Zevachim 107

We've all learned Chumash, maybe even thought we understood, but now, with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature up-tempo Daf Yomi style, Reb Sruly Bornstein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the derech halimud of the Beis Medrash meets pshat, discover the shiur that's redefining how people learn Chumash. Reb Sruly Bornstein's Chumash shiur. Find it on the Lakewood Daf Yomi app or wherever this shiur is being heard. Today's daf is Vochin daf kuf zayin and we are five lines from the bottom of daf kuf vov omid beis. Erev Shabbos we began the 13th perek of maseches Vochin, perek hashoychis v'maylo. Perek hashoychis v'maylo begins with perek yud zayin in parshas Acharei Mos. The halacha of shchutei chutz and alos chutz. The Torah is very, very clear that if somebody has a korban, he was makdish an ola achas shlomim. It doesn't matter what type of korban it is. And he either shochets that korban outside of the makom Hamikdash or he's maylo, he's maylo the basar of that korban outside the makom Hamikdash, the Torah says he's going to be chayav kores. If he's chayav kores, it means that if he does it b'shogeg, he's going to be chayav chatos. The Mishna began with a machlokes of Reb Yose bar Chalafta and the chachamim. What would be if somebody shochets b'chutz and then he's maylo b'chutz? He does shchita and hala'a b'chutz on the same korban. The chachamim say he's going to be chayav shtayim. He's going to be chayav chatos for the fact that he did shchita b'chutz and he's going to be chayav chatos for the fact that he did hala'a b'chutz. Reb Yose bar Chalafta argues, Reb Yose bar Chalafta says that the only time you're chayav alos chutz is if it was what the Gemara is going to call muktar lifnei. It was a korban that was brought in the Azara, you were maylo that korban outside, then the halacha is he's going to be chayav but for the hala'a. But if you shocheted b'chutz and then you were maylo the basar of that same korban b'chutz, you'll be chayav for the shchutei chutz but not going to be chayav for alos chutz. But the Gemara started off with a problem. The Gemara said that if you're chayav chatos for shchutei chutz and alos chutz, it means that not only is it a double shainey kores, but it has to be something that the Torah clearly stated b'Azara thou shalt not do. Because the rule is ain onshin elon kein azharah. And the way Rashi learns this it's referring to the korban chatos. So although there's certainly a chiyuv kores says the Gemara for shchutei chutz and alos chutz, because the Torah clearly says in parshas Acharei Mos that there's a chiyuv kores, but chatos would suggest that there's an Azara. And nowhere in the parsha of shchutei chutz and nowhere in the parsha of alos chutz does the Torah mention anything that suggests Azara. Azara means that you're not allowed to shochet b'chutz. Azara means that you're not allowed to be maylo b'chutz. And it doesn't say anywhere in the Torah that you're not allowed to do that. If that's the case, how could the Mishna have a discussion of hashoychis v'maylo b'chutz if he's chayav once, if he's chayav twice? It certainly suggests that there's a chiyuv chatos. Chiyuv chatos means that there's an Azara. Where is the Azara? And the Gemara said bishloi b'hala'a. Although there's no Azara in parshas Acharei Mos, but there's actually another place in the Torah where the Torah discusses the issur chutz. And that's in parshas Re'eh. And the Torah there says "He shomer loch pen talu l'sachech b'makom asher dir." And the word he shomer and the word pen both are synonyms of loy. They mean loy sa'aseh. Thus you have an Azara for alos chutz but shchutei chutz where do you have an Azara? And the Gemara finally came out that there is an Azara because the pasuk says in the parsha of shchutei chutz "V'lo yizbchu oylas chaim asher dir." And even though as we spoke about Friday, it doesn't mean literally loy sa'aseh, but v'lo yizbchu is a loy and thou shalt not shochet anything in the context of shchutei chutz. That's going to be the loy sa'aseh for shchutei chutz. But the Gemara says that there's a braisa that says that that pasuk is talking specifically about somebody that shocheted b'chutz, but he shocheted something that he was makdish b'sha'as heter bamos. And the question then the Gemara asks is how do you know there's an Azara if you shochet b'chutz something that you were makdish b'sha'as issur bamos? And for the Gemara said "B'chumra, I know b'kama chomer." Madach there's an issur shchutei chutz when you makdish b'sha'as heter bamos, certainly there should be a shchutei chutz when you makdish b'sha'as issur bamos. And the reason it's a kal v'chomer is because the same braisa that says that that pasuk is discussing where you were makdish it b'sha'as heter bamos says that in that case where you were makdish b'sha'as heter bamos and then you shocheted b'chutz is only going to be a loy sa'aseh. You're not going to have kores. The only time there's kores is if you makdish b'sha'as issur bamos. If that's the case, the haloy dinu madach. If you uh if you shochet korban that you were makdish b'sha'as heter bamos where [snorts] it's only a loy sa'aseh, the halacha is there's an Azara, then certainly if you were makdish b'sha'as issur bamos where there's a chiyuv kores, there should be a loy sa'aseh. So right now where we're holding is that the Gemara is suggesting that maybe the Azara for shchutei chutz when you were makdish b'sha'as issur bamos is learned out kal v'chomer from the Azara of shchutei chutz where you were makdish b'sha'as heter bamos. And on that note, the Gemara asks the obvious question. The question that everybody was bothered with. And that is the chaim asirim min adin. Could you learn out an Azara from a kal v'chomer? Afilu m'man d'amar ain onshin min adin, we know that even according to m'man d'amar d'hold onshin min adin ain mazirim min adin. Meaning the rule is ain onshin min adin. It just so happens there's a m'man d'amar, I think it's Reb Tarfon, that holds onshin min adin. A das yochid. Says the Gemara that even the m'man d'amar that holds onshin min adin is moyda that when it comes to Azara, ain mazirim min adin. So you if you can't learn Azara from a kal v'chomer, you can't tell me that the most common car to the Azara of shchutei chutz where you were makdish b'sha'as issur bamos is learned