Zevachim 28

Today's is and we are at the Mishna on the bottom of Zion. So by now we're all familiar with the of Ken's doing one of the he's doing either and he has a to do one of four things or he has a to eat or to do the if the was to do it is the carbon is posser of the carbon is pigle if somebody eats the bus from that carbon is if the was to do it the passcles the carbon it's also piggle in a sense but it's not piggle in the sense said if somebody would eat from the is he would not bears what is mean every carbon has when certain mitzvah of the carbon had to be done so for example as it relates two days and a night was able to be done at night but only up until the morning that's the first mission of beyond that next morning he couldn't do it anymore the zur and theashi had to be done by they're like ordinary that had to be done by once at that point it becomes possib outside of the place that you're allowed to do it. It's as it relates to. So if the was to eat the kadash outside of the outside would be all done in the so would be where he had in mind to do it outside of the either way. That's something that we're all quite familiar with at this point. and Dr. had dr and braces that ironed out this idea. One thing worth mentioning is if you remember then we mentioned that say that you could as well there's major lumbus associated to that but that's not the is what we mentioned either way the discusses the basic laws of mak is the mishna that we're about to learn right now so the mishna is not really going to tell us much that we don't know yet simply because we've been taking for granted all these but you want to know the what's really ground zero for the pigle it's the mission that we're about to learn somebody to do this or not all the dam but only some of the dam only some of the gives an interesting example of where the kan had in mind to eat a kaz of the skin of the tail of an animal that is a carus. Why is there no carus? Because the was meaning is a but there's no you don't have that if somebody will eat the bus of that carbon he's going to be if the was to do it tomorrow what we know as only some of the or to eat of again the skin of the tail tomorrow is you're going to be again the Mishna says what we know if you're going to look for and the Mishna the Mishna did tell us something that maybe we didn't know and that is you don't have to keep all is enough. You don't have to be to be just a little bit of would be enough. But regardless, this is the basic of But there's one interesting in the Mishna. The Mishna gave one specific example of a bagel where you had in mind to eat or again the is the tail of the animal. So the would be the skin on the tail of the animal. Why in the world would the Mishna have to mention the in fact we're going to see it's a three-way had to understand what exactly the the punchline and what the mission is coming to teach me by mentioning the Dr. thought and this is the context to this next gamarra. It seems to be that the skin of the aly is treated like the itself. If that's the case, so we know that every animal obviously has meat, right? You shed an animal. There's a lot of flesh. What did they do with the meat of so of it was some of it was burnt? It was which some of it was eaten by the bin some of it was eaten by the and then you had the same which was burnt and which kick was eaten. So the mentions what was burnt and what was eaten. If the animal was a sheep the aliyah was burnt. If the animal was anything other than a sheep then the ali was eaten. Now if our Mishna is discussing a sheep then it comes out that the Mishna is saying again if our Mishna is discussing even a sheep then the Mishna is saying because the Mishna said that if a was doing the and he had mind to eat not burn not be to eat the it's going to be ava's pickle if you assume that the is like the and the Mishna is talking even about where the ali was burnt on the misbeh still it's going to be a which is because you could have argued that the has to be to do an that the terror says he's supposed to do so that was that should be a pickle if you to that was that should be a bagel. But if the Mishna says you could be to eat physically eat the and the Mishna is talking even about a sheep where the itself was burnt and is so presumably the of the was also burnt. So now you such a the time if somebody does and he has a to eat says that's not a pickle. They have to be to eat something that's to be something that's rebel says it's possible. Oh, very good. According to it's makes sense that even if the mission is talking about where the was burnt is still you to eat the isn't that and you're being told look at the on the next Now the time of the was very very clear who's that like so the of the next the says very very clearly the only time it's clear if does it make sense that our Mishna that mentions the going according to the that's the only way we know right now to explain the and the is clearly the yes it's okay I don't have a problem with that so the first in the said that the could be talking about a sheep and which means that the of the sheep was of the it was burnt on the and still if a he was to eat the it would be Because the mission is the next okay it's not true is not what's it says it's only the of the that's the but the of the is not the in other words the wasn't burnt even by a sheep of it wasn't burned Then it was if it was very good says really the time of the mission is not it's safe and if our mission was talking about a sheep the would have never mentioned Because being that the and by sheep the was burnt. So the was also burnt and you can't be so but who said the does it say the word sheep? It doesn't say sheep in a It just says, okay, the of a goat, not the of a sheep, the of a sheep. You wouldn't have this. Nobody wanted to learn the like it. It's not that way. Why did they want to learn like and felt that is definitely but why didn't they want to learn talking about sheep right what's the grace of I they burnt the means they burnt the who said a sheep they only burnt the if it was a sheep But it was any other like a goat. They didn't burn it. So that seems to be a very obvious. So why would the other everyone's saying it's a big because you have to say because we think