Zevachim 32

Today's daf is Vochin daf lamed beis and we are at the beginning of the new perek, the third perek on the bottom of [snorts] daf lamed alef on the beis. So, the third perek really begins where the second perek began. The second perek began with the halacha of kabala and discussed all the people that are possible to do that with the sakabala. The third perek begins with avodas ashrisa, so we're going backwards in a way and discusses that despite the fact that all psulim are disqualified from doing kabala, halacha, zrika, etc. Shrita is different. So, the mishna kol hapsulim sheshachtu shritas ksheira. Any pasul that does shrita, the shrita is kasher. And the reason is shashrita ksheira bizarim uvinashim uvavodim uvitemeim vaafilu bikodesh kodashim. This is true not only for shritas kodshim kalim, but it's true for shritas kodshei kodashim as well. Meaning, in contrast to kabala, halacha, zrika, where psulim are pasul, when it comes to shrita, the psulim are going to be kasher. The reason of course is because of what the gemara said be'eil daf yud alef on the beis, shrita lav avodei, shrita ksheira bizar. Stating there, so the mishna that although we said that shrita is kasher bitmeim, if a tamei is going to do the shrita, he has to be careful uvavachla yud tameim lo yigam babasar. He has to be careful that he's not going to touch the basar cuz if he touches the basar, naturally he's going to be metamei the basar. Now, the truth is that in order for food to become tamei, it first has to be huchshal likabel tumah. It has to be wet with one of the zayin mashkin and only then can it be tamei. So, what's this chashash that the tamei is going to touch the basar? Luchora, doesn't the basar first have to be huchshal likabel tumah? But it's based on a principle which is chibas hakodash has an ability to be machshir kodshim likabel tumah. So, although ordinarily something can't become tamei unless it's kiyutein or kiyutan dumya dikiuyutein, when it comes to kodshim, there it's going to be different. But either way, so the mishna's first halacha is kol hapsulim, all the psulim that we mentioned in the second perek that can't do kabala, halacha, zrika, when it comes to shrita, shrita lav avodei and as a result, they're kasher to do shrita. The fica says the mishna posul bimachshavas. For that reason, if a zar or a pasul would do shrita and he would have a machshava hapisulas while he was doing the shrita, the halacha is that the shrita would be pasul. Meaning, if a pasul couldn't do shrita, then if he did the shrita with a machshava hapisulas, the machshava hapisulas would have no bearing. So, for example, if it was a machshava of chutzos mana, it wouldn't render the korban pigul because only someone that's ro'i to do the avoda can make a korban pigul. But being that we're saying that a pasul could do shrita, as a result, a pasul that does shrita with a machshava of pigul, for example, he would make the korban pigul. Bikulan shekiblu asadam. If, however, one of the psulim would do kabala chutzos mana bichutzim koynim, im yeishtama nafshi yachsar kashir bikabul, then you can redo the kabala. The korban is not going to be pigul. Ordinarily, if a kabala would be done with a machshava of pigul, you can't redo the kabala. You can't see if there's any leftover dam and and do a good kabala now. It's too late. Once you had a machshava of chutzos mana, the korban is automatically pasul. If, however, the kabala was done by a pasul, so then the machshava chutzos mana is not a machshava hapisulas cuz again, a kasher would have to have the machshava hapisulas in order for it to be initial. In that case, there is a way to redo it. So, the mishna tokibla kasher vinasa um pasul yachsar kasher. So, on the note of doing kabala and doing it improperly, what if a kasher would do the kabala and then after he did the kabala, he would pass over the klishoris to a pasul? Yachsar kasher. The pasul can give the klishoris back to the kasher, let him do the halacha and the zrika and everything is going to be fine. Kiblu biyamino nasan bismo'ni yachsar biyamino. If he did the kabala with his right hand, passed it over to his left hand, give it back to your right hand. All the avodas had to be done with the right hand. But it doesn't matter that for a brief moment it was in his left hand. That's okay. Just give it back to his right hand. Kiblu bikli kodesh vinasan bikli chol yachsar bikli kodesh. Same concept. Nishbach minakli laritzpa. What happens if the kohein did the kabala and after he did the kabala, dam fell erratically? It poured onto the floor. Va'asui, kasher, it's going to be kasher. This is of course in sharp contrast to the mishna daf chof hei which discussed the halacha of nishbach that's pasul. So, when is nishbach pasul and when is nishbach kasher? Nishbach mitzavar beheima onto the ritzpa, then it's pasul because there's a halacha of dam me'apair yakabluhu. We need the kabala to be directly from the par. And if it went from the par to the ritzpa, then into the klishoris, so there is a chaserin. But if the kabala was already done, nishbach elakli and minhakli, meaning, the kabala was done and then it poured out of the kli onto the ritzpa, in that case, it's going to be kasher again. All these halachas we discussed already in great detail. We've seen everything mentioned in this mishna already and the gemara has already discussed nishbach al hakavesh liken neged hayisod. What would be if the kohein did his zrika, but he did it either on the kavesh or he did it liken neged hayisod? Meaning, he did it on the wrong part of the mizbei'ach. Lo masan es hanitanim lemata lema'ala, masan es hanitanim lemata lema'ala. Something that was supposed to be lemata michutz laserig, he did lema'ala. Something that was supposed to be lema'ala michutz laserig, he did lemata. Masan es hanitanim lifnim michutz, masan es hanitanim lifnim michutz. Or even put it on the wrong mizbei'ach. So, there the halacha is im yeishtama nafshi yachsar kashir bikabul. Here too, you have an ability to redo it. As long as there's more dam, you can do a new kabala and then do his zrika with that dam that you were just mikabel. This is of course the halacha of zrika shelo bimkomo. If you remember, the gemara asked from here on Shmuel and Reish Lakish whose shrita was on daf chof daf chof zayin that zrika shelo bimkomo is kimkomo dami, that it's mechaper, it's just not matter of the basar. Zrika shelo bimkomo is kimkomo dami. What's this idea of im yeishtama nafshi yachsar kashir bikabul? Why do you have to do another kabala? Because his zrika was shelo bimkomo. I thought zrika shelo bimkomo is kimkomo dami. And don't tell me you're doing the new zrika to be matter of the basar because the gemara said me'ika zrika. Is there such a concept where you can do a zrika just to be matter of basar? So, the gemara made an eikimta. Wasn't an easy