Zevachim 26

Today's daf is Vohkin Daf Chof Vov, and we are the last line on Daf Chof Hey Amud Beis. Omar Rab Elazar, so we started the sugiyah of Nishbach yesterday, and really that's a turning point in Maseches Vohkin as we go from the sugiyahs that deal primarily with limudim, drashos, in einai inyan, tinai inyan, etc., etc., to some of the more lomdish sugiyahs. See the way it's talking about. Amud Samech Amud Beis. He brought a braisa. V'raglav b'chutz hakohain was shocheit beheima. The beheima itself was inside the azarah. V'raglav b'chutz, its feet, however, were outside of the azarah. If the kohain cut off the feet, v'acharkach shocheit, and then shocheit the animal, kashaira. The halacha is the sh'chita is going to be kosher. Shocheit, if the kohain first shocheit the animal, v'acharkach kotach, and only afterwards cut off the feet, pasul, it's going to be pasul. So, the Gemara in the Rabbos. Kotach v'acharkach shocheit, kashaira. If the kohain cut the feet of the animal, and then afterwards did the sh'chita, it's going to be kosher. But, mum kamah? This is a mum 101. So, the Gemara says, "Al emes, you're right. Kotach v'acharkach kibel, kashaira." If the kohain first cut off the foot of the animal, and then was mekabel hadam, meaning first he did the sh'chita, then he was kotach, and before the kabalah, after the sh'chita, the animal became a mum, it's then it's going to be kosher. Kibel v'acharkach kotach, pasul. If the kotach happened after the kabalah, it's going to be pasul. But, the Gemara says he didn't make it any better, because if you remember the last Gemara on Daf Chof Hey Amud Beis, kotach v'acharkach kibel, kashaira. Omar Rab Zeira, "Hatzai If an animal gets a mum after the sh'chita before the kabalah, the halacha is it's pasul. She neima, we learn it from the par kohain mashiach. It says, "V'lakach midam apar." Par shor oyev. Kotach tz'rif to be true. Omar Rab Chizda, Omar Rab Huna, "You mean you're right. What it means is beheima acher mum acher." We don't mean that the person was the entire foot. If you was the entire foot, would for sure be possible. That's a even if it was cut off the entire people would be possible because that was the entire animals not allowed to be a before the entire animals not even allowed to become a after the when this When he said he wasn't talking about where you were the entire It was the up until the Being that you only the up until the the animal never became a If the animal never became a there was no issue of What then is the issue? The issue is something completely different. The issue is that we know there's a of means that the that of a In order for it to be you have to make sure that it never left the of the If the at some point leaves the If the becomes possible So is another one of the that I mentioned throughout the You have a You know, you have a something called If the at any point will leave the If the of the the is going to be possible by Incidentally, it's not only true for the it's true for the it's true for the as well. So if the will leave the the going to become possible. The it depends. They had to be eaten in the If it leaves the like the it too will become possible. That was in didn't have to be eaten in the It too has a but the is not if the leaves the The you're allowed to eat it outside the If if it leaves the of So then has its has its has its If they leave their it's going to be a problem. The issue over here that also was if the animal the majority of the animal was inside the Azara he as soon as you do the you going to have a problem the problem is that that's in the part of the animal that's outside the Azara is technically now when you do the all the time gets and you going to have the time from the regular that's going to come up through the time and effort it's going to end up being in the going to have inside the of that that was so I said there a way to address it if it was if you cut the foot of the animal not to the point we made it but you cut it enough that you knocked off the blood flow from the regular up until the so now you don't have to be worried about it is of the time that was it's going to be the same will be true as if you were the keeper as long as you were before the what that too is going to be fine the only time it's going to be an issue is if you were the keeper that I got so by the time you did the in the the time that was in the regular which is outside of the Azara moved its way up to the time of the animal it got together with the time and effort it comes out now you have a of time that's possible why was it possible because it was outside it was possibly you didn't cut off the blood flow until after the all being that you didn't cut it off until after the at that point it's going to be an issue the obvious question is why is it telling the why is the the inflection point really it should be telling the all because as soon as you the animal at that point that's when the time starts moving that's when the time shoots up to the time of the animal at that point is when the of should be obviously an animal is allowed to be before the once you do the in the it's not telling the it's telling the the of the simple questions from this tomorrow that you see there's no soul and cut until after the Kabbalah. Before the Kabbalah there was no soul you say there's only you say after the Kabbalah. But regardless the more asks a different question. Could we bring the right from here for something that's discussed in another area in the walking that down that's moving that's still inside the animal is considered down. Where do you see that in this tomorrow because you're telling me that you're worried about the down that's in the regular the behavior that was the us then that means you're telling me that that is down because if it's not down we don't look at down as down until it leaves the behavior but when it's still moving we don't look at it as down then what's this whole conversation about there being but the more says maybe the issue of over here is not the down that was here because could be down moving is not down but the is a little bit of fat that's inside the animal that too is going to shoot up and as a result that's going to be together with the down that you were could be the issue over here wasn't the down it could be the issue was the if down the behavior is down then the issue was the down if down the behavior is not down there's still a way to understand in the name of the more asks another question you know cut him column so you also lift me down possible you know that there's a killer between cut him column and cut him column because although cut him column as we said earlier is the issue if it goes outside the cut him column column is not cut him column column you're allowed to eat outside the now assuming that is said both with regards to and column and you're telling me down the behavior is really not down so the issue of over here is not down the issue of is down so you see there's on the of cut him column I thought there's no you say on cut him column the issue is lifnei Zrika and it could be that lifnei Zrika even Buster Kutchum Kalam is treated like Buster Kutchum Kadashim and there is it says the the very least could we be my here from here the