out kal v'chomer from shchutei chutz where you were makdish b'sha'as heter bamos. You have to say that the Azara for shchutei chutz is not kal v'chomer but rather it's learned out from an g'zeira shava. It says the loshon hava by shchutei chutz. It says the loshon hava by alos chutz. And just like alos chutz has an Azara, so too shchutei chutz is going to have an Azara. Reb Yona says k'Reb Yona. It's learned out from Reb Yona. Omar Reb Yona "Asher sham sham mala haloy onash elon kein ezer, af kan loy onash elon kein ezer." Reb Yona said it's not learned out from but rather it's learned out from a hekesh from hala'a. And the hekesh is really based on a pasuk also in parshas Re'eh. That's the other parsha, the lesser known parsha of shchutei chutz in the Torah. And there the Torah says sham talu l'sachech v'sham sham talu means act of hala'a. V'sham tasu means all the other avodas. So we're makish shaar avodas to hala'a. What's the the punchline? In your neinu, just like by alos chutz there's an Azara, so too here there's going to be an Azara as well. It's interesting that who's the one that said the hekesh? Reb Yona. There's many occasions that Reb Yona is in shas. The most well known occasion of Reb Yona is in seder noshim maseches Yevamos where Reb Yona made a hekesh between all the arayos. Kukshu kol arayos elo zeh. We had a case of Reb Yona regarding all the different korbanos. That's another hekesh of Reb Yona. Here we have another case of Reb Yona. It's not the arayos, it's not different types of korbanos, but rather here we have a a kasha d'Reb Yona as it relates to as it relates to the different avodas that we're makish all the avodas l'hadadi. Bottom line, just like by alos chutz there's an Azara, so too here there's going to be an Azara as well. Says the Gemara that said "Hashoychis v'maylo b'chutz chayav shtayim." So we have an Azara now for shchutei chutz. We have an Azara for maylo b'chutz. We have an Azara for shchutei chutz where you were makdish b'sha'as heter bamos. We have an Azara for shchutei chutz where you were makdish b'sha'as issur bamos. The question though is how do you know two Azaras? How do you know [snorts] that if you shochet v'maylo b'chutz, you're going to be chayav shtayim? You're going to be chayav saifei d'shchutei chutz and saifei d'alos chutz. It says "V'aleihem toymer al smuchin toymer." So as mentioned in parshas Acharei Mos where the Torah talks about the halacha of chutz, the Torah really breaks it up into two parts. Yeah, first the parsha of shchutei chutz and then you have the parsha of ha'alos chutz. And the Torah is mechaber the two parshas with the words "V'aleihem toymer." So you have first the parsha of shchutei chutz and then "V'aleihem toymer" literally "Go tell the Jews." Ish ish mibeis Yisrael that not only are you not allowed to shochet you're also not allowed to be maylo b'chutz. As if it would have been written "V'aleihem mitanayan." As if to say "Va'av of" that the parsha of alos chutz relates, it applies to what shchutei chutz meaning that if you are going to be maylo something that you already you're going to be chayav for alos chutz. You're certainly chayav for the shchutei chutz and you see you're going to be chayav for the alos chutz as well. asked the obvious question. "Mixei v'aleihem mitanayan?" "V'aleihem ksei mitanalef." You can't do that. You can't interchange the alefs and an ayin, right? Say shama. Go ask a Brisker if you can interchange an alef and an ayin. Either way, elo k'Reb Reb Elo k'Reb Tana d'vei Rebbi Yishmael. "V'aleihem toymer l'arba parshas." It's learned out from the "V'aleihem" but not "V'aleihem" switch the alef with an ayin, but rather "V'aleihem" it's the vav that's moysef al inyan rishon that connects the two parshas that you have the issur alos chutz even when it was already a shchutei chutz. Af kan muktar chutz. He says he learned a pasuk from a g'zeira shava. It says "Avon" by shchutei chutz. It says "Avon" by alos chutz. From the g'zeira shava we know that if someone's maylo b'chutz something that he already shocheted b'chutz, the halacha [snorts] is he's going to be chayav saifei d'shchita and saifei d'ala. Reb Bibi asked the kasha, a kasha on the Tana Kama of the Mishna again that holds "Hashoychis b'chutz v'hamaylo b'chutz chayav saifei d'shchita and saifei d'ala." >> [snorts] >> What's his kasha? How did the Tana Kama learn to the solution the first mission list the 36 of various for which somebody is cars. What's the kasha counts in the shed having why is it 36 it should really be 37 the my law. They have my law. What does that mean? If we're going to say that if someone's my love a hot something that he first shocked it with me. The show you guys. And if someone's my love a hot something that he first shocked it because he's going to be kind of hot that in that mission both my love a hot should be mentioned in the panel is a very long rash that explains the most kasha and really it's dependent on a more in-depth understanding of the first mission but high-level when the mission says it's 36 really there's more than 36 but the mission means is this 36 my car is in the title of a car is so that if somebody would be over. 36 he would have to bring a special carbon hot to each other he did so that if the the significance of 36 is that the hell of a you'd be a separate hot for each one of the if someone would be my love a hot and then you'd be my love a hot would you bring one hot or two hot the is assuming in the castle bring two and the reason is one type of two different the my car to a regular my love a hot is learned that from the second of the tire. The my car to a my love a hot where you're being my love is learned that either from the show ever ever or from the the love is my out of the parishes being that it's two separate my car is that means as it relates to that two shamans that means if you do them both you'd be two hot meaning if someone would be my love a hot twice the hell of a hot my car is you bring one hot if somebody would be my love a hot twice the hot the hell of a hot. He had to bring one hot but if you my love a hot my car is and the hell of a hot you're going to bring two hot one for the my car and one for the and the reason is because they learned that from different if that's the case it's a separate car is then why does mission mention 36 and mission should mention 