, it's one stick nevela, maybe even worse kimavor in the Sugya. What the Gemara didn't discuss at all is what is the source, what is the makor that schitas over kohen nevela. This is a very, very big, powerful line, and it's not mevor what the pshat in this is. An over kohen is considered a baal daas, he's considered a baal kavana. It's not like schitas has to be leshmah, where you can maybe still do the Sugyas of an over kohen when he does things, he operates and he does it adaiyda nafsha. So, really it's not clear from the Gemara, why is it that schitas over kohen nevela. And being that the Gemara doesn't discuss it, so the Rishonim in various places came and they suggested makors. Tosfos le'eil and daf gimel amud beis, it's the second to last Tosfos on the Amud Dima Amasa, who kasav kutim geirei arayos says Tosfos and I quote, ushchitasam pasul. To the extent that you would hold that kutim are geirei arayos, that would mean a kusi is a and the schita would be pasul. Kimosh over kohen. Just like the schita of an over kohen. Says Tosfos, and what is the makor that the schita of an over kohen is pasul? Because the pasuk says, "Vezavachta shelamin ve'achalta sham, vesamachta lifnei Hashem Elokecha." and from we learn right you have to be able to be able to eat and after someone that is about someone that needs in order to be is the person that's able to laugh he is going to be excluded either way But they want to know what the to the mission is because it says someone that needs to be is considered to be a but somebody that doesn't need in order to be he's going to be excluded in other words because the boy is not in the parish of when the Torah said wasn't talking to him because he doesn't need to be in order to be it's for that reason he's not someone that's able to check in his very very first of child so this is my daughter it's a similar he was asked a child with regards to what apparently was an issue where there was a certain start where they were that were writing film cotton and the question of is there any way to be these film were presented to the entire this they asked a bomber cash that is a spot the more says that a cotton is not allowed to write film and the reason a cotton is not allowed to write film is because it says in the parish of film of Shaltem, and then it says afterwards >> [laughter] >> and we learn from there someone that's yesh big shira's yesh big shira. But someone that's in a big shira is in a big shira. In fact, the Mordechai in his Halachot Ketanot in the end of Hilchot Tefillin says that even a katan she even such a katan at the end of the day being that is only mitzvah so right so he's still not a bar mitzvah. So even such a katan would not be allowed to write tefillin. The Magen Avraham in similar fashion in Hilchot Tefillin brings the Magen And the Magen Avraham says I want to say even more than that. I hold that even if the katan was he already had a bar mitzvah, he's 13 years old, but we don't know for sure whether he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even though we know that once a boy turns 13 at that point he has even that in order to be a a bar mitzvah you have to be a bar mitzvah and being that a katan is not a bar even if he's he won't be able to write so the Yehuda in this asked the question he said that it's the first paragraph of that she why place for says in it's because it says and being that a even though it's not a bar mitzvah it's for that reason he's not somebody that's allowed to so the it's also in the first paragraph of that a katan in certain situations in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to in certain situations are allowed to how can it I don't care. Even if it's a gift, how is he going to I'm not even going to be on the river. But my son, he's not considered a gift. So if he's not considered a gift for children, he shouldn't be considered a gift as it relates to the gift either. So if that's the case, the gift should be the gift of the gift of the gift that they're not a gift should be also. So how are you talking when it comes to a gift of a gift or gift because you go to the as long as you know he's keeping the five gifts of the gift that we find the gift is going to be okay. But when it comes to a gift of a gift, there it's a gift of a gift gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift because he's not a gift of a gift. You'll tell me that the gift he's going to be a gift. You can tell me a hundred reasons why you think there should be a gift between a gift and a gift. And they're all good reasons. But at the end of the day, there's a precedent. You see that in a gift of a gift, it's not a gift. So if he's not a gift, why is he a gift? And at first glance, said the gift of a gift, this is a gift of a gift. Said the gift of a gift, there's a fundamental difference between gift and between gift. And that is gift is a gift of a gift. As opposed to gift is a gift of a gift. What's the gift? Said the gift of a gift, the gift says in the gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift. This is a gift of a gift that we have to have in our bones. Says in the gift of a gift, we gift of a gift gift of a gift of a gift. This is in the gift of a gift of a gift of a gift. Now let it eat gift of a gift. Why? Gift of a gift of a gift. And we gift of a gift. It says gift of a gift as if it said gift of a gift of a gift gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift of a gift. And it's coming to say that not only is a gift of a gift allowed to eat gift of a a gift, but a gift of a gift is not even allowed to feed a gift of a gift. The gift continues. And the gift says it says in the gift of a gift gift of a gift gift of a gift gift of a gift. In the gift of a gift of a gift gift and we learn from that possuk it's an extra possuk Rashi says "La hazara gedola malak tanan" to teach me that not only is a godol not allowed to eat dam, but he's not allowed to feed a katan dam either. A third braysa. It says in the Torah "Emor el hakohanim bnei Aharon ve'amarta aleihem emor ve'amarta la hazik gedola malak tanan" it's coming to teach me that not only is a kohen that's a godol not allowed to be metamei to a meis, but he has to make sure that his child is not going