he's coming out seems to be very reasonable. So the motor says you know why they didn't want to learn like what's the because if the Mishna is talking about a goat it's that you could be in the like what's the maybe I'll tell you the is that the was so the says no it's not that was meaning that the is viewed as an because that we know the context over there says that could become and when becomes the would become and would be to as well. So the fact that the is bos that we know that's not the must be someh of that's whying that didn't want to learn because world they weren't really sure what the it says. is the is the hell that is still I would have thought it's true from that from that you see that of the is considered but I would have thought that's only with regards to being that it's edible so therefore it's but when it comes to I would have thought it says in the par of we'll see the soon a little bit better that the when they ate they were supposed to eat it the word means and we learned from the and don't eat I would have thought it's not and if it's not if you eat the it would be that's the I'll ask you if somebody before the let's just recap the three again we had a Mishna the Mishna mentioned the basic of very straightforward but the Mishna gave one specific example that it really didn't have to give of and that is if the was to eat the two would be what's the skin that's on the tail of the animal. The question is number one, why are we talking about the there must be some over there. But the the was sometimes burnt because the of a sheep regardless of what carbon that sheep was whether it was a schlman or it doesn't matter the was always burnt which means that the was also burnt. So if the was burnt how can you be So to answer that brought three said the time of the mission is hold if that's the case we certainly understand why the mention we're telling you that even though you're thinking and you're thinking to eat something that's really that's enough that still constitutes Rafa said at the and if the was burnt together with the sal would be true of the is that the was not burnt only the was burnt and the wasn't burnt and even though in other areas in you find but not with regards to the being that it wasn't burnt it was we look at it as something that's why it it's going to be a pickle And the third was said to the mission is going to the going to and really the was burnt. So if you brought a and you burnt the you burnt which means that if you of a sheep to eat the it wouldn't be how come you didn't bring a sheep what you brought inside was what's the so now there's no the is that you would have thought is not royal because when a needs it has to be so to eat the prime rib and to eat the fon the expensive parts to the animal. Yeah, maybe that's because that's but eat the part of the animal that that the don't eat. You would have thought that maybe that's from being as a result you can't be in it that really you could but really if you think about it comes at another in this and that is what would be if somebody was not to eat the but to be the of a sheep. So not to eat the but to be mocked of a sheep said that the laugh even by a sheep you could only be of an even of a sheep according to the but if you to be it's not going to bear it's the flip side because he holds it was it wasn't according to and according to it's not true really was burnt and being that it was burnt if you to be That too would be doesn't the say you to eat not to burn. So according to yeah the coin trouble and you can go back and forth but according to that wouldn't be true and the parents was that the discussing is not talking about av but you would be avas and you would be to be it would be that's another in this and that's the segue to the next you see here you not to eat that's what our mission is talking about that's underneath of course different parts of the animal. The bottom line is we have over here a discusses in the context of the part of this price that we need is and the says it's going to be a regular. So again we're talking about an specifically and we're talking about being that's not our mission never said anything about our any carbon number one. Number two, our mission to discuss where the was to eat the this is discussing specifically and to be listen to the gar a very good is it sounds like this price is only true by it's not true by an ordinary carbon it means any carbon other than if you would be to be wouldn't be it's very because what was Even though but the parish of that wasn't what was it? It was not which means like we said the flip side of is if somebody would have a to be it wouldn't be a going to it wouldn't be a pickle stating that which is going to have so that you have the oh which is so you don't have the of as opposed to the over there is going to be true but that holds dummy. So by a chevvis they used to burn the together with the only reason in our Mishna the is viewed as because our mission is not talking about a sheep our talking about a goat we have to be talking about is going to tell you maybe that wasn't talking about a sheep that was talking about a if it's not an You can't be because that's the is not that even not the is is that you burn everything. So even if it's a still the is going to be as well by saying just change the gear it's not be talking about a sheep as well because even by sheep is going to be excess just one light not so light but a little bit lighter and that is so the mentioned and the context that the mentioned of was there would have that even though maybe as it relates to the of that are going to eat maybe that's not avo they have to eat it and the don't eat they eat the finer parts of the of the behemoth they don't eat and the truth is this of is a parish I'm giving you they're given to you. It's for you and your sons and it's something that you're going to eat. So the context of the and tells they're yours whether it's whether it's trum you should eat it like a king this governs many many the one that we have it here is this maybe is not considered the beginning of Perk we had the Mishna that discussed all the all the people that aren't allowed to do the and the over there was trying to find the Zahar said that the idea that a zar that does