37 and the answers kasha which we know the mission and say what's kasha means there's no kasha means it's a it's and the is not getting involved in it but the bottom line is that's what the says just one order before we go there. So we started off the the with the ask the kasha that we have an for where you were the head of the but what's the the head of the you the and don't tell me call the because that even the holds so the gave two one says another mission said rash he spoke out that this is a Muslim. And being that it's Muslim therefore although you could learn out of from another mission was if meaning you can't learn from a then why could I learn what's the so the know the the is the so we know not all created equally there's two types of there's Muslim and there's a Muslim. Muslim means with the two building blocks the two words that have been used for the are extra one is extra both are extra but there's a there's a in the that would suggest that the reason the wrote this word where it wrote it was for a there's nothing extra for example if you would use the word and to make with another that's a very important in the beginning God created heaven and earth. So the word for reason it would never be doesn't have to be based on extra words but when it is it's it becomes Muslim the you can't ask on Muslim you could ask on in Muslim I think the why is it that so there's a mission on the ways we won't talk about it tonight but is because we're always concerned that maybe there's a in order to a it's also simple. You have to make sure that you don't know any on this you know there's a with with the says the one told another says you're such a big time with you know that you can call and brings from that he heard from his and the says what do you have to be a to call to be a you have to be you have to be a what's the coming with the fingers are flying when you you have to because that you need to say a that you maybe to be a but what do you have to be a you. You have to be the whole time so he said yeah he says to the you have to be a to make sure there's no on the but then you have to be a and that's the concern the concern of and is always that there might be a so the question is why is better because there is also be a so he says you're right that just like as it relates to you can have an as it relates to the also but. Being that it's Muslim so there is no being that there's again there's a lot more to be but the income my car is makes us dumb if somebody does with a car he's also says. It's not only it's well I mean what's the to that says the mission so we have the following it says with regards to down the issue who so that's speak out some rate on this not tonight but we're going to we're going to speak out some rate on down the issue who down exactly what that means but [snorts] for now the words the says very simple what does that sound like sounds like to me so down is not the but. Down the says that's how you know that if somebody is going to be not from the but a few later from the it says why the says the why is the words do with the small so you get from down what does he use the because if we were to say you would have thought this is a Then you would think the only time you the hot is if you my love a and all is all there all there but has no if he uses to teach me how does he know the not with the it says it it sounds like you have to bring an and to be one carbon washing that's enough what does he do with and I'll my car is in the we'll get to that but for now there's a they only if you're Suggests it's a but how do you know you have to be if he uses and to tell me says the mission says also also washing what does he do with he uses it also to tell me that you have to be my love a then why do you need two to tell me you have to be my love a and and the one to tell me if you did the with the one to tell me if you did the with the name. And then you when you my love a hot the is you're not if you were my love a hot and also one to tell me that if you did the with the and you were my love a hot that you're not to the one thing you see clearly. In these that we're learning now that there is a fundamental difference between a a my love a hot where you were my love my car is versus a my love a hot when you were my love something that was even though the starts I have you have if you my love but you see there's a a fundamental difference it keeps on coming up in the either [snorts] way the says I'll prove it to you from a that what the uses and I say both to teach me this I would think. I would think with the you should be meaning maybe the only time there's a that if you my love a you're is if it was that you were my love but if it was that you were my love I would think you have to so you then you the who used he only has to teach me. That you're for being my love a how does he know that you're if you were my love and if you were my love says the you're right my car is you will be if you my love my car is of my car is the only time there's this that you're not if you my love is if it in fact was the question the question was how do you know this is how you. Click is >> [snorts] >> it's learned out from all you in the parsha Allah's oy, is the rabbi says Rabbi Shmuel says it's learned out from dam shofach that's in the parsha of shchutei chutz. The gemara said what is Rabbi Shmuel doing with Rabbi Akiva's oy? That was this first gemara. Now we do the second part of that. What does Rabbi Akiva do with Rabbi Shmuel's dam shofach? Says the gemara the rabbi's shchita coming to tell me that if somebody shachts an oy he's going to be chayiv. That's a little bit of a chiddush. The reason is because if you look in the passuk the passuk is very clear. The passuk says ish ish mi bais Yisrael asher yishchat shor oy kesev oy ez b'machaneh. It says a shor oy kesev oy an ez. An ox, a sheep or a goat. It doesn't say a bird. It doesn't say an oy. But dam shofach is the rabbi's oy. Rabbi Shmuel how does Rabbi Shmuel know that? May oy asher yishchat because that's the passuk that says ish asher yishchat shor oy kesev oy ez b'machaneh. It continues it says oy asher yishchat michutz l'machaneh. What's that other oy asher yishchat? Says Rabbi Shmuel that's how I know. That's how I know. Oy if Rabbi Akiva amalachah asher yishchat chayiv al oy. You know what the oy asher yishchat is coming to teach