gemara, but the gemara there made an eikimta that if you hold zrika shelo bimkomo kimkomo dami, you're going to have to say that this mishna, this last part of the mishna is discussing not when a kasher did his zrika shelo bimkomo, but when a pasul did his zrika shelo bimkomo. If a pasul did his zrika shelo bimkomo, obviously it's not a kasher's zrika. If a pasul does any zrika, it's not a kasher's zrika. Kamashma lan that if a pasul did his zrika shelo bimkomo, im yeishtama nafshi yachsar kashir bikabul. If that's the case, the gemara said it's muvuar. Different chidush that even though a pasul did his zrika, you could still do another zrika. And the gemara said that's true. Just like the mishna said a pasul that does kabala, you could do another kabala. So to a pasul that does his zrika, you could do another zrika. Again, this is a it's an easy mishna to learn if you're learning mishnayos, but in light of all the gemaras that we've already seen, we know it's a pretty heavy mishna. Regardless, for today, all we need is the first halacha of the mishna. A very straightforward halacha. Kol hapsulim sheshachtu, all psulim that shacht, shritas ksheira. So, although a pasul can't do kabala, halacha, zrika, even haktara, melicha, there's so many avodas that a zar is is not allowed to do, but shrita lav avodei. And as a result, a pasul is allowed to do shrita. But the gemara starts off with a dik. Kol hapsulim sheshachtu, shachtu bi'eved in the katcheila lo. Doesn't shachtu sound like it's only bi'eved? Meaning, it sounds like that the katcheila, if you'd call a rav, you'd ask your local rabbi, "I'm bringing a korban. Should I do the shrita myself or can I have one of my friends that's a zar be mechabed him to do the shrita? Or is there an inyan that likatcheila to have a kohein?" So, from the simple reading of the mishna, it would sound like kol hapsulim sheshachtu shritas ksheira. A zar is a pasul, so it's only bi'eved that a zar is going to be kasher. But the gemara bimino ask you a kasha. It says vishochat in the Torah, vishochat es ben haboker of na'asheh and we learn from there shrita bizar ksheira. Shishrita ksheira bizarim uvinashim uvavodim uvitemeim vaafilu bikodesh kodashim. Our mishna. O einu yalu bikayanem or maybe no. Maybe when it says vishochat es ben haboker of na'asheh, it means kayan. Meaning, it doesn't say zar. Maybe it doesn't say kayan either. So, doesn't mean zar, it doesn't mean kayan. Amrit chimi'ayin pasul. Why would you think it should require a kayan? Because there's another pasuk. Michol she'ne'emar va'ata uvanecha itcha tishmeru es kehunaschem lechol dvar hamizbei'ach. You and your sons, you referring to Aharon, you should be involved in all dvar hamizbei'ach. So, you'd think that shrita, [snorts] which is dvar hamizbei'ach, should also be bikayan. Yochal apishrita Talmud loymar. So, the braisa says no. It says vishochat es ben haboker of na'asheh. That first pasuk that the gemara brought. And then it says vihikrivu the chulu. But if you look at inside, vihikrivu bnei Aharon hakayanem es adam. Vizar gu es adam al hamizbei'ach sovev asher pesach umoyd. We learn from there bikabala ve'eilach mitzvas kehuna. It's only from vihikrivu which we know means kabala. So, it's from from kabala and on that there's a halacha that it has to be done with a kohein. Limid al ashrita sheksheira bechol adam. Balkuponam. So, what do you see from this braisa? Shrita is ksheira bizar. Doesn't sound like it's a bi'eved. It sounds like it's a katcheila. Vishochat, anybody. And then vihikrivu bnei Aharon hakayanem es adam. It's from kabala ve'eilach that you need a kohein. There's no inkling anywhere in this pasuk that maybe likatcheila a kohein is supposed to do shrita. Vakait, vishochat is anybody. And then there's an idea vihikrivu bnei Aharon from kabala and on. That's where it gets serious. That's where you have to make sure that a zar doesn't do it. Sometimes a zar is even chayav misah. So, the avodas, whatever. But but the point is is the mishna's mashma kol hapsulim sheshachtu shritas ksheira. It would seem that it's only dibi'eved. Luchora, from the limud, from the source of how I know shrita ksheira bizar, it sounds like it's a katcheila. So, the gemara says, "What's the answer?" Hu adin dafilu likatcheila nami. The emes is that a zar is allowed to do shrita even katcheila. Shmuel uv'Reish Lakish mitmei'im. But being that the mishna wanted to mention tameim, kol hapsulim, even a tamei, dilikatcheila loy. And there you have possible that atomei l'gatchila can't do sh'chita. Why not? Because of g'zeira shema yigol b'vasar. Like the mishnah said, "V'latzlu yut meim noigim b'vasar." So there certainly atomei l'gatchila shouldn't do it. So tonasha shachtu. So really the lashon b'di'eved of shachtu wasn't said klap b'zara because the zora is allowed to do sh'chita l'gatchila. The whole shachtu b'di'eved that the mishnah used is because one of the p'sulim that the mishnah mentioned was tamei. And atomei takah can't shacht l'gatchila. Why? Also not based on a pasuk. Not based on a limud. It's a g'zeira because the mishnah said already that atomei has to be careful not to touch the basar. Al kol panim, the bottom line is despite the fact that the mishnah says it b'lashon di'eved, it's really l'gatchila. Why? It's based on the drasha. In the drasha it's mashma only mikabel elah k'nei hakoyim. But sh'chita itself there's no din that it needs a koyim. Says the gemara, "Atomei di'eved shacht atomei." Is that true that atomei b'di'eved is allowed to shacht? The mishnah said that. Remiddle I'll ask you a kasha. V'somach v'shachat. The Torah says v'somach yodav al rosho al hanirtzeh l'chaper alav. So one of the shiyurei mitzvah that was done with the korban was the mitzvah of s'micha. Now that pasuk is Vayikra perek alef pasuk dal. Right in the beginning it says the fourth pasuk in sefer Vayikra mentions the mitzvah of s'micha. The fifth pasuk, the very next pasuk is v'shachat es ben bakaro l'fi ha'asham v'hikriv es ben ha'aron. So the gemara darshans the s'michos of v'somach and v'shachat. It says v'somach and it says v'shachat. Mashma d'ha hoyim zok d'braisa just like s'micha had to be done by a tahor. Atomei couldn't do the mitzvah of s'micha. Av sh'chita b'tahorim? So too atomei couldn't do sh'chita. Sounds like atomei can't do sh'chita. The mishnah says atomei could do sh'chita. B'di'eved it's a g'zeira. But at the end of the day atomei could do sh'chita. The braisa says sh'chita dumya d's'micha. And just like s'micha requires a tahor, so too sh'chita requires a tahor. Says the gemara mid'rabbanan. Even though that sounds like a drasha, but v'somach v'shachat it's really not. asmachta. Because really the tomei could do s'micha mid'oraisa. It's only mid'rabbanan that he can't and it's on a d'rabbanan level that we have some sort of hekesh g'zeira shema yigol b'vasar. But it's not