Buster Kutchum Kalam she lifnei Zrika is not possible. It says no. Then we who said we're talking about Kutchum Kalam? Maybe we're talking about Kutchum Kadashim. Right, the Torah Kutchum Kadashim bitsafin. So this is a brisa that elaborates a little bit on the mission of so Kutchum Kadashim we know has to be shachut not just in the Azara but in the tzafon part of the Azara. The kibble dam on big clay shoris bitsafin. That was the prime's day remember? Shchitasan bitsafin the kibble dam on big clay shoris bitsafin. It doesn't say big clay shoris by shchita. Shchita that shchita actually didn't require a big clay shoris. What about the what if the coin was standing in the other in the shachut? Shchitasan What if the coin himself was standing in and he extended his hand into tzafon so that the shchita itself took place in tzafon it's going to be okay. You don't need that the coin to be standing in tzafon. You just need that the shchita should be taking place in tzafon. What if the coin was standing in he stuck the clay shoris into tzafon to do the kabala? That's already possible. So the shchita and the kabala both have to be in tzafon. What about the coin who's doing the shchita the coin who's doing the kabala? Depends. Shchita here himself can be standing in kabala here himself has to be standing in the coin was in tzafon it's as if he was in completely in tzafon. What happens if the animal at the time you did the shchita the animal jumps? So the second after the shchita it jumped to then went back to tzafon. It's going to be kosher. What's the the there's no when Kutchum Kadashim goes from tzafon to it would have been a what's the when something leaves it's so maybe if the Kutchum Kadashim is tzafon so maybe when the animal The the shchita after the Kabbalah, like we mentioned, because then into the dollar, even if it goes back, maybe to be Nifsal by Yotzei. It's there's no Absol Yotzei. Katchin Kalim doesn't become Nifsal by Yotzei. It continues. Katchin Kalim is not Nifsal anywhere in the Azara. You allowed to Shecht it. Keep it on the Kodesh Hakodashim Bifnim. Up the Kodesh Bifnim. The Shochet Shchita Bifnim. Same halacha. The Kohen was standing outside the Azara and he stuck his hand into the Azara and he Shechted the Katchin Kalim. It's already a big Chiddush. He's standing out of the Azara, not just out of Sefas. He's out of the Azara. It doesn't matter. It's Kosher. Kibbel Kabbalah Bifsul. If he did the Kabbalah now, would it be possible? If this Rosh Hashana Ki'ilu Lo Nikhnas. As it relates to Rosh Hashana over here, it's different. Here it's Ki'ilu Lo Nikhnas. Pirchas of Yotzei. So, what if the Kohen Shechted the Katchin Kalim in the Azara? Right after the Shchita, the animal jumps. It springs to the other side of the Mekhitza and then it comes right back. That's already a problem. Why? Because that's going to be Yotzei. Says the Gemara, Shma Mi'na. Can you prove from here that Basar Katchin Kalim to Yotzei Lifnei Zrika because Dam is Absol Dam. You're telling me that the animal was Nifsal by Yotzei. What do you have? All you have is the Basar of the animal. Maybe the Dam Muflu B'eivarim, but L'chora you have the Basar of the animal. If you're telling me that there's Absol Yotzei over here and it's was clearly talking about Katchin Kalim. Right? That's what he said. Katchin Kalim Shchitasam Bifnim. Pirchas of Yotzei B'chazara. Halacha is it's going to be Passul. Why is the animal Passul for going outside of the Azara? It's Katchin Kalim. Katchin Kalim is Nekher on the entire Yerushalayim. That means the Mekhitzas of Katchin Kalim is not the Azara. It's the entire Yerushalayim. So, why is there Absol Yotzei? It must be because it was Lifnei Zrika. So, isn't it a Raya to this Machlokes that's going to be mentioned later in the Masechta that even though Katchin Kalim is Nekher in the entire Yerushalayim, thus there's no Absol Yotzei if it leaves the Chometz Azara. It's only the Achaz Zrika. But Lifnei Zrika it's not. The Gemara says no. It's true. There are parts of the Katchin Kalim that are Nekher in Yerushalayim and those parts could be even lift the Rico to wouldn't be absolutely. What's that? That's the the the that was the the was not however there's a of Boston column that went with the the part that one of them is back. That there's no cotton cotton even cotton that there's a regular it's not a lot of relief and maybe when we talk about the we don't mean the of the Boston that was we mean the the Boston that went on the to give on the back so what is asked his son of when you start the it sounds well what is at such a he's asking his son of what is was a great in his own right he's asking his son of but as you can see in the course of the he was hearing him in a way more than simply asking him a question he but I got the my is it okay to an animal where the animal the majority of the animal is in but the feet are the on the way he said he told him the says and we learn from there actually they cool the entire animal has to be says and how does this the that we started the they had a whole faster right in the beginning of the he where you whether it's going to be it's going to be down so you come on touched on five or six important ideas and say that but it was all predicated on the fact that the was okay there's nothing wrong with checking an animal where it's the said it's a the said actually they cool the said and that was talking about the look at the they look at the it's supposed to be completely but the other if you did where is it's okay but was addressing that when you do that be aware of a potential psul yetziya issue. That's why you got involved in karka. And that was the first gemara. Either way, he said this is just discussing the l'chatchila. So, l'chatchila, the entire animal has to be lifted al malleg shair. So, the gemara says, "Shachto kulo talui al hashachat mai." What's the halacha if the kohen took the animal, he suspended it in midair? So, you have to know how to do this, but the bottom line is is the animal is now hanging. So, it's not feet firmly planted on the ground, but it's firmly planted in the air somehow. So, it's in the air and it's it's it's hanging. And that kohen goes and he does the shchita. Is that going to be okay? It's the fleish and it's not with one foot outside. It's completely in the azara, but it's just not on the floor. Amud aleph says Shmuel told his father, "Kashair. I think it's kosher." Amud aleph shita bais, "No, you're wrong. But in a shchita yerach aleph, there's a halacha that kotzei kodashim al karka has to be shochat tzofain, but al yerach hamizbeach." And yerach hamizbeach means it has to be literally adjacent to the parallel to the mizbeach. The mizbeach is on the floor. The the animal has to be on the floor as well. So, they ask R' Shmuel another question. "What if the shachat now would be the halacha if the kohen himself was hanging while the kohen was doing the shchita?" Amud aleph says it's going to be possible. "Well, if the animal can't be hanging, then he probably can't either be suspended in midair as he Don't try this at home. But he probably can't either be suspended as he's yielding the sack in his hand doing the shchita." Amud aleph says R' Shmuel says, "No, you're wrong. Shchita al yerach