me you're only chayiv if you shacht an oy. You're not chayiv if you do melikah on an oy which is a chiddush. You would think certainly if you do melikah b'chutz you should be chayiv because that's what you're supposed to do with kotzim. You're supposed to do melikah. No, you're only chayiv for shchutei chutz. Even though it's kotzim if you shacht an oy you're not chayiv if you do melikah with an oy. Rabbi Shmuel nafka mina d'avar. He knows it from zeh hadavar that the Torah says right in the beginning of the parsha shchutei chutz the word zeh hadavar that's what teaches me. Zeh hadavar. I'm talking about shchitah only for shchitah you're chayiv. You're not going to be chayiv for melikah. The Torah learns out from asher yishchat in the shocheit beheima. Shachat oy min al oy tam u'malo oy asher yishchat. Yochal af melikah. I would think melikah as well if it didn't want asher yishchat melikah um asher shchitah d'ein derech sheva b'fnei chayiv. Mal d'shchitah that you're not supposed to do with kotzim. Right? What's the derech sheva b'fnei with an oy? Melikah. So you see you're chayiv melikah sh'derech sheva b'fnei you're not chayiv. Tam u'malo zeh hadavar. Rabbi Akiva amalachah Rabbi Akiva says oy b'yaley d'zeh hadavar. He uses zeh hadavar for something else. He needed for zeh hadavar sent you to gemaras in shas where the gemara learns out different halachas from zeh hadavar from the words zeh hadavar. Either way so what's the makor to a zoreik b'chutz that's chayiv? Machlokes d'Rabbi Shmuel u'Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi [snorts] Shmuel it's learned out from dam shofach in the parsha of shchutei chutz. According to Rabbi Akiva it's learned out from oy oy zavakh in the parsha of Allah's. The gemara continues what is learned out hakoymeitz v'hamechabel chutz patur. If somebody does k'miza b'chutz or if somebody does kabalah b'chutz he's patur. Min al oy and how do you know that? Says [snorts] the gemara min al oy and how do you know he's patur? Mechtzei achayiv. How do you know he's shayin b'chayiv? Doesn't say it in the Torah anywhere. So why would you think chayiv? The gemara says now I'll tell you why you would think it's chayiv because [snorts] teisi mishchitah. Maybe learn it from shchitah. Maybe say that if you're chayiv for being shocheit b'chutz you should be chayiv for doing k'miza b'chutz or you should be chayiv for doing kabalah b'chutz. The gemara says you can't learn from shchitah because mal d'shchitah shekein posel l'shlo l'shum Pesach. If you remember from the very beginning of the zachor every avodah is unique and as a result very hard to learn one avodah from another avodah. That's why when the gemara learned out halachas of shlo l'shum the gemara always come out to a hekeish or because as a regular mamad you know you're going to stop your toe. It's very very hard. There's too many unique characteristics to each avodah which make it difficult to learn one avodah from another avodah. So the gemara says that you can't learn from shchitah not k'miza and not kabalah because shchitah's unique that if somebody shachts a korban Pesach and he has in mind shlo l'shum oy chulav it's a machshavah pisul. The only time the machshavah shlo l'shum oy chulav posel is shchitah. You don't find it by any other avodah. That makes it unique so you can't learn from there. The gemara says teisi mizrikah. Okay, maybe learn it from zrikah. We just said that zrikah is also chayiv zrikah b'chutz and by zrikah you don't have this halacha of shlo l'shum oy chulav. The gemara says mal d'zrikah shekein zoreik chayiv al misah. Zoreik chayiv misah. But the gemara says teisi mebeinayim. Why can't you learn it from both of them? Learn it from a tzaddah shavah between shchitah and zrikah. You're going to tell me mal d'shchitah you have a psul shlo l'shum oy chulav. I'm going to tell you zrikah d'cheich. Mal d'zrikah shekein zoreik chayiv al misah. Shchitah d'cheich. Shchitah's shayin b'psul. So learn it from a tzaddah shavah. So the gemara says there's no tzaddah shavah. You know why? Because im kein loyoim b'zrikah v'teisi mebeinayim. Why did we need psukim markei d'islei markei d'islei Rabbi Akiva u'Rabbi Shmuel to tell me that a zoreik b'chutz is chayiv? Why can't I learn zoreik b'chutz from a matzah? What's the matzah? The gemara works through it. Teisi mishchitah. You're not going to be chayiv you can't learn zrikah from shchitah because mal d'shchitah shekein posel l'shlo l'shum Pesach. Teisi meal oy. But you can learn from al oy. No, mal d'al oy shekein yesh b'mincha. There's al oy by mincha. Which you don't have by a regular korban. But the gemara says teisi mebeinayim. Why can't I learn from a tzaddah shavah? You learn zrikah from shchitah you'll tell me mal d'shchitah that you have shlo l'shum oy chulav. I'll tell you al oy d'cheich. Mal d'al oy you have by mincha I'll tell you shchitah d'cheich. You don't have shchitah by mincha. A tzaddah shavah d'shnei hadavar d'shnei chiyuv. Say the same thing by zrikah. Lo yitzrach l'meimad oy asher mebeinayim. From the fact that the Torah needed a limud from zrikah that's a rayah that tzaddah shavah doesn't work. In other words the gemara is the kasha how do you know that a koymeitz b'chutz and a mechabel b'chutz is patur? Why would you think it should be chayiv? You could learn from a tzaddah shavah from shchitah and zrikah. Enfit the gemara from the fact that the Torah needed a makor by zrikah that's a rayah you can't learn from tzaddah shavah. Because if you could learn k'miza and kabalah from a tzaddah shavah then learn zrikah from a tzaddah shavah as well. Why did the Torah need to tell me anything by zrikah? Elo mai? From the fact that the Torah told me zrikah that's another way it's a roundabout way of saying that you can't have a tzaddah So in other words we learn two things from the parsha of zrikah. What's the makor to zoreik b'chutz in the Torah is machlokes d'Rabbi Shmuel u'Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Shmuel it's learned out from dam shofach. According to Rabbi Akiva it's learned out from oy zavakh. But regardless if that limud teaches me two things. Number one it teaches me that a zoreik b'chutz is chayiv. Number two it teaches me that a koymeitz b'chutz and a mechabel b'chutz is patur. From the fact that the Torah needed to tell me a zoreik b'chutz is chayiv and I couldn't have learned it from