a real drasha. The point is is that although in the braisa it would seem that a kohen is really or any person that's tomei is not allowed to do sh'chita because we're makish to the s'micha, it's not a real hekesh. It's only a d'rabbanan. Talk to the gemara. In this braisa, the braisa seemed to presuppose that s'micha is b'tahorim and as a result sh'chita is going to be dumya d's'micha. The gemara had a minute thought it's a a drasha d'oraisa. That's like a real drasha. Sh'chita dumya d's'micha. So s'micha needs tahor, sh'chita also needs tahor. The gemara said no, it's only a mid'rabbanan. But it's poshit somehow in the braisa. The hanacha of the braisa is that s'micha requires a tahor. Sh'chita doesn't require a tahor. If anything we're going to learn sh'chita from s'micha. Says the gemara, "Mishna s'micha." Why would you think that s'micha requires a tahor? Probably to save lifnei Hashem. It says lifnei Hashem in the context of s'micha. What Where does it say lifnei Hashem? V'somach yodav al rosho al hanirtzeh l'chaper alav. That's s'micha. The next pasuk, v'shachat es ben bakaro l'fi ha'asham. So l'chora lifnei Hashem is going back on s'micha. The problem is it's also going back on sh'chita. So l'chora sh'chita nami oksi lifnei Hashem. It's the same lifnei Hashem. It's going back on sh'chita and s'micha. So why was it more poshit to the gemara that s'micha needs to be done by a tahor more than sh'chita? Why would you think s'micha needs to be done by a tahor? Because it says lifnei Hashem. What does lifnei Hashem mean tahor? Because atomei can't go lifnei Hashem. Lifnei Hashem means in the azara. He can't go into the azara. But l'chora if that's the case then sh'chita also it says lifnei Hashem. So just the whole setup of the braisa. We know s'micha there's an issue if you're tomei. Sh'chita I don't know. We'll learn sh'chita from s'micha. How do you know s'micha because it says lifnei Hashem? I know sh'chita sh'chita is the same chiddush that s'micha is. But the gemara says no. Says Rav Ashi in the psak in Aruch Hashulchan. Just because it says that sh'chita has to be lifnei Hashem doesn't necessarily mean the kohen has to be lifnei Hashem. The sh'chita will be lifnei Hashem, the kohen won't be. How so? He's going to use a long knife. If he uses a long knife, he won't be lifnei Hashem. Sh'chita will. So he doesn't necessarily have to be in the azara. S'micha nami, but how long could his hands be, right? But the gemara says no. Ashi d'mayil yodav b'somach. Maybe the kohen has to have long hands. As long as he's right by the azara. So he'll be standing on the outside. The beheima will be on the inside. And the same cheshbon the s'micha will be taking place lifnei Hashem. So the gemara says kasav bi b'miktzas shma biya. It's not going to work. Because being that he's tomei and atomei is not allowed to enter the azara, just like we say atomei can't enter the azara with his entire guf, a biya b'miktzas is also shma biya. So if he's going to stick his hands in or only part of his body, that too will be an issue. And as a result it's not possible for atomei to do s'micha. Because in order to do s'micha at least your hands are going to have to be in the azara. And biya b'miktzas shma biya. It is possible to do sh'chita. Why? Sakin Aruch. But once we have a hekesh between s'micha and sh'chita, so we know that once atomei can't do s'micha, atomei can't do sh'chita. Is it d'oraisa? Is it d'rabbanan? That's the shakta d'oraisa d'gemara. Chiddush d'Masni Chiddush d'Rav Ashi had this braisa v'somach v'shachat but he had it in the reverse. He learned v'somach v'shachat mashma sh'chita b'tahorim mashma s'micha b'tahorim. That being that sh'chita has to be done b'tahorim, so too s'micha has to be done b'tahorim. So the gemara asks the same kasha. Mishna sh'chita why didn't know sh'chita d'iksa lifnei Hashem? S'micha nami iksa lifnei Hashem. It says the same lifnei Hashem by s'micha that it does by sh'chita. So why is sh'chita more of a meyuchas? Why is it more poshit that sh'chita needs to be done by tahor than by s'micha? So the gemara says, "I'll tell you why." Ashi d'mayil yodav b'somach. S'micha even though it says lifnei Hashem there's still an eitza. The eitza is you can always stick your hands in. Biya b'miktzas lo shma biya. But sh'chita nami if that's the case why does the lifnei Hashem of sh'chita mean anything? Ashi d'Rav Ashi in Aruch Hashulchan you can always have a long knife. Rav Ashi holds money. This braisa the way Rav Ashi had the braisa the tan of the braisa was Shimon ben Nassanel. Tanu Rav Ashi had the braisa shachat es ben bakaro l'fi ha'asham v'lo shachat es ben ha'aron. The ben bakaro has to be lifnei Hashem meaning the animal. The sh'chita needs to take place but there's no halacha that the shochet has to be lifnei Hashem. Shimon ben Nassanel holds Rav Ashi holds shochet lifnei Hashem. How do you know that the hands of the shochet has to be exactly with the nishchad is tomei? Boi shachat es ben bakaro lifnei Hashem. Shochet es ben bakaro lifnei Hashem. Meaning Shimon ben Nassanel holds that there's no halacha of sakin Aruch. He holds that the shochet has to be with the nishchad is and just like the nishchad the ben bakaro has to be lifnei Hashem, the shochet has to be lifnei Hashem. So s'micha all you need to do is stick your hands in. And a biya b'miktzas lo shma biya. So you don't know that s'micha needs to be lifnei Hashem. As a result there's no halacha necessarily that atomei can't do s'micha. But sh'chita according to Shimon ben Nassanel the whole shochet needs to be lifnei Hashem. Meaning atomei can't do sh'chita. So Chiddush d'Masni We're not learning sh'chita from s'micha but rather we're learning sh'chita s'micha from sh'chita. So regardless again where are we? So the mishnah discussed kol hap'sulim sheshachtu sh'chitasam k'sheira. And the mishnah gave examples of zarin and tamei. So the first gemara was discussing the zarin. It's mashma a little bit from b'di'eved a zarin is allowed to do sh'chita. From the pasuk it's mashma l'gatchila. So the gemara says no really it's l'gatchila. Why does it say b'di'eved? Because atomei could only do sh'chita b'di'eved. L'gatchila atomei can't do it because we're afraid he may touch the basar. And if he touches the basar even if it wasn't muchshar l'kabalas tumah, chiva sakoidesh is machshir the basar to be makabel tumah. And as a result he's going to be tomei the second he touches it. It's a problem. So the tomei who's kosher to do sh'chita, however mid'rabbanan there's an issue. Thus it's b'di'eved. So we say b'di'eved even for the zarin. I How could you tell me that atomei is allowed to do sh'chita b'di'eved? Doesn't it say v'somach v'shachat? Sh'chita dumya [snorts] d's'micha? The Torah says it does say that. However it's not a real drasha. Meaning there is such a braisa and it seems like the braisa is telling me a