al shachat al yerach." The animal itself has to be al yerach. The shachat al yerach is possible. What's the hava mina that the that the kohen should be able to say halacha? You have to stand, right? Doesn't it say "lamed"? So, if the kohen has to stand, then if he's in midair, l'churi, he's not standing. So, the Sfas Emes clarifies when we say the kohen has to stand, does it just mean he can't sit? Or does it mean he has to stand? He's not sitting, but he's also not standing. But either way, he asked them another shaila. "What if the kipa al mao? What would be the halacha if the cohen was stand was suspended in midair. He's hanging as he did the kabala. I'm like sure it's a small says well if you're allowed to be hanging while you do the shita, so you probably hanging when you do the kabala. He says no. I'm like shita bashed ain't direct serious because shita love avoid it. So you can be you can be standing on your head when you do the shita. But kabala no, kabala is the avoid it. Please show raise cohen big day cohen ain't direct serious because so he asked him another shilo. Tell me what would be the what would be the halacha if the animal was suspended in the air while he was doing the kabala. So I'm like shita small said all right this point we got it right. So if the shita if the mekabel can't be in midair how can the animal can either? I'm like no. Shita bashed. No, that's already kosher because shita yerek kabala yerek. There's no problem in direct serious because because the cohen is standing. The issue would be the animal. By shita it's a problem. Why? Because there's a din yerek. But yerek the state by shita state not by shita. There's no halacha of yerek when it comes to kabala. So if there's no halacha of yerek when it comes to kabala so that kabala is going to be okay. The bottom line is I would The shmuel asked shmuel four questions. Shmuel got all four wrong. Shita bashed. At the end of the day Abud Shmuel told Shmuel two of these cases the halacha is going to be possel. Two of these cases the halacha is going to be kosher. If the animal was hanging when he did the shita it's possel because there's a din yerek. If the cohen was hanging when he did the kabala it's going to be possel. Ain't direct serious because if the animal was hanging the shas kabala it's kosher because there's no halacha of yerek when it comes to kabala. If the cohen himself was hanging while he did the shita it's going to be kosher because shita love avoid it. So no there's no issue of ain't direct serious because I'm going to buy you a bio. He says a bio says I have it differently with regards to these four questions. Because of the cohen shmuel says when it comes to kosher cohen all four cases the halacha is going to be possel. Bar minit of a shacha. The only case where it's going to be okay is if the cohen himself was hanging while he did the shita. But as it relates to the other three that are going to be possible, so essentially Abaya is arguing with only one case because Abudashmu had two cases of possible and two cases of kosher. Abaya is saying they're all possible except for one. All meaning four minus one, back of the envelope arithmetic, you have three. So according to Abudashmu, two are possible and two are kosher. According to Abaya, three are possible and one is kosher. Which one did Abaya say is kosher? Nitla b'shachat with the plain himself was hanging and he did the shita. Meaning which one is he arguing with Abudashmu? Is if the animal was hanging b'shachat kabbal. According to Abaya, that's part of the korban psulois. According to Abudashmu, it's going to be kosher. Now why did Abudashmu say it's kosher? Because although if the animal is hanging b'shachat the shita, it's possible. That's because of the din yarech by shita. But it doesn't say yarech by the kabbal. So what did Abaya hold? The Rashba says, Abaya held that even though there's no din yarech by kabbal, but there's a din suffer. And average sufferin is not kid sufferin dummy. That even though there's a concept of aver that was the sugia mishpach aver k'li k'li, but the average sufferin is not kid sufferin. Leave that for the Rambam. So being that average sufferin is not kid sufferin, so for that reason, being that kabbal, even though there's no din yarech, there is a din sufferin, that's going to be. But that's with regard to kodesh kodashim. What about kodesh kalim? By kodesh kodashim, by kodesh kalim kulam sh'eirim. By kodesh kalim, everything is going to be kosher bar min d'kula k'ibud with the exception of the kohen who's hanging doing the kabbal because the same thing in d'rachei sh'eirim b'kacha that you have with kodesh kodashim, you have with regards to kodesh kalim. Kabbal is not any less than avoidable by kodesh kalim than it is by kodesh kodashim. Now incidentally, there's no reason to assume Abudashmu would argue with this. Abudashmu was clearly talking about kodesh kodashim. Because what was Abudashmu's svara to say that shita, if the animal was hanging, there's an issue? Because it says yarech. Where does it say yarech? In the pasuk of sufferin which is talking about kodesh kodashim. So the truth is Abudashmu is not going to argue with this. Because Abudashmu had two cases of possible. One was cuz it's a din yerech. That's only true for kodashim. The other case of possible was with the coin was hanging doing the kabbalah. Abaya agrees with that. So really the machlokes Abaya is only one case. The case is with the animal itself is suspended in midair at the time of the kabbalah. According to Abaya it's okay. Shchita would be a problem cuz it's din yerech but kabbalah is not din yerech. According to Abaya it's not going to be okay cuz at the very least it's din softin when it comes to kabbalah and Abaya softin is not softin. And then my rabba rabba asked Abaya my shna bikochim kalim so tall of the kibbel bikochim kalim Abaya said it's okay. Tall of the kibbel bikochim kodashim is not okay. According to Abaya it was always okay. But in Abaya it was a problem. That was the chiddush of Abaya over Abaya. That tall of the kibbel is a problem cuz even though there's no din yerech but there's a din softin and Abaya softin has to be ketsafin but he clearly said that tall of the kibbel is only an issue when it comes to kodashim. It wasn't an issue by kodashim kalim. Now why is it an issue by kodashim we said cuz Abaya softin is not softin dummy. But rabba said if Abaya softin is not softin dummy then Abaya shouldn't be kept in dummy. That's what we need the London for. So my rabba shna tall of the kibbel bikochim kalim Abaya kept in dummy. Bikochim kodashim Abaya softin kept softin dummy. So my rabba so rabba argued with Abaya and he said "Bikochim kodashim bikochim kalim kasharois everything is kosher bar with the exception of tall of the shachat bikochim kodashim. If the animal itself is suspended by kodashim it's a problem. Everybody held that was a problem cuz it's a din softin. And nitla of the kibbel if the coin himself is the one that's hanging that and he does the kabbalah that too is a problem. Bikochim kodashim bikochim kalim. If you do the cheshbon it comes out that rabba is essentially saying what Abaya said. What did rabba say? That all kosher with the exception of two. Which two? Nitla