a matzah one of the yud gimmel middos she Torah teaches from that's a rayah that for some reason we can't use matzah for this parsha of chutz and therefore I need a makor for any avodah. I don't have a makor for koymeitz. I don't have a makor for mechabel. Thus a koymeitz and a mechabel b'chutz are going to be patur. So again we have a machlokes d'Rabbi Shmuel u'Rabbi Akiva what's the makor to zoreik b'chutz is chayiv? According to Rabbi Shmuel it's learned out from the parsha of shchutei chutz. According to Rabbi Akiva it's learned out from the parsha of Allah's. That is the segway to the next gemara. A g'mach gemara Rabbi Avahu. Rabbi Avahu said shachat v'zarok. If somebody did shchitah b'chutz and zrikah b'chutz he did it b'shogeig and he did it b'helem machas. So does he bring one chatas or does he bring two chatas? Said Rabbi Avahu very nice. That could be a little bit of arithmetic. V'divrei Rabbi Shmuel chayiv chatas. According to Rabbi Shmuel you're going to be chayiv only one. Why only one? Because shchitah and zrikah are learned out from the same parsha. How do I know zoreik from the words dam shofach that the Torah says in the parsha of shchut. So being that zrikah is learned from the parsha of shchitah it's one shem with regards to the chatas. Therefore b'helem machas it's going to be one chatas. V'divrei Rabbi Akiva chayiv shnayim. According to Rabbi Akiva you're going to be chayiv two. Because according to Rabbi Akiva how do I know zoreik from the parsha of Allah's? So I did shchitah and Allah's. You're going to be chayiv two. That's the first mishnah. Asher shachat b'chutz is chayiv shnayim. Abaye Abaye argued. Abaye says not true Rabbi Akiva chayiv al achas. Even according to Rabbi Akiva you're only going to be chayiv one. Why? According to Rabbi Akiva you did say you you you were over two parshas. You did the parsha of shchitah and the parsha of zrikah. Said Abaye it's based on a passuk in parshas zreih. I'm not going to read the passuk it says shom reading the whole passuk shom talu sachah v'shom tasah kol asher anochi metzavcha. The Torah is talking about chutz and the Torah mentions Allah's and then v'shom tasah all the other asiyas. Achas v'achas l'kula v'l'achas. The Torah lumped together all asiyas other than Allah's. Shchitah and zrikah therefore come together. If they're lumped together if you do them both b'helem machas you're only going to be chayiv once. Zoreik d'helem. What if you did zrikah and Allah's? So the first case was you did shchitah and zrikah. Now you did zrikah and Allah's. So says the Rabbi Avahu it's going to be the same cheshbon. V'divrei Rabbi Shmuel Rabbi Avahu according to Rabbi Shmuel you're going to be chayiv two because zrikah is learned out from the parsha of shchitah. Allah's is a separate parsha. So two parshas two shemos two shemos two chatas. V'divrei Rabbi Akiva en chayiv al achas because zrikah's learned out from Allah's. So maybe only going to be chayiv one. Abaye Abaye argued here too. Said I feel that Rabbi Akiva chayiv shnayim. No, even according to Rabbi Akiva in this case he's going to be chayiv two. Keep keep on going Abaye keeps on going forget from above. He says over here even according to Rabbi Akiva you're going to be chayiv twice. You know why? Shom talu v'shom tasah. When the Torah said shom talu v'shom tasah the Torah's telling you Allah's and everything else is always separate. So even though zrikah's learned out from the parsha of Allah's but as it relates to the amount of chatas you would have to bring if you did them both b'helem machas it's going to be two because there's always going to be one for the Allah's and there's going to be one for everything else. What if it was shachat v'zarok d'helem? What if you did all three d'helem machas? You had a rough day. But you did all three d'helem machas. You did the shchitah the zrikah and Allah's. V'divrei hakol chayiv shnayim. According to everyone you're going to be chayiv two. Why? According to Rabbi Avahu you're going to be chayiv two because it's mon of shach. Either zrikah's included in shchitah or it's included in Allah's. So you end up having a shocheit v'amalo b'chutz. So mon of shach you're going to be chayiv two. And even according to Abaye in this case you're going to end up being chayiv two. Because what was Abaye's hakdarah? Shom talu v'shom tasah. You're always chayiv one for Allah's and then one for everything else. So over here you had the Allah's and then you had the shchitah and the zrikah which is another one. At the end of the day mon of shach you're going to end up being chayiv two. Before we go further one more and that is so again the topic of perek amalo is is vayikra perek and the over there discusses the of and then the two separate parishes in the Torah. The Torah connects the parishes with the letter it's above most of all in but there's a parish of and there's a parish of and what's the parish of someone has a carbon and it doesn't matter what the carbon was as an we saw it could be an it doesn't matter what it is and he says it The Torah says he's chorus if he does the he's a parish that goes into the weeds of this but the bottom line is this person is going to be chorus. It's interesting when you begin the parish parish parish parish says as follows by >> [snorts] >> listen I should show a couple So again yet we base Israel that says But he didn't bring this animal that he said that as a carbon that the whole there is why it's so bad because you're going to do this you're going to end up doing Rashi right in the beginning of the parish it says Awesome it happened. This parish is discussing She Rashi has a deer carbon so you see we're talking about it's amazing Rashi needed to comment right in the beginning of this parish that when the Torah says if somebody says an animal is we mean so Rashi the my cousin and them How do I know that because I have a deer it says later the carbon we're clearly talking about carbon that's how I know that this is discussing carbon but if somebody carbon a body is not going to be carbon that the reason Rashi had to speak it out is because it's not in the possible it's only based on a on a deer Rashi says but really when the Torah mentions the issue it says I should show a couple of well he didn't bring it as a carbon it would maybe it was carbon how do you know it was carbon? How do you know it WAS CARBON? SO