to be metamei to a meis either. Says the Noideh BiYehudah the Gemara brings three braysas that bring three drashas. One in the parsha of shratzim, one in the parsha of achilas dam, and the third time in the parsha of tumas kelaim that says that just like a godol is muzhar on those aveiros, so too a godol is not allowed to go and facilitate for a katan to go and violate those aveiros as well. Says the Noideh BiYehudah it's pashut that if you find this inyan of not giving a katan an issur biyadayim with regards to these three aveiros, it's going to be true for all aveiros. Now the Gemara is going to tell me is that the case? We know there's a halacha "Shnei suvim echad im lamdan and the Gemara says that even though there's a machlokes in shas whether shnei suvim echad im lamdan or maybe im lamdan, but everyone's moideh when it's shlosha suvim echad im lamdan. So the Noideh BiYehudah says that's not a kasha. You know why it's not a kasha? Because the Gemara itself works through the exercise and the Gemara says "Shlishi why I needed the three limudim?" Let's read the Gemara inside. The Gemara says "Yesh minyan shratzim had I only had the limud of shratzim I would have told me something else mamesh. And as a chomer it's also bemashu. Aval dam that the ikuvi is it requires a b'seim lach. Yesh minyan dam I would have told me something else mamesh. Aval shratzim yesh minyan hanitarti I would have told me something else mamesh. Aval tumas kelaim is only nigar kohanim emalach. Yesh minyan tumas kohanim I would have told me something else mamesh. So the Noideh BiYehudah says the Gemara worked out every single nuance of why you need all three. And if we need all three then the Gemara worked out every single nuance of why you need all three. And if we need all three, that means it's not And therefore, it's possible that if the Torah told me not once, not twice, but three times that there's a concept of that means when it comes to every single issue that arises in the world, you're going to have such a concept. Something that I do with the By this, you have the love of And it's not only It's It's also the love of me from and it's And by the way, it doesn't say anywhere in the Torah So, don't look for it. It says But it's known in the world as the love of So, when it comes to love and over there you have the love of I mean that you have the love of And that's no good. The cotton So, something that I do with the The cotton is going to be considered a But when it comes to when it comes to Over there, there's no There's no I mean that there's no I mean that there's no I mean that something that I do with the That's why a cotton goes down as being an As it relates to Okay, as long as there's a And it's And you know that everything worked out. This is going to be a good I don't know if you have to be a The cotton is a Why is the cotton a Cuz as opposed to when it comes to when it comes to the of Over there, there's no I mean that the cotton himself doesn't have any Even only a So, there you have the that cotton can't write The even if he's a But we don't know where he brought Can't even be can't But at the end of the day, that's why the cotton is considered a So, something that I do with the But at the same time, the cotton is not going to be considered a barrack shira. The truth is this night of Yehuda is commanded of Shasha. The Shasha is in it's simon aleph it's if cotton cough sign just going to read the last two lines of the Shasha. The Shasha says the camel the base over in the midst of all the club. Mitsova but a cotton for sure must be mitsova shari also like because you find a cotton is not without shita. So again we just spoke out the tail end of the Shasha but if you take a look at the prima garden and six say that on this Shasha right here so the prima garden you want to know what was going on in this Shasha the Shasha was bothered with this kasha which essentially was the kasha of the night of Yehuda and that is that my shana we look at the guy as being an my shana we look at the cotton as yes being about and the terrace that the Shasha was saying was is because the cotton mitsova shari also comes now and what are you talking about then you give them a the terrace is because there's a lot of and that would be the issue of the night of Yehuda kasha as well of why it's something that would only be nigel says but it's not something that would be nigel says you know. If you think about it what emerges from this night of Yehuda is really a double nifla. I think it's something that requires a little bit of his planning is worth meditating on for a minute and that is the relationship between a cotton and mitzvos as says is different than the relationship between a cotton and a mitzvos right just to demonstrate a cotton is put them in a mitzvos we know that but at the same time a cotton is included in the lavan of the Torah. But he's not included in the essence of the Torah. He's included in the lavan of the Torah, not that he himself is bound by thou shall not this and thou shall not that. But when the Torah gave the love, the Torah included him. Meaning the people that are bound by the Mishnah were told that be careful and make sure this cotton, right if you want to visualize it, who probably has no dots and doesn't have to take care of himself, you make sure that he doesn't do any love it. But when it came to the Essen, the cotton is not bound by Essen, just like he's not bound by love it. And there's no hazard of cotton either. Now you're going to tell me, isn't there a mitzvah of cotton and not a big guy? The answer is yes, but cotton is a mitzvah cotton is not a mitzvah there right so when it comes to love it, there's a right to go relationship that the cotton has with the love. When it comes to Essen, you don't have that. And really at first glance, it's something that's hard to hear. I mean Essen and love it. They're the two halves of the same coin. They make up the Torah. I have a year, right? I mean so many ways we can go with this, but the Torah that there's such a fundamental difference which is manifest here in the beginning of Torah and that the cotton is a but he's not a sure of how long that this that come about from this a good morning to you all all the way to the end of