of the kibbel tall of the shachat. Tall of the were the two exceptions of Abu Dishmuel. Over Rava was masif over what Abu Dishmuel said. Was he mentioned kachum kalal? Abu Dishmuel never mentioned kachum kalal. But the truth is, if you wanted to figure out by yourself what Abu Dishmuel would hold by kachum kalal, you would come out the same way. You would say that all the cases are going to be kosher with the exception of Neklah Viki Bell, with the exception of the coin hanging doing the kabbalah. Coin hanging doing the kabbalah just like it's from the kachum kalal also in their shoes but kachum kalal is from the kachum kalal also because it's in their shoes but What was the other passul? What was the other case where Abu Dishmuel had it passul? When the animal was hanging Why was it passul? Because of yarech. There's no yarech by kachum kalal. So it's not such a chiddush. So essentially you have three amora'im that chime in in this cheshbon gemara. Abu Dishmuel, Abaye, Rava, also Shmuel by the way. But Abu Dishmuel, Abaye, and Rava, Abu Dishmuel and Rava are lechora saying the same thing. Rava's just being masif halacha by kachum kalal. Abaye argues. What does Abaye argue? case. Abaye argues. Whereas Abu Dishmuel and Rava both held that if the animal was hanging at the time of the kabbalah it would be kosher, Abaye held it wouldn't be kosher. What's the shaila? Do you say that just like aver pnim kipnim, aver tzafon kitzafon? Abaye held no. Aver tzafon is lav kitzafon. Who bifnim? What happens if the coin himself was inside the azara at the time that he was doing the avodah? The tzitzis over chutz. But his tzitzis were bachutz. So what does tzitzis mean? Says Rashi, it doesn't mean what it usually means, but rather tzitzis rosh. It means it's here. So the coin himself is inside, but the coin's hair is outside. What's the halacha? Excellent kasha. Doesn't it say that Just like we darshan earlier by Moshiach, that at least there's a din that the animal has to be completely inside the mikdash so to it says the volume if the feet is outside he's not cool he's not cool then the that's the case it's going to be an issue before we go right there and we start the this is one of the sugars that you have to put an asterisk in when you learn so before we start that just two hours number one we began the sugar with a discussion of an animal that itself was inside the Azara The coin did the and the question is do you say that being that the was so the down that was inside the now becomes with the down at the time that you do the that down was possible so it was possible you can have an issue so the had three versions until we figured out exactly what said and and a whole that's what you need to get but bottom line is the says it could be a major issue you have to make sure you that you cut the animal not to the point where you make it about because that has its own issues but to the point at least where you knock off the blood flow from that foot to the so like this you're not going to have any down that was that was the top of ask a little bit of down came from the into the but I think everybody would agree says that the majority the overwhelming majority of the down came from the so so why do you say that the little bit of down that came from the of the so should be to be bottled to the down that came to the what happened to the of of says read it inside the down possible in a bottle that really in order to properly understand the you have to know this that down possible when it comes to is not possible to the the common because we to the even though ordinarily in culture, when it comes to this or that, there's a concept of bit of arrive, not when it comes to culture. Damn possible in culture, ain't no bit of arrive. Mission of Mel and the time of Mish of Mosha in the end of paragraph says that what saying is but what said was meaning even if they wouldn't have been this in paragraph to come on the base, place still wouldn't have a cash. Meaning the cash of let the dam that's possibly to be arrived. If you know the of bit of arrive Frank and it's based on a market of a finish on the market that's worth speaking of in the school and the context of the market was discussing a woman that's doing and one of the things you had to do by when she did she has to spit at the at the at this person that's made you vomit that doesn't want to that doesn't want to do the more discusses what happens if there was a little bit of blood in her saliva when she spat. It's a problem cuz it has to be that saliva right. And there's not a little bit of any dam. And the market asks the obvious question. Why doesn't a little bit of dam become bit of arrive to the right? She has to spit saliva. A little bit of blood came out. Okay, so there's a little bit of blood. If there's a little bit of milk in your chicken soup, it still could be okay because this concept of bit of arrive and there's not a little bit of milk there. So there's a little bit of dam inside the right of the why is that a problem? Why is that an issue? What happened to bit of arrive? Says the market the only time you say bit of arrive is if you had a of a awesome and you had a motor. They're both in front of you and then they were in the side. So if the motor and the side of the side of it then you have a lot of bit of arrive. But something that was a of this when it came into the world as far as we're concerned for the first time it was already in a massive of there's no a lot of bit of arrive. As the market and the post can bring this market there's many different applications to it. The income of finish of my the mix of the mix of but this is the condition market in the series of arrive. says the mission of the one that you say that the diamond the regular is although it's but it's should be bottled from our perspective the diamond of the was in a matter of I understand what it's inside the animal that's the you know it's everything is in its own place but when it was elaborate on was in a matter of all the time came out and when the time came out it was done from the regular done from the it started off as a it's not the that you had done that was possible and you had done and the two things got that's when you need to come on the test of the base to know that there's no but that was the only thing that without I understand without the come on without this special that I got to be on the right under the ordinary rules and regulations of doing to be a because it would be a says I understand why say I understand what they did the market say because he said it's possible that I got to be on so why should I when you can at the end of the day the says it's never but the really wasn't said for such a case the was said for a case where I had that was and now I have regular stuff in that case of this was said what's the of this market it's a very big only if it was in in independent state and then afterwards it was inside of something that material was a you don't say and he talks about it in and he quotes the new of he says the new is very possible because what's the of it's only from a compassion after rubbing that convened to decide whether somebody is me so if 13 said he's me so 10 said that he's not high of me sir, they gave him me sir's