IT'S NOT BEFORE US ANYWAY but the whole parish schmucks and carbon and as a result says Rashi when the Torah says I should carbon the emphasis however that in the show of micro of the possible it's not that way and you could have just as easily learned that the Torah says that anytime a person says anything even outside of the he's going to be carbon why because what you're supposed to do is in this case where it's being and then bring it into where it's carbon then just bring it where it's being and then bring it but maybe when the Torah says it says it means even for that's what Rashi's coming to address so Rashi's not the way but the reason Rashi needed to address it is because it's not in the possible and you could have very easily learned the parish in the Torah that the Torah saying that even someone that says will be carbon that if you take a look at the of the Torah argues with Rashi the says I believe that in the parish of carbon is that the issue is true even for that if somebody would say carbon and rather than be and bring it as a carbon he would say I'm going to make a barbecue it's Sunday it's the middle of the summer it's an nice weekend right and that's what I'm going to do he'd be you're not allowed to do that that's something you're not allowed to do so what do you mean you're not allowed to do that then what's what is all about the shot in the possible is based on Rabbi in the cooling that pays I don't know what it is where Rabbi famously said that the 40 years that the were in the midbar they were not allowed to eat tiger tiger means a good old fashioned steak dinner it's not something they were allowed to do and if you wanted to eat a piece of flesh you had to bring a carbon and then there was a that was not allowed that's the way you were able to eat meat but there was an issue to eat tiger says the that the parish possible shot in this parish it's very much more than I think that the way Rabbi would have learned this parish is not like Rashi says but rather we're discussing and the Torah said that for the 40 years in the midbar the issue was true carbon and in other words everyone knows everyone that ever learned knows that there was an issue tiger for the 40 years in the midbar but nobody ever that if somebody would have said a cooling not in the midbar during the 40 years in the midbar he'd be carbon that I'll say that my parish is talking That's the parish and if you look at Rashi in the cooling that the base Rashi says in the first so the bottom line is says the that I think there's another way to learn this and that is that the parish is discussing not only carbon but even cooling and it's going with who says cooling that the base that there was an issue tiger for the 40 years that the what happened was the ended up going into when they ended Israel there the Torah says very clearly that tiger was then the cooling changed then the cooling was no longer relevant for cooling now it's only carbon but the point is when the were in the midbar it was true not only for carbon and that's why the Torah mentions it Torah is very Torah doesn't say that it's Rashi so it's awful the my cousin and them in other words Rashi was being the possible according to the that holds that there was no issue tiger for the 40 years that the were in the midbar and that's really Rabbi in the cooling that pays I don't know what it is the is being the possible like Rabbi in the cooling that pays I don't know what it is who holds that there was an issue tiger I saw in the 9 the Torah the he's very bothered by this he says we know Rabbi and whatever there's Rabbi and Rabbi the is always like Rabbi so if the is always like Rabbi then why would the be the possible like Rabbi who holds there was an issue tiger I think Rashi's right kind of the Rashi says my cousin and them meaning it's only carbon even when the were in the midbar it's probably because Rashi wanted to be like Rabbi it's not my so what happened when the were in the midbar it's at this point it's a historical fact that has significance among this but it's not in right but kind of the you would think that if there was such a thing with Rabbi isn't that what Rabbi means so the whole Rashi is correct for saying my cousin and them because there was no issue tiger why is the being like Rabbi he says something only the could say he says that if you look in the Russian when he says why he thinks shot in the possible is much more like Rabbi he says issue of the coming more like Rabbi he has a whole lot of very long he says he has different how God the and the are more much more like Rabbi there issue of the coming he says it's true Rabbi but we also know the says in the and and it's in a few places in where Rabbi was in and Rabbi turned to Rabbi he said Rabbi talk with Rabbi more like go better to the holiest and Rashi says in the and then the paragraph that Rabbi had a tremendous in they didn't have the same how God he says that's the Rashi says my cousin and them the he felt that when it came to the the of what happened when the were in the midbar for 40 years was there an issue tiger this is not a in when it comes to the how Rabbi and when it comes to the when it comes to to to these types of then the rule of Rabbi doesn't apply How do I know that says the that's the that's the Rabbi so there we're discussing how God when it comes to how God it's not how it's going to be like Rabbi but the question is something else what changed why when the were in the midbar for 40 years why when the was there an issue tiger according to Rabbi then the come to Israel and meet them all they come to they're allowed to eat tiger what changed so the already asks the question the says what happened was when the were in the when the midbar they lived around the carbon and being they lived around the what's the big deal you want to eat steak for dinner tonight go to the what's the big deal once you do Israel you know you're living on one side of the country you're going to have to travel from sea to shining sea to go have a dinner it's not going to be so simple right so so already the says the are very much more that way the Torah says that when there's going to be this that's when this is going to apply so it was all because of the fact that the Eden and as a result it was more challenging to be able to go to the it was because of that that the that all