din d'oraisa that if s'micha needs to be done by a tahor, sh'chita needs to be done by a tahor. But the gemara says really it's not. It's It's an asmachta this drasha. It's only mid'rabbanan. What's the d'rabbanan? He may touch the basar but it's not a din d'oraisa. The gemara said Rav Ashi had a different girsa in the braisa and what emerged from this discussion in the amora'im is a shaila. Biya b'miktzas shma biya? Or biya b'miktzas lo shma biya? So atomei that's not allowed to enter the azara or certain tamei'im that couldn't enter machaneh Levi'im Yisrael. Anytime atomei is not allowed to enter one of the machanos. What didn't enter with his entire guf? He only entered the miktzas. Is a biya b'miktzas a biya or is it not a biya? So it was mentioned Derech Agav and the gemara is going to segue now into a completely different sugia. A sugia that we'll stop today and we'll go into tomorrow's daf. And that is biya b'miktzas shma biya or biya b'miktzas lo shma biya. Amar Rava amar Reish Lakish tomei shehichnis yado lifnei mikdash. Someone that was tomei that sticks his hand into the makom mikdash into the azara. A place that he's not allowed to go. Even though it was only his hand. He gets malkos. Shenemar b'chol koydesh lo yiga. And we v'lo mikdash lo yavo. Ad m'loisi meita ha'ira. That's the end of the pasuk. Makish biya l'negiya. Meaning the Torah puts these two issurim next to each other. B'chol koydesh lo yiga. He's not allowed to touch koydesh. He's not allowed to enter the Beis Hamikdash. This is of course Tomas Mikdash v'koydesh from Masachet Shavuos fame. You know, comes up a lot. But either way makish l'negiya l'negiya. Man d'negiya b'miktzas shma negiya. Just like negiya b'miktzas shma negiya. If somebody is going to touch koydesh when he's tomei, it's going to be a problem. Even if his entire body doesn't have to touch the koydesh. If he touches it with his finger, he was already over b'chol koydesh lo yiga. So when it comes to v'lo mikdash lo yavo it's the same halacha. If you stick your hand into the Beis Hamikdash, that's enough to be over the aveira. Meaning just like we say biya that's poshit, no one is going to say you have to literally fall on top of the koydesh to be over that aveira. Av biya b'miktzas shma biya. So Ulla's shita is that biya b'miktzas shma biya. Says Rav Ashi Ulla's Rav Ashi has the kasha to Ulla. M'tzora shechol shmini shelo yileis b'Erev Pesach. A m'tzora who is in the process of becom- coming tahor. And it's the eighth day. Today is the day that he is ready to become tahor. The that eighth day fell out on an Erev Pesach. And what happened is v'rak keri by by on that day became a carrier. The total and he told he's a full year for carrier. I'm sorry. I even though ordinarily a full year is not allowed to enter the others. And this one can move to be a because we say the essay of Passover which is an association because it's like the essay of a full year the carrier entering the other. So what's going on over here? So a little bit of a background. Number one, we know that when the unit traveled in the midbar as far as the midbar when the unit traveled in the midbar there were three markers. There was marker of Kahuna, there was marker of Lavilla. Or marker of Israel, marker of Kahuna, marker of Shriner, marker of Lavilla and then there was marker of Israel. When the unit entered Arutz Israel, they had the same three markers. There was marker of Shriner which was the Azara. There was marker of Lavilla which was the Har Habayit. And there was marker of Israel which was the rest of your whole life. A Tomei by definition is a person that will not be allowed to enter markers. Which markers? It depends on what kind of Tomei you are. Every Tomei in the world wasn't allowed to enter marker of Shriner. So it doesn't matter what kind of Tomei you had. If you are someone that the Torah says is Tomei, you were not allowed to enter the Azara. A Tomei can enter the Azara if he enters the Azara even the hell and you did know you did you run into it's highly crucial. It's carbon is on your kid. problem would happen for that. It's a very very big deal. So the bottom line is is that someone that's Tomei, doesn't matter what Tomei you had, you cannot enter the Azara. There were certain Tomei that even couldn't enter marker of Lavilla. The rule of thumb is anyone that's Tomei because of something that is related to something that came from his golf. Like a Zav or a Zova or a Bal Keri or a Nida. So it's a Tomei they couldn't enter marker of Lavilla. There was one Tomei that couldn't even enter marker of Israel. And that of course was the Metsora. Stating that we know that there was a way for someone who was Tomei for his Tomei to become Niklash. Meaning qualitatively becomes a little stronger even though he wasn't completely taught. Had a little bit in the first part. That is a full year and a so for example someone that was a Bal Keri is Tomei for one day. It's not seven days. He doesn't need he doesn't need it's not so complicated. It's very straight forward. All he has to do is go to the mikvah. So what if someone's Bal Keri? He goes to the mikvah at 9:00 in the morning. He's going to be Tomei for the rest of the day. He doesn't become taught until the sun sets. That's when he becomes completely taught. That day he has a dinner with his full year. A full year status and a is unique. Meaning he's still Tomei because until he's still going to be a Tomei. But at the same time his Tomei is somewhat Niklash. And there's nothing in the Torah where his Tomei is Niklash. There were other Tomei that in addition to going to the mikvah and waiting out the amount of time they had to wait. They would also have to bring a carbon at the end of their entire process. Until they brought their carbon even after they went to the mikvah they were Tomei but their Tomei was also a little bit college because now they already went to the mikvah. All they need to do is bring the carbon. That what we know as a a mikvah. The back drop of this Gemara which is actually very straight forward if you have the is we're discussing a Metsora. A Metsora is one of the Tomei that's a mikvah. Meaning he doesn't become taught until he brings a carbon. He waited the seven days that he has to wait. On the eighth day the Torah says bring your carbon and you're going to be good to go. You're Scott free. So right now the Metsora it's his eighth day. All he needs to do is bring a carbon he's going to be good. It just so happens that his eighth day was Arutz Israel is the day that all of Israel brings the carbon Passover. Someone that's Tomei couldn't bring the carbon Passover. He had to be pushed off the Passover so this person on his eighth day is ready to bring the carbon Passover but he first is a meaning he first has to bring the carbon. He needs the that he's going to need from the Metsora. Now it's really