blessing. Why? We went after we had go by the right. After I have them what happens? And even though the din right that the possible that I have them what happens is talking about is not bit of a right. It's the right that's my career. Like this, we've spoken about this many times. But the regime throughout say that that possible is the car to the bit of a right as well. It's from there we know that if there's a taru of this and that there, the meat becomes what? The same And then you have to be good in that case the taru of this didn't come with in a state of a taru of this. Each dying issued his sack independently. They all cast their vote independently. And then we took all the votes thus the proverbial taru of this and we decided what the emphasis and we go by the right. If all the dying would vote at the same second, everybody would have that that okay then it would be by the right in the master of the taru of this. But by the as quoted by the that's not what happened. Ruben said that Shimon said that Levi said that you would have said that every person cast his vote. That means right now each person independently is casting. It's only later that it's decided. Being that it's only later that it's decided so maybe you would have said possible in the car. What's the car to the right after I have them what happens? So he said it go by the right. I'll tell you just one that came to mind was a thousand years ago. It's tough he brings the from the that at first glance when we go to the of this is going to be a thousand years ago. It's it's a it's a it's an unbelievable the said we know that the only time he said is if you can identify the in the head there. Meaning if you see what's also and what's more there, there's no more right. Not the only way you have to be right is is where there's right now it's all confused. The taru of this by definition taru of this doesn't mean they're in the same ball. Taru of this means that it's a mix. You don't know what's what. To the extent that you know what's what it's by definition not a taru The Lavush said, "No, it's not. Only mid rabbonon that that's true. Mid deoraisa, even if it's nikker the issur and the hetter, you could leave it there and it's still botel berov." Mid rabbonon, where it's nikker issur there's no botel berov. Mid deoraisa, very big chiddush. Says the Taz, "What's the makor of the Lavush?" The Taz cuz what's the makor of the botel berov acharei rabim machatzis? The chosam yodina may meheima machayvin u'meheima mezakin. You know who's saying chayav, you know who's saying zakai. Binda, you know who's saying chayav, you know who's saying zakai. So, who's the botel makor? The makor is a case where you can identify it's nikker the issur, so to speak. So, you're going to have this halacha even where it's nikker the issur. So, because the makor the botel berov is acharei rabim machatzis, even though at first glance acharei rabim machatzis is not a case of botel berov, that's the chiddush. But, being that the makor acharei rabim machatzis, the makor the botel berov is that sugia, so we have to go based on the guidelines of what that sugia is discussing in order to determine what halachas are going to be. So, with regards to the Mordchai Chiddush, that a taruvis that that was a taruvis mitzras prios you don't say botel berov. With regards to the Lavush's Chiddush, that even where it's nikker issur, still mid deoraisa you can't have botel berov. That's the first order. The second order is boi u've nei rabim u've nei rabim u've nei avzeiro. What would be if the kohen was inside, v'tzitz se'oi b'chotz. Rashi says, "What does tzitz se'oi mean?" Tzitz rosho b'chotz. The kohen is standing in the azara and his hair is outside of the azara. The question is, is it okay or is it not going to be okay? The kasha is, it's a pella. We know the halacha is that a kohen who did the avoda had to make sure that his hair wasn't too long. The rabbonim brings in Hilchos Beis Mikdash, perek aleph, halacha ches, kohen shegal lo sa'aroi. A kohen whose hair grew long, assur lo lehi kohen is men hamizbeiach lifnei Hashem. He's not even allowed to walk past the mizbeiach. V'im nichnas, if he does, v'avod, and he does the avoda, chiyav misas b'dei Shamayim. K'shikker shavah. He's like a shikker, so to speak. She'ne'emar, "V'ram se'ar rosho mipasa." Halacha yud aleph, kamah hu gidul hape'ah? What's too long? So, how do you define here that's too long? If it's grew for 30 days, it's already too long. Every 30 days you have to take a haircut cuz his hair wasn't allowed to be more than 30 days long. That's the So, what's possible? What's going on over here? How is it possible to have a coin who's inside and his hair is outside? I mean, if the coin shaved his head every 30 days, I mean, how long could his hair have gotten over a 30-day period that it's even possible that he's here and his hair is going to be someplace else. If he had long hair in the mailer, but he didn't have long hair. It wasn't possible for him to have long hair. So, I'm going to So, I'm going to tell you something interesting. Rashi says but I'll tell you something very interesting. There's a that you test them at all. We know that a coin when he wears his big day coin and he had to make sure that there was no So, what happens if Siroi was underneath his big head? Siroi Would that create a between the big day coin and the go for the coin or they not create a So, it says Rashi, what does it mean Siroi me roishoi le mato? If his hair was so long that it went from his head underneath his So, now he has hair from his head that's underneath his and that's the Is that considered a or is that not considered How in the world that coin has such long hair? It's not possible to have such long hair. He had to shave his head every 30 days. So, every 30 days So, how did he have hair that was so long? So, what he did was wrong. He wasn't allowed to have hair so long. But the still wants to know with regards to whether it's going to be a problem. Now, if you mean is if a coin does the avoid with his hair being too long, it's not make of the avoid. If however there's a between him and the big day corner maybe he has a bit of a so would be make of the avoid. The one still I understand this coin needs to be 940 day because his hair was too long. But that doesn't mean the avoid is possible. What about the avoid? Is it a is it not a as a result? By the way the says in in an arc that even if one hair was too long even that already would be an issue. Doesn't mean that his whole hair even one hair That's what he says. That's what the challenge was with regards to whether the avoid is going to be make. But you want to know if what he did was wrong. Of course what he did was wrong. He's going to be Mesa be the show Maya but you did the even Grossman showed me a stickle that was printed in a in a who quotes from the safer to air who brings from the meat bending was an of he brings the kosher and he says that you know what the is the kosher is and by extension will be a kosher as well. The coins payers. We're not talking about the coins here. We're talking about the coins payers. It's the ratio. It's the payers. It's not allowed to have payers, right? So if a coin was allowed to have payers that's what we're