of a sudden we had no choice very practical so to speak at that now there can't be an issue tiger anymore but if you do this is a new era the what we call a classic Rashi that the Torah says very very clearly it's one of the things of the why is it to say carbon for years because once upon a time the were in the desert it's when the were in the desert it was terrible we need to make of the desert so we say that only could you not be shochech Avodah Zarah, but you can't bring any carbon to any deity, even to Hakadosh Baruchu outside, because once you start bringing further Avishter, one thing is going to is going to lead to another. And from that standpoint, the reason why Rebbe Shmuel held it was an issur basar b'chalav, the way the Ramban explains, is it's the same thing. That not only can you shochech carbon, don't even shochech chullin. We don't want a person standing with a chalif next to a a beheima, because we're afraid it may bring We're afraid that it's something that may lead to Avodah Zarah. We're afraid that it's something that may lead to Avodah Zarah. Says Rebbe Simcha, we all know the Gemara. The Gemara says that it's really a pasuk in Sefer Ezra. When the Yidden came up, when Ezra came to Eretz Yisrael, the pasuk says "Vayas asukos", that they built sukos as they also made Mi Moishe Rabbeinu. It was the first time the Yidden brought sukos from the going back to the times of Yeshua bin Nun. And the Gemara says "Is that possible? What Efsher by Yeshua and Dovid and They didn't build the sukah mamash till Yeshua going back to Yeshua bin Nun. The first time they made a sukah was in the times of Ezra says the Gemara. The pasuk doesn't mean that. What it means is they were davening and they were mevatal the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah. As a result, they were magen on Klal Yisrael like a sukah's magen. Schach is magen on Klal Yisrael, protects you from the sun. In that same vein, the Yidden with their tefillos were magen. Ezra went and he davened to the Anshei Knesses Hagdolah. The Gemara knew more than the Gemara in Sanhedrin. And they were finally mevatal the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah. And because they were mevatal the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah, they protected the Yidden like the Schach protects from the sun. That's what it means "Vayas asukos asher lo asu Mi Moishe Rabbeinu." Says the Gemara, there was a taina on every leader in Klal Yisrael dating back to Yeshua bin Nun. Why didn't they do the same thing? If Yeshua bin Nun would have davened to mevatal the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah, they would have been mevatal the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah. Dovid Hamelech could have done it. Hamelech could have done it. There would have been no korban Beis Hamikdash. They we could have spared so much tzaros. And there was a taina on every leader. Why didn't you daven for your nation, for Klal Yisrael like the Kohen Gadol with the with the with the retzei'a who's supposed to daven in the in the lifnei lifnei lifnei Hashem Right? All that Why there was a taina on every fake Gemara. Why only going back to Yeshua bin Nun? Why not go back to Moishe Rabbeinu? Moishe Rabbeinu was the first leader of Klal Yisrael. If there was a taina on Yeshua and every leader therefore there too after, why wasn't there a taina on Moishe? And the Gemara says "Shmuel Levi had no b'schus Eretz Yisrael." Moishe Rabbeinu never entered Eretz Yisrael. And because he never entered Eretz Yisrael, he didn't have the koach tefillah that Yeshua bin Nun had. Moishe Rabbeinu was the shamesh to Yeshua bin Nun's levana. But at the same time, Yeshua bin Nun had schus Eretz Yisrael. And there's a special schus that Eretz Yisrael has when it comes to tefillah. Schus of the Eretz Yisrael. There was no taina why Moishe Rabbeinu wasn't mevatal the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah, because it wasn't something he was ever going to be able to do. Yeshua had the koach tefillah of schus Eretz Yisrael. It was going to be possible. So, listen to the charifus of the Rebbe Simcha. Says Rebbe Simcha, when the Yidden were in the midbar, they had no way of getting away from the yetzer hara of Avodah Zarah. There was no out. There was no option. There was no get out of jail card. There was nothing they could have done. There was no tefillah that could have worked. Moishe Rabbeinu's tefillos weren't going to work. Cuz in chutz la'aretz, it's a different relationship with the Avishter. It wasn't something that was going to be possible. As a result, we needed more harchakos for Avodah Zarah. That's why the Torah says "Schutei chutz is assur." Nishnal dem, even basar b'chalav IS ASSUR. YOU CAN'T GO NEAR AN ANIMAL WITH THE MASER. YOU KNOW WHY? Because you're going to go back to worship the devil like you did when you were in Mitzrayim. It's not Once the Yidden entered Eretz Yisrael, now they had schus of Eretz Yisrael. Now it was possible to get out. They didn't need the same level of protection as they had when they were in the midbar. Being that they didn't need the same level of protection, now we're ready to kiss chaneitz chageinu. We don't need the same level of harchakos. So, now schutei chutz is going to be assur, but basar b'chalav, now basar b'chalav is already something you're allowed to shochech. Says the Gemara "Va'yitzei tanura b'non." So, when the Torah talks about schutei chutz, so the Torah mentions very interesting. "Ish ish mi Beis Yisrael asher yishchat kesev o ez b'machaneh oi asher yishchat michutz la'ohel." So, if you shochech b'machaneh or michutz la'ohel, what does that have to do with schutei chutz? So, it means you're not allowed to shochech outside of the Azarah. But we know the maskana. We know the emes. But when the Torah mentions it, it says "Either you did it b'machaneh or you did it michutz la'ohel." Funny lashon. Says more tanura b'non b'breisa "Michutz la'machaneh yochal chutz l'sholosh machanos." I would think that when it says "Chutz la'machaneh", it means chutz l'sholosh machanos. What's the rest of the story? So, the Gemara in the end of last week, where the Gemara discussed that the par hamen asher chata were burnt chutz l'sholosh machanos. How do I know that? Because it says "Chutz la'machaneh." So, chutz la'machaneh sometimes means chutz l'sholosh