not an issue because first you'll bring your carbon from the Metsora. Afterwards somebody will bring the carbon Passover on your behalf. At night you'll be 100% taught for sure. There's no issues. You'll be able to sit down and eat from the carbon Passover. The problem is on that day he became a Bal Keri. And being that he became a Bal Keri even after he told assuming he went to the mikvah he was still at full year the carrier. And full year the carrier creates a major wrinkle in this person's time process. The reason is is because one of the things that the Metsora needed when he brought his carbon in order for the carbon to be for him is he would have to stand by the Azara. He would have to put his hands and his head into the Azara and the would take from the dam and he would put it on his body and whatever the whatever the process was but it involved entering the Azara. Now a Metsora is allowed to do what he needs to do. The Torah said he's allowed to do it. The problem is that now that he's also a full year the carrier and a Bal Keri is not allowed to enter marker of Azara, marker of Lavilla let alone the Azara. So how in the world is he going to become taught? So we have a major issue over here. He himself can be taught. The Torah says he's allowed to be taught but the problem is now he also has another issue. His issue is Bal Keri. So the fact that he's also Bal Keri even at full year the carrier is getting in the way of him becoming taught. So it's on that note let's see it again. So the Metsora is better with Passover. A Metsora whose eighth day of Torah fell out on an herb Passover and he became a Bal Keri. The total and he went to the mikvah. He's a full year the carrier. I'm sorry. I even though ordinarily a full year is not allowed to go onto the Har Habayit there's no way really of becoming taught because you have to make it to the mikvah. And so now we need to know where the Metsora stand. It's important for the Gemara. Where did the Metsora stand? There was a place that was called Shaar Niknor. Shaar Niknor was a Shaar. It was one of the entrance ways into the Azara. It was because but it was right by the Azara. So he would stand by marker of Lavilla and he would stick whatever needed to be stuck into the Azara by standing in that place. The problem is a full year the carrier can't go to Shaar Niknor because a full year is a Tomei. The Tomei was as a result he's not even allowed to be in Shaar Niknor. But says the I'm even though ordinarily a full year is not allowed to go to Shaar Niknor because a full year is not entering the Azara not entering marker of Lavilla is only a because Passover is because if he doesn't go and make himself taught he won't be able to bring the carbon Passover. As a result there's a there's no issues at all. You don't have to come into it because being because even though it's true a Bal Keri is not allowed to enter marker of Lavilla but this person is not an ordinary Bal Keri. He's a full year the carrier. And a full year the carrier is allowed to enter marker of Lavilla. My but a full year you can't enter marker of Lavilla and you see from here that it's only that a full year is not allowed to enter marker of Lavilla. I'm sorry. A full year you can't enter marker of Lavilla but the bottom line is is that even though ordinarily this Metsora shouldn't be able to enter marker of Lavilla. Why not? Because he's a full year. A full year the carrier. A full year the carrier is not allowed to enter marker of Lavilla. This one could because what's at stake is carbon Passover. That's an because and the fact that the Gemara is going to tell me if you're going to tell me that so when this full year the carrier is going to go now and go through the process of Metsora he's doing two things. Number one he's entering marker of Lavilla. He's also entering marker of Shriner. How is he entering marker of Shriner when he sticks his hands into the Azara? Now this going to marker of Lavilla for a comic to be a marker of Lavilla is only and it's so we could say you have the essay of Passover because the essay of full year so what you can't enter which is because but if he's entering the Azara, entering the Azara even at full year is because so if you're going to tell me that means when this full year the carrier goes through the Metsora process he's going to be entering the Azara. Even though both so that was you want to tell me if that means that anytime a person sticks his hand into the Azara it's as if he's good. That means a full year the carrier if he would theoretically stick his hands into the Azara he would be so how could a Metsora who's also a full year the carrier stick his hands into the Azara? Because it's true that full year entering marker of Lavilla is because but sticking his hands into the Azara is so he never entered the Azara. All he did was he went to marker of Lavilla. That's because but if he enters marker of Lavilla and he's entering marker of Shriner. Entering marker of Shriner is because so how do you have it? He told him back a major a Torah that comes up very prominently in the beginning of a Torah that we're going to talk more about tomorrow. Just the line he said let me ask you a question. Is a Metsora allowed to stick his hands into the Azara? The Torah says yeah. How could he? He's also Tomei. He didn't bring his carbon yet. He's a meaning he doesn't have Torah until he does it. So how could he stick his hands in? You have to say the Torah was that even though and ordinarily a Tomei shouldn't be able to stick even his hands into the Azara but the Torah said it's okay. So once the Torah said it's okay for this person and the fact that he has Tomei Metsora doesn't get in the way. So too the fact that he's a full year the carrier won't get in the way as well. It's what we know as higher than history, history. Being that the Torah was matter, the beer of the mitzvahs for the mitzrayim, the Torah was matter the beer of mitzvahs to really beer of mitzvahs small beer. I how is it matter? What do you mean how is it matter? How is it matter for the mitzrayim to do it? I don't mind the Torah said it's matter for the mitzrayim. So the fact that you're also at full Yom Tov to carry, that shouldn't bother me. It's based on a svara of higher than history, history excel. So just a little bit of rate. So this morning stuff really discussed two sugias. It discussed the halacha of shchita ksheira b'zar, which is the halacha of shchita l'avodah. And it discussed the halacha of beer of mitzvahs small beer. So we'll talk today about the first sugia, which is the sugia of shchita ksheira b'zar as it's very, very pertinent in general to the to the sugias over here in masachtas zevachim. So just a few hours. Number one. There's a Zohar Hakodesh. Didn't bring the nusach with me, but there's a Zohar that says that a kohen not only does he not have to