talking about. You have longer payers and the payers went underneath the that's the is it a is it not a the coin is standing he's doing the avoid his payers are outside of the so that's the question is it going to be okay or not? That's what he wanted to say. But that is it so possible what he's saying? Make the coin is not allowed to have payers. Now everyone has to have payers but for that you just have to make sure that you're not over so people pass they look off. Right? You don't have to have payers it doesn't have to be that long in order not to be over this is the of so it's a nice was a coin allowed to have payers or was he not allowed to have payers? So even showed me in this he showed me two different stickles. One stickle the person that put the stickle together, this Malachi, said that he asked the shadow from Kanievsky and Kanievsky told him that the coin wasn't allowed to have payos. Why should you think he's allowed to have payos? He has to make sure that he has something. He's not over past but they have longer payos. No, he couldn't have it. He wasn't allowed to. He's a that the coin couldn't be rash. He wasn't allowed to grow his hair too long. But in the other stickle, the other person said that he asked Kanievsky and Kanievsky said it's okay. And then he said that he brings that this is the mistake. Who said that he asked his Yasha. Yasha also said that it was okay. It was okay for a coin to have it as long as it was neat. But I'll go upon him and the seem to be that what's the idea that the coin is not allowed to be coin is not allowed to be because he has to make sure that he looks nice. I mean he has to be that's the whole idea. The coin has to look handsome and beautiful. So imagine you tell a coin that you looks a certain way and you tell the coin he's not allowed to look that way. So e good to me too. But whatever the is, but I'll go upon it just something interesting was a coin allowed to have payos. Was a coin not allowed to have payos? Regardless, Mishnah nothing to do with it. So we know that when the coin did it with an animal, so every carbon had its own its own place exactly where the was supposed to be done. All right, so had to be the on the four corners of the the oil was had a little bit of it in the that the went through in the first but the bottom line is is there was a special place on the bayach where the was supposed to be done. Additionally, different carbons were brought on different so for example most carbons were brought on the but you had the premium ice. There were certain carbons that were brought on the by the way on there were even that were done on the there were even that were done on the something nothing to do with it. What if the coin did the but he did the in the wrong place. He did it on the ramp. Now you know you're not supposed to do the week the ramp. Or you know he did it on the itself but not in the part of the that was that was the hole in the where they used to pour the shira. That was the part of the he was supposed to do this week and this kind didn't do it over there. He took the that was supposed to be the he did it he took the ones that was supposed to be the he did it or he got the wrong he took a dam of a of a carbon that supposed to go on the or vice versa. Says the apostle the wall. Now why would you think there should be that already we're going to sing tomorrow's but for now says the the that the is going to be possible. So at first glance when you read the what does it sound like the says? The mission seems to be saying that the of this week is in other words it shall it sounds at first glance before apostle stating that talk to your mother. How much more possible possible when the mission says possible it doesn't mean that the carbon is possible. Carbon's not possible. Not just that the I will buy what then does possible mean? It means the boss is possible. And this is based on an idea that we've spoken about but we have to speak about it again and that is that the is weaker than a dam had two functions. It was the it was the the climax of the pinnacle. It was the the thing that created a couple but it also served an ancillary function and that is that in order for the and the to eat the of you had to do a so essentially was the this week was also the matter. It was matter and it was also we'll speak more about that but for now said when the mission says that that was not in the wrong place aka is possible it means with regards to the ability for the Zrika to be marked. A Zrika [ __ ] Kaima doesn't have a Koya to be marked, but as it relates to its ability to be Machaper, it could be Machaper. And what does possible mean? Possible possible. I will buy them. This Kaporas Zrika [ __ ] Kaima is Kim Kaima Dami and it's lacking Kaima Dami. It's Kim Kaima Dami with regards to the Kaporas lacking Kaima Dami with regards to the ability to buy my time. How do I know that? The Amikra says most of the time from the possuk. The possuk says Ki Nefesh Habosei Badami. Vani Nasati Bechem Al Hamizbeach LeChaper Al Nafshoseichem Ki Adam Hu Banefesh Yechaper. Says "Well, Vani Nasati Bechem Al Hamizbeach." Even Shiyigiya Adam Lamizbeach, as long as the Adam gets on the Mizbeach, it's Kaporah Bayom. That's enough for the Bayom to get Kaporah. Ee Hachi Bosei Nami. So, if the Zrika [ __ ] Kaima is Kim Kaima Dami with regards to Kaporah, why isn't it with regards to possible? Amikra LeChaper. It says "Vani Nasati Bechem Al Hamizbeach LeChaper." And we Darshan LeChaper Nasati Velo Ledavar Acher. Only works with regards to Kaporah, doesn't work with regards to Davar Acher. Amikra says Zrika [ __ ] Kaima Kim Kaima Dami. Bottom line is, you see this small sheet is that Zrika [ __ ] Kaima is Kim Kaima Dami. Says the Gemara in Tamid in Perek Problem is Sedon Ochna Mishnah. So, this Mishnah right here Chobavim Alav discusses the Halacha of Zrika [ __ ] Kaima. There's another Mishnah that also discusses the Halacha of Zrika [ __ ] Kaima and that's a Mishnah on Daf Lamed Beis. We have to be a little bit familiar with that Mishnah in order to understand the next Gemara. That Mishnah is the first Mishnah in the third Perek. And the first Mishnah of the third Perek is the antithesis of the first Mishnah in the second Perek. The first Mishnah of the second Perek discuss all the Psulim that can't do Kabala Halacha Zrika. The first Mishnah of the third Perek discusses all those same Psulim that although they can't do Kabala Halacha Zrika, they could do Shchita. Mishnah begins Kol HaPsulim Sheshochtu Shchitasam Ksheira. Shach Shchita Ksheira Bizara Uvenasha Uvavoda Uvetmei'a Uvechulei Uvechulei Uvechulei Uvechulei. Lefichach, the Mishnah continues, Ein Poslin Machshava. For that reason, that if If Possul would do the shrita, the and with the machshava haprisus, the machshava haprisus would be a problem. Why would it be a problem? Because if a possible is allowed to do the shrita, so when he does the shrita, it's a shrita. He now has a machshava zara, machshava spiggle for example. Or if it's a chatazo, the pesach, or machshava shva v'shva, that machshava is going to be a problem. Mishna says but if they did the kabala with a machshava and if you have to be careful, doesn't make a problem for the possible. And if there's more dam