the pos or that does the pos from that means person's allowed to sit while he's eating was allowed to sit when he was eating katcha but he wasn't allowed to sit when he was doing the can't eat he also can't do the so which is only it's not still that does the soar that are if they do the button one thing is and that is that was allowed to sit while he ate what does mean when it says it's not talking about all it's talking about that was the of the And the butch says what does mean sounds like what other wasn't allowed to sit while he was eating says yeah because we know certain was only eaten in the blah blah so is that says it's so you're allowed to sit while you're eating the reason so anywhere gives examples it's an example etc. There's other examples as well. Anything that's over there you can eat it and that's what the means but only there's no way because stating that says that says I'm not sure that that's true. It could be it's not true. And the reason is because we know there's and being that there's a kings when they eat they don't stand they sit. So being that they said so maybe so that even would be able to sit in this is already because no other way of so says I'm not sure is right says it's meaning you're right kings don't eat that way but at the end of the day says Maybe when the Gmorra says it means you could always be the is going to take precedence over that says that these two and says the context over there is the reverse. The Gmorra there says the says and we know that some of the had to be in the sounds like you could always be says the same maybe that was outside of the it's considered so you're not going to have a problem ordinarily it by us just mentions one of the other is this we know that the sat or was allowed to sit while he ate was that true only for was it true for as well why shouldn't it be true have to sit down and eat is not sure whether or is going to be I'll tell you what that I saw in the on this on the he brings from the made listen to possible is talking not to Hashem tells I gave you the and this is the punchline but the P seems to break up and his sons and and is not only a it's only it's true for the it's true for the as well. So what's this kind? And it's over here that even though there's a but there's something that was and that is so even though the Garra says that was allowed to sit while he ate it was only the outside of but the inside of the that he wasn't allowed to sit for because for that you had say I'm going to give you a over there brings a medish discussing this starts off by the way by saying I'm not sure where this comes from what is of course it's related to the story of that's why was why didn't want to be because wasn't and he knew that the are going to come they're going to be they're going to see sitting because of is going to be standing what's it going to look like? So it was the ga of this reason the same ga that would play itself out again when Hashem comes to him and he tells him what say who's going to be who's going to be first who's going to be first the it was the that caused him to be but the bottom line is T starts off by saying then Tus and the medish saysable says, "But listen to the punch line. said it's true and one side if was eating he had to stand if the was he was allowed to sit that means the even though there's a he couldn't bear didn't have that problem because allowed to sit so IT COMES OUT HE CAN'T BE cuz every time he eats HE HAS TO STAND. THAT'S not that's why the divided it for you and for every that's going to follow you then is going to be just so happens there's a more diluted version of that that they're also going to have. But the real the that's something that's only going to be negate to you. But I'll tell you something interesting. I heard on Shabas I was I was by my parents. I went to my father's he said over seems to say that was eating in the Azor. He had a stand was that says as follows and when a person eats he has to sit but when you eat you have to sit and it's but the bottom line and allow to eat and allow to drink while you're standing. So how are they allowed to sit? So he said that it could be being that there will be ma mitzvah. There's an Indian. So the shim the m just to show you how far this goes. The discuss how is that when they're standing under you get them to drink. How they're allowed to drink. It's a it's a but if you say it's going to be different. And then afterwards the roof said he said it wasn't recorded. So this is being recorded but he said that you know it's it's that people they go to boards and they stand while they're eating you know could be that being violate they're violating meaning brings it I think he brings it in but the ra for sure it's getting I'm just thinking one could be for this we can the chuva from his famous chuva that was written with regards to smoking where Mosha argued that it could be it's not to smoke and despite the fact that there's a lot of data and research that links smoking to terrible things but at the same time you find this concept in the says back in the day you weren't allowed to give a bris if it was a cloudy day was considered to be too risky to do so they would push off the bris they would be because it was too cloud it says the today people do it. No, once people do it, there's a special shmear that Hashem gives us fools when we do things that we're not supposed to do. So there's good news and bad news. Bad news is you're a fool. The good news is but the bottom line is that there is a special. So the gamarra says that sometime but then again sometimes you don't say so in his in a truva says that you have to say that whenever something is clearcut you don't say but when something is not a clearcut sak it's just that there's research that suggests that if a person does this the chances of something happening in increase or if somebody eats certain foods there's a higher probability that he's going to suffer one day from a from a gis that's was talking about. So that when it's a quid proquo when it's science you do this that's going to happen. So those areas you're not going to say but when something is not clearly you could do it a thousand times and nothing's going to happen. But if you DO IT THE CHANCES of something happening