do shchita, but a kohen is actually not allowed to do shchita. The lashon of the Zohar is that the shochet acharon v'lo kehuna. It has to be somebody else. It's not allowed to be a kohen. As I stated in the Zohar. All the acharonim, everybody quotes the Zohar. The Zohar says acharon v'lo kehuna. Meaning shchita ksheira b'zar sounds hava amina that maybe it's only by the end. And so it stayed from the kashya. And so it stayed dafka a zar was supposed to do the shchita. A kohen was not supposed to do the shchita. Acharon v'lo kehuna. The M.S. it's a pelah. Because as you we go through zevachim, we're going to see there's many instances and many situations where kohanim did shchita. So l'chora at first glance divrei haZohar Hakodesh tzarich iyun gadol. The cheshik Hakohain miVilna in his cheshik in masachtas menachos daf yud tes amud aleph asks this kashya. And he says a beer nifla in the Zohar. He says the Zohar does not mean what people think it means. People think the Zohar is trying to say acharon v'lo kehuna that a kohen is not allowed to do the shchita. Of course a kohen is allowed to do shchita. There's so many stories in gemaras where kohanim did shchita. What it means is that in the event that a kohen is going to do shchita, he's not allowed to wear his bigdei kehuna. He could do shchita, but not as a kohen. He has to do the shchita as if he would be an acharon. Why? He says based on the Rambam's shita. Because we know that a kohen had to wear bigdei kehuna. If a kohen does the avodah in the machutz of the garden, it's a very big problem. He had to wear bigdei One of the bigdei kehuna was the avnet. The avnet was made out of shaatnez. The Rambam says that being that the avnet was made out of shaatnez, it's for that reason if a kohen would wear the bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah, he'll be chayav malkos because he's being over the issur malkos sh'lo b'shaas avodah. B'shaas avodah, if you do b'shaas avodah, the avodah is doche the issur kilayim. But if you're going to wear it sh'lo b'shaas avodah, so now it's going to come out you have a problem. Zog the cheshik shchita l'avodah. So shchita l'avodah. So it comes out that if a kohen is going to go do the shchita, he's not doing the avodah because shchita l'avodah. So he has no right to wear the to wear the bigdei kehuna because he's going to be over the issur shaatnez sh'lo b'malkos mitzvah. Zog the cheshik that's what the Zohar is saying. You know what the Zohar is saying? The Rambam's shita. That's the Zohar. The Zohar is saying really two things. Shchita l'avodah. And that you can't wear the bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah. As a result, could a kohen DO THE AVODAH? YOU'RE GOING to bring me a raya from somewhere that a kohen did shchita. A kohen is allowed to do shchita. But a kohen has to do it as an acharon. He can't do it as a kohen because if he's going to do it as a a kohen, meaning he's going to wear his bigdei kehuna, it's going to come out that he's wearing his bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah. So why is this so gevaldik? Because we spoke already a few weeks ago, that kedai l'chazer b'kitzur nemerot. And that is is that we spoke out a kashya from the Chasam Sofer, the Malbim by the way asks this kashya as well. Others ask the kashya. It's a a real charifusdig kashya. And that is the gemara says in masachtas zevachim daf lamed aleph amud beis that after Chana brought Shmuel to Eli Hakohain, almost immediately sh sh Eli said that Shmuel is chayav misah. Chana says Shmuel is chayav misah? What do you do? Say he's a moreh halacha bifnei rabbo. What was the rest of the story? The rest of the story is is that Shmuel, he's a little boy, he comes to the makom hamikdash and he sees that the oved was looking for a kohen. He says why are you looking for a kohen? He says we need to shacht an animal and we need a kohen to do the shchita. So Shmuel said what's the big deal? Shchita ksheira b'zar. He said I hear, but I don't know anything about that. So they bring Shmuel to Eli and Shmuel tells Eli shchita ksheira b'zar. Eli says how do you know shchita ksheira b'zar? He quotes this gemara in zevachim amud beis and Eli says I hear you're right. The problem is you're a moreh halacha bifnei rabbo. Moreh halacha bifnei rabbo is chayav misah. Chana says al na'arazel balati v'chulu v'chulu. Very interesting soif in Yoreh De'ah siman sameach tes. Because I don't gemara says in Eruvin daf sameach gimel that even though talmid chacham is not allowed to be moreh halacha bifnei rabbo, but lafrush me'issura he is allowed to be moreh halacha bifnei rabbo. That's the case, but that's Eli that shchita was an avodah. A kohen was going to do the shchita, he was going to wear the bigdei kehuna. B'fi emes, shchita l'avodah. Which means it's ksheira b'zar. Which means that even if a kohen does it, it's not an avodah. He's not allowed to wear the bigdei kehuna. If that's the case, he was being mafresh Eli me'issura. Which issur? Me'issur kilayim. So why was he a moreh halacha bifnei it was lafrush me'issura me'issur kilayim. As I freighted Chasam Sofer a kashya. It's a gevaldik kashya. So we spoke already from the Rogatchover Gaon and from other gedolei Yisrael that said gevaldik chiddush. And that is that even though it's true the gemara says that shchita ksheira b'zar and shchita l'avodah, is only if a zar is the one that's doing the shchita. So if a zar is the one that's doing the shchita, shchita l'avodah. But in the event that a kohen does the shchita, in that case the shchita is going to be an avodah. Spoke at a de'ik from Rashi in masachtas zevachim daf lamed gimel amud beis that says that even though shchita is ksheira b'zar, a zar wouldn't be able to do shchita on Shabbos. So even though we know that a kohen was allowed to do shchita on Shabbos, a zar not. What's the because when a kohen does it, it's avodah. Avodah is doche Shabbos. But when a zar does it, it's not avodah. And as a result, it's avodah. You have no way to be doche Shabbos. But the bottom line is it's cholik when a zar does shchita versus when a kohen does shchita. When a zar does shchita, it's true shchita l'avodah. But when a kohen does shchita, then already the shchita is going to be an avodah. Al k'ponim, what was the yesod? The yesod of the of the Rogatchover Gaon and others that it's true shchita l'avodah. But that's only when a zar does it. When a kohen does it, it is an avodah. And that's why kohen is allowed to wear the bigdei kehuna. And that's why Shmuel was a moreh halacha bifnei rabbo because l'daas Eli that the shchita was going to be done with a kohen, the kohen wasn't going to be wearing bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah. Because to the extent that a kohen is doing the shchita, it's b'shaas avodah. Zog the cheshik Cheshik is saying not to worry. Cheshik is learning