doing the kabala, it's not a problem. Because if a possible does kabala, it's not a kabala. So if he has a machshava psula, it's not a machshava psula. So a possible that could do shrita, says the mishna, and has a machshava psula, the machshava psula is going to pass it. If not, not. Skipping to the end of the mishna. Then the end of the mishna picks up exactly where what argument not got me out of like nothing that's going to matter. That's not going to matter. If there's any leftover dam, you have to kosher the vehicle. Now the gemara understands now that that last part of the mishna is discussing any person that did the shrita. Any person that does the shrita like so the law is if there's leftover dam, do it all over again. Wait the gemara of why do you have to do another shrita? Again, the end of the mishna, if you look at it in a vacuum, seems to be saying if you did the shrita, you did it in the wrong place. Literally our mishna. Nothing that's going to matter. Nothing that's going to matter. So what's the law? If there's any leftover dam, do another kabala. What's the kosher? This is what you understand our mishna literally. That the shrita is not a shrita. That makes perfect sense. The shrita wasn't good. If there's leftover dam, do another shrita. But if you're going to tell me that the shrita is why do you have to do another shrita? it already. The gemara says that It's not to get couple of you right. You got couple already. But it's to be is there something is there such a thing as a that that doesn't have a to be but at the same time it's going to be so what's the idea of doing another but in our mission of maybe it's right but it says possible. Maybe it means the is possible but the itself is but the next mission is a cuz the mission says if you did it I do another if you if you got how you doing another am I going to do the other for what you didn't get to be no such thing. You can't tell me that this is not what I got already but this is going to be so the says if that mission the same for the mission was in a vacuum and it's talking about what a regular person did this you have a good but that mission is not discussing what a did this is discussing a possible it's the to the beginning of the mission that's what we spoke at the beginning of that mission. It's discussing a possible a possible can't do a possible also can't do and that's what the mission is saying that if a possible does it's not a I don't know what I understand but a possible did this but at the same time you could do it all over again but the says but I have to extend that a possible did it it shouldn't be a problem with the assuming now that every knocks out a carbon and there's no of do the all over again. How do you know that? I can't because the mission said that mission said that any possible that did the what the people engaged in after my people is not a good people being that a possible was the one that did it and a possible not allowed to do so you could do the all over again. It sounds like only only by is there a halacha a possible does kabala, maybe what's the mishna saying? If a possul did the kabala with machshavus piggul on machshavus piggul, therefore you could do the kabala again. How could I do the kabala again? Any kalami wasn't machshavus piggul, but a possul did the kabala, shouldn't that possul the carbon? So the gemara is saying no, that even though ordinarily a possul can't do kabala, but it doesn't mean that if a possul does do kabala, you can't do it again. But the mishna only said it regarding kabala. The mishna didn't say it about zrika. So what am I making an idea kibli in zarku loi? Doesn't it sound like only when a possul does kabala you could do another kabala, but if a possul does zrika you can't do another zrika? My time mishna to have a dakhli, isn't it because it's dakhli? So if it's dakhli, so how could you tell me that the end of that mishna is that discusses zrika shleima in kaima is discussing a possul that did zrika shleima in kaima? And when a possul does a zrika shleima in kaima, you could do another. I thought when a possul does the avoda, whether it is zrika ben kaima or zrika shleima in kaima, once a possul does the avoda, that in and of itself makes it dakhli, knocks out the carbon. There's no way to do it. The gemara says why? Because of the possul and the machshava. Meaning, really the end of the mishna is talking about a possul that did a zrika shleima in kaima. A regular kosher that did a zrika shleima in kaima it's kim kaima dami. There's no yachsei kosher be kaima. The mishna is talking about where a possul did it. A possul did it it wasn't a good zrika. I I thought we had a deyak kibli in zarku loi that if a possul does a zrika it's dakhli. It's true, but only with regards to what we had a deyak. What was the deyak? The deyak was with regards to a possul that had a machshava of chutz l'zman chutz l'makom. So if he did a kabala that way yachsei kosher be kaima. Regarding that, we're going to make a deyak that if he did the zrika with a machshavus piggul, that's going to possul it. Meaning, the only time there's a halacha that a possul that does the zrika is a problem if the possul did it with a machshavus piggul. But a regular possul doing the avoda not. And that's the deyak. You're right, kibli in zarku loi, but only with regards to what the mishna was discussing. What was the mishna discussing? A kohen possul that did the kabala with a machshavus piggul. If a kohen possul would do the zrika with a machshavus people would not get up to two problems with that nobody else Kabbalah and what's the difference between Kabbalah and the only impossible Mashallah it don't make any sense in the world to say that a coin impossible that has a Mashallah people somehow that's a coin impossible that does you could do another another Kabbalah and another a coin impossible that has a Mashallah people that already knocks out the the Mashallah people if it was hit by a coin impossible is not a Mashallah people Robert said it in my show my Alice and so the more says I hear you're right absolutely right so you have to say you have to say again in order for to be able to win the mission Mashallah is going to have to say that when the mission says if you do you could do another talking about where a possible was the one that did you why is the mission talking about possible because that was the race to the mission the whole race is discussing possible I don't we have a dig what was the dig kibble if the possible had a Mashallah Kabbalah it's okay it's Mashallah not don't make me a diet kibble in be my diet kibble in that the comparison what we're contrasting is not Kabbalah and Zico it's Kabbalah and Michael Mashallah and the what but for that I don't need the possible Mashallah that's the first part of the mission but we can place the Mashallah meaning you're telling me that Kabbalah is it says before Mashallah again you have to see that mission of better inside in order to fully appreciate this but the mission said all the are allowed to do the coin possible Mashallah therefore a possible that does the with a Mashallah people to Mashallah if he does Kabbalah not you can't tell me when it says Kabbalah is coming to contrast it with it said before it's probably