the year. Why would it be that way? Why would it be that the Torah of love it is talking to the cotton albeit via the Torah? And the Torah of Essen not. I found the cotton this is in Siman it says cotton hey. He's talking a little bit about the the mitzvah of cotton. And he says I'll just read an excerpt. He's talking about the that holds cotton that was going on in this but the punchline will be in the game. He says that reason of being mature and flourish or cotton from loving you would think should be in the game mid-sentence as well. And being that you find there's a direct application of being mature and flourish. What's the direct application? You have to download voice activation. Even if I'm not mature and flourish, but for sure I'm mature and flourish and not defeat him. Then can you have a direct application? So why is not mature and flourish a direct application? Is it not a direct application? For sure not a direct application, says the owner. I heard the owner say mature and flourish is not a direct application. The mature and flourish is not a direct application. That's what you're allowed to do. The inner mix is And I would put a little on the side. The first rule I do is to know that I don't know the rule. Why is there such a fundamental difference in terms of the relationship to mature and flourish than than it is his relationship to mature and flourish? So maybe you can say maybe it's even partial. We keep on coming back to this, but I think it's and that is the owner of the house is human. When a person doesn't have it's mature and flourish How do we It's a It's a mature and flourish that when a person doesn't have it causes mature and flourish Now we spoke about how the inner of mature and flourish is by mature and flourish And that's how >> is referring the history of but read the Gamorah says it's not only true with regards to it's true for all of now why is it by see that it's they saw it because that makes a mom stay by but the law is obvious and that is we mentioned the of the with the after he brings this says that you see from this show that every says the I'm skipping they're worse than other came and changed the muscle but the bottom line is it's that when a person doesn't have a doesn't matter what a in the world it is that a is we also mentioned that this idea that a is is it doesn't matter if the person did it it doesn't matter if he did it it doesn't matter how he did it any time a person goes ahead and doesn't have a that a is going to be by the way it doesn't matter if the person is a if the person is a you know what the that is a mom the mom is in your to pay off everyone knows this mom the mom says I feel may neck is someone that's nursing a child should not eat the mom right do not eat the mom if you're nursing a child why cuz you're nursing the child and you don't want to now impart the mom from the break the shark. Oh, so a that's nursing a child, she should not eat mom so the rest of you. Knock yourselves out. How could that be? So the shark he knows what's going on over here. It's talking about when you have a woman who's a so she's allowed to go now and she's allowed to eat but if you're nursing a child don't do it. Find them a someone else to do it if that's what the situation is. Don't and the reason is cuz the they're going to go into the little baby and it's going to impact the baby and all the probably most everybody is from this that you see local you see that this Indian of even for a baby. That's the case. We said about this say no if a cotton has no nexus to mix with because he's a cotton he's not a and that's the case. So why should I have to have a to an essay? Why should I have to have a to an essay? But when it comes to there's an element and that is and it's not only true for it's really true for all of and it's for that reason that's maybe maybe that's the reason when it comes to there's a lot of there's an Indian of making sure making sure that this child is going to stay pristine. Child can't fend for himself. He's a child. He's not a ass. And if he's going to go ahead and mistakenly eat him and eat and he's going to eat and he's going to eat all these things he's not supposed to eat. Well, my because that that was given to him when he was born that that he got when he was etc. etc. That's all going to be diluted on some level. He didn't know it wasn't a he wasn't but at the end of the day it's a and it's and it's for that reason we You know, it's interesting. It's [snorts] only the father's has a right it's every single year you have to look out for this child to make sure that this child is not going to be you know another interesting phenomenon that you you find of you find two of the three brings in is I found another homage Rashi This is in the over there says this Indian appears more than you realize and it appears disproportionately by the because you say and that Indian you see was said in the of because I can even though it's true by every of the that you find could be this Indian of is related to the second in of every right every is but there's also that that's true by that's not true by that we know is true by the can't be about us he's not on the but at the very least we have an obligation to make sure that our children are going to remain that's a we have and that's a day riser Not because the I am not he's not a he's a so what's the difference the reason is is because if he doesn't do and I say nothing happened but if he does a that is very much very much going to put this child behind the eight ball and it's for that reason we have responsibility and an obligation to make sure that our children will remain holy and pure it could be that's the Indian of but the bottom line is what's the takeaway of this rate? It's a fest and be a hooter, right? The by Mr. level fast, but I think at the same time the takeaway is a cotton haste a cotton haste niche by carrots said in a beauty is you but really what lies underneath it is is that the relationship that the cotton has with is fundamentally different than the relationship that he has with I say and all right. The hesper is the Gamora in Yuma that La Metes Ahmed base that all the and the Iranian used to explain the Indian of has to be a hemp and shall take.