up the Zohar. That when the Zohar says acharon v'lo kehuna, what does it mean? Doesn't mean a kohen can't do shchita. There's many gemaras that kohanim did shchita. What it means is that when a kohen does it, he does it b'teirus acharon. He does it machutz of the garden. He doesn't have his manship bigdei malachim kunas malachim. Thus he's like a an ordinary person. He's a pedestrian. He's an acharon. Why is he an acharon? The reason he's an acharon is not wearing his bigdei kehuna. Why? Because shchita l'avodah. What do you mean? I thought when the kohen does it, then it is an avodah. So cheshik clearly nem don not like the Rogatchover Gaon a shmak a shaila. The Zohar, the Chasam Sofer's kashya from the Rebbe. But the bottom line is this is the shaila. Shchita l'avodah shchita ksheira b'zar. What's the makor? Und so weiter. Gemara says in daf yud aleph amud beis, but really this is where it starts. Lamed aleph amud beis, lamed beis amud aleph. That's the sugia we LEARNED THIS MORNING. WHAT IF A KOHEN did the shchita? Is it avodah or is it not avodah? So we have the Rebbe from two weeks ago, we have the Rebbe from this morning coming together but may'inyan l'inyan b'oiser inyan. A govern if all. That is So we mentioned the Rambam's shita. The Rambam holds that a kohen was not allowed to wear the bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah. The Rebbe argues. The Rebbe argues. Where is this Rambam writing? So you'd expect it to be in hilchos kli hamikdash, hilchos bias hamikdash, maaseh korbanos, psulei hamikdash, and no. It's actually in hilchos kilayim. It's the last sif katan hilchos kilayim. So you have to pull out not the Rambam avodah, you need a Rambam sh'lo to find this. Either way, so it's the very last halacha halacha lamed beis amud beis of the Rambam. Kohanim sh'lo lavshu bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah. Kohanim that wear the bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah even in the mikdash. Even if they're in the bias hamikdash, doesn't matter. Like it, they get malkos. Why? Mipnei ha'avnet. Sha hu kilayim. Because the kohanim, if they're wearing the bigdei kehuna, they're wearing obviously wearing the avnet. And the avnet is kilayim. But like chutz umayo b'shaas avodah, she he mitzvas asei k'mayas tzitzis. So b'shaas avodah, where you're doing a mitzvas asei k'mayas tzitzis, over this has the Rambam you have the treif. Tzitzis is doche shaatnez. That's the makor that the Rebbe said to say. So you have that with regards to the bigdei kehuna as well. But it has to be b'shaas avodah. The avodah is the But if it's sh'lo b'shaas avodah, over there it's not going to be okay. Zog the Rebbe two horas on the Rambam. Number one, amar Rav Nachman Tova b'zei. The Rambam is wrong. Shari. Amar Rav Nachman perek bo lei kohen gadol amud aleph b'mikdash af ilu sh'lo b'shaas avodah mutar. So number one, the Rebbe argues with the Rambam. The Rebbe held that it's mutar for a kohen to wear the bigdei kehuna af ilu sh'lo b'shaas avodah. However, number two, and that's the hora'ah that we need now. Mai d'kamar nami mipneiha avnet hu sha kilayim? This that the Rambam said that the reason a kohen wasn't allowed to wear the bigdei kehuna sh'lo b'shaas avodah is because of the avnet. O tu choshen v'eifod me'il hu kilayim? Ad kan lashon haRebbe. Only the avnet had kilayim? That means machlokes in the gemara whether the avnet had kilayim or didn't have kilayim. It's a machlokes tanoh. Tanna is the Rebbe. good. Say better. O tu choshen v'eifod me'il hu kilayim? The choshen and the eifod that the kohen gadol wore certainly had kilayim. Well, what did the choshen and eifod have? It had treilos, blue wool, argamon, purple wool, I think, right? So you have all these t'lashauni. So you have all these different wools and then you had sheish. What's sheish? Linen. And it was mussar, it was t'drai, it was t'mish, it was all together. This is kilayim 101. It's shaatnez 101. So tanna is the Rebbe. Why did the Rambam have to fly to one man d'amar that holds that the avnet was kilayim? Not even everyone agrees with that. The Rambam have mentioned, says the Raavad, the Choshen and the Ephod. So, Dr. Beis HaLevi, a dovor nifla. You know why the Rambam didn't mention the Choshen and the Ephod? Because the Choshen and the Ephod are only nigaye the Kohen Gadol. It's not nigaye a Kohen Hediyot. And the emes says, says the Beis HaLevi, I think that the Rambam held that it's only a Kohen Hediyot sh'lo b'shas avodah that gets malkus for wearing his bigdei kehunah. But a Kohen Gadol is allowed to wear the bigdei kehunah afilu sh'lo b'shas avodah. And the Beis HaLevi says, "Chabad dir kena Rambam." This Rambam's not in Hilchos Keilim. This Rambam's in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash. It's perek ches, halachah yud alef. Bigdei kehunah, says the Rambam, mutar lehanicham bohem. Yeled avinu from bigdei kehunah. Afilu sh'lo b'shas avodah. You can wear it even sh'lo b'shas avodah. Huh? Chutz min ha'avnet. Mipnei shehu shaatnez, says the Rambam. Of course, that's very important. Yeah, you got to read the the fine print. With the exception of the avnei ha'avnet, you certainly not came with the gartel. Everything but the gartel. Says the Rambam, also the Kohen Hediyot lo yeishai ela b'shas avodah. Cuz the avnet, the Kohen Hediyot is not allowed to wear only if it's b'shas avodah. Okay. Bigdei kehunah, mutar lehanicham bohem. V'afikach loveish osam b'yemei ha'avodah. Afilu sh'lo b'shas avodah. Chutz min ha'avnet. Mipnei shehu shaatnez, asur leKohen Hediyot lo yeishai ela b'shas avodah. Like the Beis HaLevi, asur leKohen Hediyot. What, and the Kohen Gadol is allowed to wear shaatnez? Kohen Gadol has the same issue. He's not holier than thou. He's not above the law. Kohen Gadol is not allowed to wear shaatnez even if it's sh'lo b'shas avodah. So, why did the Rambam say asur leKohen Hediyot? Asur leKohen. It doesn't matter if you're a Kohen Hediyot or if you're a Kohen Gadol. Zogt the Beis HaLevi, it's mevor clearly in this Rambam that the Rambam held that this issur to wear the bigdei kehunah sh'lo b'shas avodah is only an issur for the Kohen Hediyot. It's not an issur. It's meforash in the Rambam. Mipnei shehu shaatnez, asur leKohen Hediyot. Why is there no problem with the Kohen Gadol? And that's shayin in the Rambam perek yud, halachah lamed beis in Hilchos Keilim. That's where the Rambam when he talks about not wearing bigdei kehunah sh'lo b'shas avodah, just mentions the avnet. Right, the Raavad asur the Choshen and the Ephod. We learned in last week's kol ha'ayin. Yeah, this Keilim. The Kohen Hediyot didn't wear. And the issur to wear the bigdei kehunah sh'lo b'shas avodah is an issur that's asur karkafta degave deKohen Hediyot. It's not an issur on the Kohen Gadol. But the question is why? What's the cheilek between a Kohen Hediyot and a Kohen Gadol? Says