coming to contrast it with something that it didn't say before Zico so the more says no how come Kabbalah is the eight times it could have rubbed let's not get too excited. All the mission is saying is a possible way to shrita. Therefore, if a possible does shrita with a mashavous pasul, it's going to be a mashavous pigul. A possible is not allowed to do kabola or hilcho or zriko. Thus, the kabola of the hilcho any mashavous pasula that the cohen is going to have is going to be a problem. So, before we finish this two short hours, really short hours, and then we'll pick up with some intense rate on the next time. But for now, let's two short hours. Number one, it's a dua of a prime briska that the prime said that we know the halacha is that when a cohen did zrika, so there was an idea of how many zrikas he had to do. Shtein shein arba, arba, right? Every carbon had its own shulchan aroch of where this zrika was supposed to be done and the amount of zrikas that was supposed to be done. Prime said a chiddish that by zrika shel kaimai, there's no minyan hazos. This idea of multiple zrikas depending on what the carbon is, that's only if this zrika is being done kaimai. But if this zrika was being done shel kaimai, then that halacha is not going to be true. What's the lamdis? So, we're going to have to look into that a little bit. But for now, that's what Prime said, that the only time you have the minyan hazrikas, that's only if it was a zrika kaimai. Not if it was a zrika shel kaimai. They say over in sheer that Prime was once giving a bocher of a hair in the Volozhin Yeshiva. So, this boy walks in, he's going to be for hair by a Prime. So, Prime asked him, Prime Briska, that the how is it possible for a cohen gadol to do the avoda on Yom Kippur and he'll be yoitzei the entire avoda with one zrika? How's that possible? You go through say the zachus Yom all the different hazos and the zrikas that had to be done. So, he said, "How's it possible to do it with one zrika?" The bocher told Prime, "Zrika shel kaimai. Zrika shel kaimai, there's no minyan hazrikas. So, all you need to do is one. If you're going to do one, it's going to be okay." So, Prime told him, "Good. That's the answer I was looking for, but sorry here and would really work." So, I'm sure they want to know what was the crime sorry here that's [ __ ] So, what was the crime sorry here meaning if the crime was that by his weakest living corners of the MS is I'm just thinking out loud. There's There's many issues that you have to address. First of all, the avoid on Yom Kippur came from multiple animals. There was the par, there was the sorry here. So, maybe once weaker from the par, once weaker from the sorry here. But, how could you be the whole avoid here? The whole there's a thing with a par, with a sorry here. How you going to get that? Additionally, the weaker living corners of the mission said is talking about the two miss here. The my love the matter the matter the matter with him the whole what is him? What would be if the kind God of did a weaker on the on the is that included in the law of weaker living corners here? Meaning weaker living corners can come in maybe that's only if it's a miss here. So, any mocking in the miss here or any miss here is included in this law of weaker living corners here. But, the weaker living corners of the mission said that's a whole different entity. My name are that the mission of weaker living corners was said with regards to the mission said. What would the kind of bring a regular carbon island he turns around in the on the is that a weaker living corners here? What is the have to do with weaker that's you more than once. Do I have to say with all in the so, maybe with regards to that it has a weaker sounds like a portion you can argue that that way. You could say the portion says that it sat on the miss here. That's the portion that was weaker living corners can come in either way that's the first thought. The second is a casher that the mission said brings in the it's a mission said from all places. It's a mission said and the mission said is a response to mission said a mission said mission said mission said. So, he sent to his son's Aiden. In other words, mission said his grandson. So, mission said his grandson mission said mission said mission said and he asked his Aiden the following question. He said that the mission said said that the even though the mission said weaker living corners is possible that only means that the boss is possible. You can't eat the boss. But as it relates to Kapora, you're going to get Kapora burnt out from a possible. Meaning it's like dummy with regards to Kapora. It's like dummy with regards to the head of a and the jumped on from the mission that it was the mission that you do if there's any left over you could do another partial we're talking about a regular partial person that now is correct that it's like why you ask if you look at the Kapora already. Why you doing another thing? If you're going to tell me you're doing the second Kapora to get be matter of the boss. What was the cash show? Me is there such a thing? The moment which I this week is not going to be why not you got Kapora already. Is there such a thing as that's not going to happen you're going to boss her. So I could do that tomorrow this cash show me wasn't that cash on that remember which lockers was lying on his stomach in and asked the question. He said I understand the first mission of all of them. All of them to do with the mission of all of them. The same what is cash show me? Cash show means you can eat the boss. She says cash show means you can eat the cash show means you could be back today morning but it's not not somebody was you have to bring another if you have to bring you have to bring another she said what's going on over here? It's cash show it to be all of them and if it's all of them it should be cash show. Me is there such a thing that you have a carbon that's not but it's what you want to do. Yeah, it's all of them all of them what you want to do. Whatever the material was but the bottom line is the first isn't that the first mission of all of them? All of them cash show and all of them cash show means you can eat the boss. All of them all of them means it's not that means this week that's going to be matter of the boss wasn't I just found you a cash show. I found you a cash show that's not that was matter of the boss. And if you remember the all of them all of them another example of it. The example was where somebody was Machshav and then he died. So the Halacha is that the Yorshim are the ones that bring the Korban. The Pashtus is, the Pashtus is, who's the Ba'al Korban? The Meis is the Ba'al Korban. Kufyo Machabeh Le Meikav Le Meikabeh. Right, that was the Gemara in that Perek above. But Al Ken it would seem to be a Mafriach Gemara again that there's an idea that the Yorshim have a Din to bring the Korban on behalf of their father. Hagam in Kaporas Meis. So the father is not going to get any Reitzui from this Korban, but it's going to be Kasher Korban, you can be able to eat the Basar. So again you have another example of a Zrika that's not Mechaper, but at the same time it's not the Basar of a Cheilev D'Avnei Nezev etc. We leave it there.