increase that's where you would suggest says in his truth very very clearly that the I think would all fit into where you say and he says he never says oh sir those are not that he uses let's read this it's coming from a but at the end of the day this is rooted nicer people do it. Maybe you can say I'm not sure above my but either way again discuss the basic of pig. So now we're going to take it even one step backwards and we're going to bring now the to the so it's just as a background to remember that mentions the pickle in two places in the in by the way the Gar calls it the just simply is a very long p but the basically mentions the basic gist of the pickle then the kazes it over and parishes over there it's broken up in a few the begins both times the mentions of pickle and mentions it in the context of the you have to eat the it proper time and if anything was left over you have to burn it if you eat it. So here it's not one lone but rather here it's several another thing that the toyra mentions here is of the is mentioned right next to the additionally the also mentions over here of so it never said in parish what it said in parish was but it never specifically mentioned over here it says clearly How do you know this tube? He wanted the tube. So said I'm going to discuss now which toupish. It says in the word pigle. when it says the word in that same okay. So if the me if the mentions be it not this is a lot of but the bottom line is it mentions and then it says at the end which we know means we know it's from but we know it means then why is there only and we learn from there and which One is going to be not going to be there's going to be is not going to be makes more sense to say that the chorus is by because the mention and then said which one did it mention first makes more sense that the chorus is going on the first thing that was Maybe it's going back on the last thing that it said you're right. This can't be the because it doesn't work. So again when said you have to say the something else he also I heard from the name of the and that this is from the following a little bit when it says why did the Tory have to over the parish of bigle doesn't it already say it in So why do we need a second par? You have the parish and you have the parish meaning really there's two parach and both paras are discussing but you don't need two paras to come. So what we say is that okay how do you know the in that par that discusses ple we said doesn't only mention pigle it mentions as well it says clearly in the Sorry. So that's very very clear. It's the Torah is clearly talking about and then it continues. So then it talks about pickle and it says now it says which is which seems to suggest that not everything that we just mentioned has a but only one of the things one of the two things that we mentioned what were the two things that we mentioned we mentioned and we mentioned piggle which piggle did we mention so if you're telling me that is one out of the two. You know how you know there's no because which one has nicer which one doesn't pickle which piggles mentioned in this that's how I know there's not going to be again inside a how do you know though that when it says it's going back on one that the one it's referring to is maybe the one that it's referring to So if somebody eats from a carbon where it's going to be if you eat from it's going to be carus when is there not going to be there's not going to be if you eat the say it makes more sense to say that has so that I can learn noar throws in a logic that you it very very rarely does and that is as false in it says in par of it says it doesn't say anything about cars stating that we know this because it says here tells me just like in parishes so it says something more like this listen to this logic if this says cars is referring So then I can make and say that just like when it says it means cars but if then I won't be able to make the from meaning I need a similarity between the two paras in order to justify the so if one parish is the other parish is I could justify but if one parish is and the other parish is I can't justify so it makes more sense then to say that this par is now I can use and I can clarify what means when it says but if this parish is going to be I have no way of doing that let's see that inside it makes more sense to say that when it says one out of the two either that which one is the now I can make it's in two ways it's it's an acronym the Zion Rashi says stands for they're both related to what's noiser you didn't eat it in its proper time what's to eat it in its improper time additionally you have the B it's also diamond you have a by You don't have and you have you don't have remember said because you could do it anywhere in the world even outside of but I can argue what's more similar of course is more similar it's in four ways number one mend they're both one's that's when you physically left it over. If you had a mind to eat even a little bit, the whole carbon becomes possible. Whatever you left over is possible because if you left over a little bit, somehow retroactively that the whole carbon additionally both of them are related to you has nothing to do with that's and they both have the word mentioned in it. You want to know how I know that when it says is referring to I know from it says that and it says it says in this and I'm sorry it says in this and it says so we that this must be referring to it's not referring to if we know it's talking about again that part was talking about two things about one of them is which one's going to be as opposed to that's not going to have cars theor says Okay. So how do you know now that doesn't have does because in this parish that mentions and there's a that only has cars but the other one not what's the other one now that only works if you know for sure that this other one is which is what we said we said I have a so that I know is not going to be car maybe if I Maybe the maybe over here in the parish of soar says it makes more sense for the because again parab has this cryptic we don't know what means we just simply don't know what it means if I have from that par to this par I'll know what it means I'll know that it means cars if that par I can make because I know there's