the Beis HaLevi, dovor nifla. Cuz we know that there were many korbanos that were problematic. Nitma hadam, nitma basar. That the halachah was that the tzitz was merutza. Meaning, if the Kohen Gadol was wearing the tzitz at the time that the tumas hadam took place, and then this reikas hadam happened b'shogeig, for example, so the halachah is that even though you can't do zrikah on dam that's tamei, I'm just giving you one example, the halachah is the tzitz would be merutza. Another example, which is a segue into tomorrow's daf, is this a shailah tzitz? Tumas chutz shel betzibur, tumas tzibur one of the nafka minas is tumas tzibur works together with the tzitz. Meaning, THE KOHEN GADOL, WHEN HE WORE HIS TZITZ, it created ritzuy in korbanos. There were many korbanos that were posul that ordinarily would be major, major problems, but being that the Kohen Gadol was wearing the tzitz, the Torah says that the tzitz had a koach to be mechaper and had a koach to be merutza. Somehow, it made us be able to look away from certain issues with korbanos. It contributed tremendously to kaparah. That means every time the Kohen Gadol was wearing his shmonah begadim, he's doing avodah. You know what avodah he's doing? THE TZITZ MERUTZA, WHICH HAS AN unbelievable ability to be merutza korbanos. So, Dr. Beis HaLevi, then when it comes to the Kohen Gadol, there's no such thing as sh'lo b'shas avodah. A Kohen Hediyot, if he's b'cheftza doing the avodah, it's b'shas avodah. If he's not b'cheftza doing the avodah, it's not b'shas avodah. As a result, says the Rambam, lo yeishai ela b'shas avodah. She mitzvas asei k'mayatzis. So, if he's doing the avodah, then you have a tzitz. But if he's not doing the avodah, he doesn't have the tzitz. The Kohen Gadol, AFILU SH'LO B'SHAS AVODAH IS b'shas avodah. Because the Kohen Gadol, when he's wearing his shmonah begadim, one of which was the tzitz, over there the tzitz was merutza on any tumah that's going to take place, which the Beis HALEVI SAYS IS AVODAH. BECAUSE THINK ABOUT WHAT IT'S DOING, what it's contributing to the ritzuy. What's avodah? Contribute it to ritzuy ritzuy. The tzitz, when it was oideh al metzach shel Kohen Gadol, was merutza. So, if it was merutza, it's always b'shas avodah. If it's always b'shas avodah, there's no such thing as sh'lo b'shas avodah. That's why the Rambam only mentioned the avnet in Hilchos Keilim. And that's where the Rambam in Hilchos Sheini HaZmanim said chutz min ha'avnet mipnei shehu shaatnez, asur leKohen Hediyot. Cuz as opposed to the Kohen Gadol, this is actually not going to be an issue. I should have gave it in Yevamos 90. It comes out then that even according to the Cheishek and others, that in the Chasam Sofer, who was clearly assuming this in his question as well, that the Kohen Hediyot was not allowed to wear his bigdei kehunah b'shas shchitah. That was only the Kohen Hediyot. So, a Kohen Hediyot has this issur. He's not allowed to wear bigdei kehunah sh'lo b'shas avodah. And being that shchitah lav avodah, therefore, the way the Cheishek understood the Zohar Hakadosh, such is going to come out of Kohen wasn't allowed to wear his bigdei kehunah b'shas shchitah. But the Kohen Gadol, if he wanted to wear the shmonah begadim b'shas shchitah, he could. Cuz Kohen Gadol was always allowed to wear shmonah begadim. Whether he's doing shchitah, whether he's not doing shchitah, whether he's doing kabalah, whether he's just doing anything, because oideh al metzach merutza, there's always going to be a ritzuy. Just to end with one lighter note. Not that this was so heavy, but just one lighter note, and that is the Chasam Sofer in the teshuvah, it's in Yoreh De'ah siman reish tzadik dalet. He's discussing doing pidyon haben al yedei shliach. So, apparently, even though maybe you could do pidyon haben al yedei shliach, that's his discussion, but clearly minhag Yisrael is not to do pidyon haben al yedei shliach. So, at the very end of the teshuvah, and it's printed in many of the Chasam Sofer's al haTorah, if you have the Or HaChaim HaSofer, it's in So, the Chasam Sofer over there says as follows. He says that we know that one of the four sons is the tam. So, all the boys have questions. What's he asking about? He's asking about the halachah of bechor. So, the son, the tam, is going to ask You know why we have a concept of kedushas bechor? Because the last of the ten makos was makas bechoros. And Hashem came and he killed every bechor in Mitzrayim. Mi bechor adam bechor beheima. Al kein ani zoveiach Hashem. Therefore, I'm bringing as a korban kol peter rechem asarim v'chol bechor bonai yafter. Zogt der Chasam Sofer, yeish l'dakteik lashon ani zoveiach. Al kein ani zoveiach Hashem. Yeish l'dakteik this lashon al kein ani zoveiach. Listen to the Chasam Sofer. The minhag Yisrael was, back in the day when there was real kedushas bechor, so a person that had a bechor had to be brought as a korban. The ba'al habechor, the owner of the animal, he would shecht the animal by himself. Cuz really shchitah ksheirah b'zar. The ba'al sh'shalah beis and that was the question of the ba'al. So, this tam as nishta za tam. You know what his question is? Ma zois? Ma nishnah that you're doing it v'lo al yedei shliach? V'rov pa'amim, because most shchitahs, says the Chasam Sofer, are k'yanam sofer. V'lo Yisraelim. So, says the the Chasam Sofer, historically, most shchitahs were done al yedei kohanim. Ordinarily, if a person was bringing an oilah, a todah, a chatas, an asham, the Kohen would do it, even though shchitah ksheirah b'zar. But the bechor of minhag Yisrael always was that the ba'al habechor, he would go and he would do it by himself. And that was the tam's question. Ma zois? Why are you doing it by yourself? Meishavav, you know what the father's answer is? Vayikak sh'par l'shulchanu. Vayar Hashem es kol bechor. And we learn from there Hashem b'atzmo, ani v'lo shliach. Al kein, being that Hakadosh Baruch Hu did makas bechoros by himself, it was ani v'lo shliach, therefore, ani zoveiach v'lo al yedei shliach. And therefore, bechor ani after b'atzmi, v'lo al yedei shliach. He says, ad kan b'chidushai Torah shel haChasam Sofer. Says, "This is what I wrote in my chidushim in Torah." Either way, shchitah ksheirah b'zar. This is the Zohar Hakadosh that says it should be davka with the Zohar. Al gam ari even had a hava minah that maybe a zar is a kaf cheila. The Cheishek which ties into the Rogatchover and all that way. But an interesting Chasam Sofer, Chasam Sofer says that the minhag Yisrael was that al pi rov kohanim were the ones that did the shchitah. Bechor was different. Why was bechor different? Because Klal Yisrael always felt that when it came to makas bechoros, Hakadosh Baruch Hu did it himself. Vayar Hashem kol bechor. It was ani v'lo shliach. So, therefore, we give back Hashem. What do we say? Al kein ani zoveiach ani v'lo shliach.