machanos. So, from the word chutz la'machaneh, I would think that the only time you're over is if you do it chutz l'sholosh machanos. So, for example, outside of Yerushalayim What What are the sholosh machanos? Machaneh Levi'im and Yisrael. Again, this was all the end of last week. So, chutz l'sholosh machanos would mean outside of Yerushalayim. "Tamar lo yimar oi eis b'machaneh." No, even if it's in the machaneh, you're going to be oi you're going to be chayav for schutei chutz. It doesn't have to be chutz mi'sholosh machanos, cuz even if you're in a place that's called machaneh, so you're going to be chayav. Okay, even machaneh. How did I just say "B'machaneh yochal"? I would think "Asher yishchat ohel b'darin." Maybe if somebody shochat an ohel b'darin, kodesh kodashim kodesh kodashim b'tzofin. If you shochat an ohel b'darin, maybe that would not be a chayav. "Tamar lo yimar oi michutz la'machaneh." Machutz la'machaneh yochal she'eino shochat kodesh zevach. The place of machaneh has to be similar to a place of chutz la'machaneh. It doesn't like chutz la'machaneh literally means chutz l'sholosh machanos. Like it means by the par hamen asher chata, which means it's a place where you're never allowed to bring any carbon. There's no carbon whose din is outside of Yerushalayim. So too, the machaneh has to be a place where there's never a din to bring a carbon yotzei darin. So, even if you shochat kodesh kodashim or kodesh kodashim b'tzofin, so darin can't be a place where you're going to be chayav. So again, it doesn't have to be chutz l'sholosh machanos, but at the same time, if you're in machaneh Shchinah, if you're in the Azarah, even if it's kodesh kodashim that you shochat b'tzofin, then you're going to be patur. What's the bottom line? When are you chayav? You're chayav if you shochat outside of the Azarah. Amar Rava "Shochech al gag heichal." If somebody shochat on the roof of the heichal, he's chayav. "Ohel ohel ein ro'eh l'shchitas kodesh zevach." The roofs, the gagos of the Azarahs and the were not mekudash. As a result, even though you're on the roof of the heichal, so technically you're in the airspace of a makom kodesh, but the gag didn't have kedusha. The question is if somebody shochat on the gag of the heichal, is it now like you did a schutei chutz you're chayav kores? Or not? It's not a kosher shchitah. But it's also not going to be chutz. That's what Ulla came to address this shaila. Amar Rava "Asher yishchat al gag heichal, chayav. Ohel ohel ein ro'eh l'shchitas kodesh zevach." And the reason is because you're not allowed to shochat. This is considered chutz l'sholosh machanos. Ask the Rabbis the kasha. "Nichtav korban machaneh michutz la'machaneh. V'lo ba'el Pesach ohel mo'ed." When the Torah says that schutei chutz is referring to machaneh michutz la'machaneh, we pretty much set up. We now know what schutei chutz is. Why does the Torah have to go further and say "V'lo Pesach ohel mo'ed"? You didn't bring it into the ohel mo'ed. What's that mosif? "V'lo Pesach ohel mo'ed lo yivi'ehu." Says Rebbe Lavin with the gag. I think it was coming to my gag to tell me that being that how did you get to the roof of the heichal? You went ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed. So, being that you went ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed, maybe it's coming to tell me that you're patur. So, Ulla said that if somebody shochat al gag heichal, he's chayav. Tainus Rava, I think the words "Ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed" is coming to teach me that you're patur. Cuz what's ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed coming to teach me? It's probably coming to teach me that the only time you're chayav is if it was ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im. But being that to get to the roof, you went ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed presumably, or at the very least you're within the you're within the ohel mo'ed area. So, say "Eish nishal Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im." So, I think those words of the Rabbis that you're going to be patur. But the Gemara says "Ulla and Rava, if Rava holds that the words 'Ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im' is teaching me that anytime you shochat outside of the ohel mo'ed, you're going to be patur. In kein nichtav ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im. B'machaneh ohel michutz la'machaneh ohel mo'ed. Why did the Torah say b'machaneh ohel michutz la'machaneh?" So, says the Gemara "I can spin it differently. Lav lav suei gagai. Maybe b'machaneh ohel michutz la'machaneh, which is being mosif in the issur is coming the Rabbis that gagai should be assur." Meaning Rava's methodology that ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im is a is is a is a mar makom in the literal sense. It's telling me where schutei chutz takes place. Outside of the ohel mo'ed, that's where schutei chutz is. Then [snorts] why did the Torah have to tell me b'machaneh michutz la'machaneh? What do I need the whole limud b'machaneh michutz la'machaneh michutz l'gimmel machanos? If maybe darin ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im. It's very simple. If it was outside of the ohel mo'ed, that's when you're going to be chayav. So, if anything taina is the Gemara b'machaneh michutz la'machaneh now is extra and it's l'rabois. I think it's l'rabois issur to be marbeh gag like Ulla. Amar Rebbe Ulla "Oi." I agree with your kasha. Ohel Pesach ohel mo'ed Levi'im is in and of itself a makom to the to the makom of schutei chutz. Therefore, I don't need b'machaneh michutz la'machaneh, which means it's coming the Rabbis, but it's not the Rabbis' gag. It's the Rabbis' something else. Let's see what the Gemara says. What if the animal was inside, but the neck was sticking outside? Are you chayav or patur? It's the Rabbis that you're chayav. The Gemara says "Tzavar b'chutz p'shita." "Am I k'par Rachmana ashchitah shchitah b'chutzei?" If If the tzavar was b'chutz, why would Why Why do I need a pasuk to tell me you're chayav? Of course you're chayav. Elo asu kulo b'chutz v'tzavar b'chutz is just the opposite. What if the animal was outside and the tzavar was inside? You would have thought you should be patur being that the tzavar was inside. Kamah shma lan? Being that Reuven animal is outside, you're going to be chayav.