a similarity again that's the interesting logic between I can relate the two but if that is talking about I have no similarity between I have no way to make so I'm going to be left holding the bag I'm not going to know so it makes more sense to say because then I know I have there's just more information the picture comes together much better. But the says I hear I can argue that it makes more sense for parish to be talking about it actually makes more sense that should be talking about because then you have together which are so similar. That's what we keep on saying right but in its essence it's similar. One is where you had to do. The other one is where you physically left. So the Gar is saying I don't know if that's true. Bottom line is is this can't be the because even though we seem to have maybe come up with a how you know it's the two and a but I don't know if I know whatever the parad is that doesn't have chorus because that par mentions and the and only has choruses this doesn't have but okay that's very nice but at the end of Today I don't know which one is. So if I don't know which one is that can't be thear. So what is the and that already we're going to see. But before we end this week just to end off with one light fest. So we mentioned earlier in the week it's really this twice since we started the of the who asked that why is there an we don't take out and read par read the para of the so just like we read from the just like we read why is it then that on PES we don't do the same thing and said because the carbon pes is different than all other carbon all carbon is the of the carbon is the on the carbon theor of the carbon is the mean that the carbon is the and the is to be able to have of a carbon on the of a carbon there's know when passes on the when doesn't pass on the so last night I met the and I told him over this he told me to take a look take a look at what he brings from hamburger and it's so I took a look and it's but just one little bit of that is means the idea of saying so it's similar to the days but it's a nice thing to say amongst the list of the the I was asked and then why does the listen to the sensitivity of how are we mentioning first and then sounds like that's the say that you're supposed to say you should say you should say first and then afterwards you should say because we know the katas always came before the is the is the prophet so you always will not do the before the so why does the say first and then so the says it could be the because we know was and even though the says that was ordinary say And it was on an but at the same time the came out it's only that that is true. In other words, theap of came from theap of came from the carbon says the we know the says there's no person that wasn't that wasn't some sort of but the fact that you so in the if somebody brought saved there is first you bring the then you bring the but when we say it says run you know for sure that you're everyone's you don't know for sure that so you know for sure you don't know for sure it's for that reason says we do the before we do the and this is the punch line if you know that you would be if the was built you should say the before you say the so it's a good the says first and then afterwards that's but if you're from the people that know that you were maybe once and Mr. Hebrew famously said in his that if someone doesn't learn that so the point is if you're such a person then you should say and then you should say because that's the always is brings from that he was once saying and in his we know that the like almost all carbon had a that went and there was that went the lab that was the was unique in that the was so hamburger said it's true that meaning today you could read the parish of and it's going to be as if you brought the car but that's only true for the that if you go ahead and you have the right and you say it properly believe it's you but that's for that it's not true. So he said when we say the parish of the as much as it's we brought but it's missing there's a that we can't wave today that's that we don't have when we read the par of we're not missing anything YOU KNOW WHY WAS THERE WAS no there was no carbon SO HE SAID IF WE would have an ABILITY TO BE WILL COME for us. But today we can't. Today it's when we say the M is bringing with theanskite with the you're not missing anything. When we read the parish of the you're not bringing it with the you're actually missing out. What are you missing out? You're missing out in that. So you can bring which one should you say first? You should say the first that's the if you were bringing an oil first would be the would be the but today it's not now it's merely so it actually makes more sense to say first the and then the you can bring the whereas the you can't bring then hamburger said that maybe you could say you say theoru And then we said we don't have the today but we have corbonus when we learn py and that's the first to you like and a carbon see today when we d it's because we have But the carbon we don't have. So then we add a second even if you're going to be even if says yeah it's but it's still in the wrong. So immersive that even we still need the bas you know what we need we need to say because we have the and then the like says but really the way it's supposed to be in a perfect world be the and that's what we're domining for I'll just tell you one last and that is so grossman told me yesterday I called him we were talking through the a little bit he gave me a beautiful we mentioned in the so he mentioned So the moment they discuss and what's the big deal and ended up being because that why do you have to say so what's the problem of the kas. So if he was knocked what's the issue why are you doing so and don't catch him then why do you have to wait for the to be built so the someone asks to get and said why did why do you say and what's wrong if it's why do you have to emphasize because really but when we bring a it's not the reason it's not is because we can We CAN'T DO. SO WHAT was missing? He was missing the was the piece that was missing in carbon when he said in the morning. So what say with a lot of to emphasize that the reason he's going to bring a is not for the it's the it's that was not.