Zevachim 48

Today's daf is walking daf mem ches and we are at the top line of daf mem ches on the yesterday we began the fifth perek of the mas perek a mikoyan discusses some of the details of how and where and when carbonus were brought in the mission began mikoyan kache kodashin shkitas and the kache kodashin the shkita and the carbon as the Gamara said has to be in the soften part of the azara. Then the mission began discussing specific types of kache kodashin parvis yamakipurin and then at the end of the mission the mission discussed the ear manis in other words the mission began with a type of kache kodashin the carbon specifically the sapnemia is the five kache says the Gamara soften by the halacha soften the Torah does not mention by the carbon rather the Torah mentions by the carbon and if that's the case this wouldn't it make sense for the Torah to first mention the carbon the that mentions soften is in perek pasuk the soften the so we're talking about the carbon that's the first carbon mentioned in the Torah and it says the so being that the carbon so being that the carbon that the Torah mentions the halacha of soften by is the everything else is going to be learned out from the so it would seem logical that if you going to begin perek with the halacha of soften you should start with the carbon so it says the Gamara why did the Torah begin or why did the mission begin with the carbon so because you find this idea in that being that it's so it the carbon oil soften it's a hidush that the needs soften. It's learned out from a drasha from oil. So the time has a that I did a needs soften. Therefore you started with something that was with him which is the carbon. Let it say the operation cuz we're going to see in the second part of the daf the is going to bring all the that you know that is like an oil and just like oil needs soften also needs soften. But those are all by the operation. We'll see. But if the that needs soften is by the operation then even if you want to start with the start with the operation. So the says I did the done on the operation there's a certain for the operation specifically for the part of the because it's done with the operation a little less so for the part of the and the part of the because it's done also with the operation. It was in the do even on the again there's a of the time it wants to begin this conversation with something that's with him. It's more for him to talk about the than it is the because the before it is actually and it's more for him to talk about the operation cuz it's done with the operation. Bottom line is is that soften applies not just to the it applies to all the marker to it is the carbon oil stating that we begin with the carbon as the it's a point Okay so what's the marker? What is this that it says by oil that teaches me the soften? Says the it says the and that's clearly talking about the carbon oil. And from there we learn that every carbon oil needs to be says the truth isn't really in order to fully appreciate this morning's daf you have to be familiar with the so we don't have the time to get too familiar with it right now, but the first carbon that the Torah talks about is the carbon oil line. The Torah says that if a person chooses to bring a carbon oil law, it could be min haboker or min hatzohar. And then the Torah describes what the korban should be like if it's min haboker. Then the Torah describes what the korban should be like if it's min hatzohar. The in min hatzohar carbona, it's when the Torah is describing the carbon oil that's brought min hatzohar that the Torah says v'shochat oso al yerech hamizbe'ach tzafonah. In other words, we have a more foolish pasuk in the Torah, this pasuk that the Gemara just brought, v'shochat oso yerech hamizbe'ach tzafonah lifnei Hashem to tell me that an oil needs tzafon, but if you look at the psukim, if you just madriach sedra, Chumash Rashi, you'll see that that pasuk is describing an oil that's brought min hatzohar. The Torah never said that an oil that's brought min haboker also has to be bitzafon. So says the Gemara achrei chabernu kolan al hamikra, it says v'in min hatzohar. There's two parshas true regarding the oil. There's the oil that's min haboker, there's the oil that's min hatzohar, but the parsha that begins the in min hatzohar starts with a vav. It doesn't say in min hatzohar as if it's a new parsha, it's v'in min hatzohar. The vav is most valuable in the original Gemara and achronim, and we learn something that it says in the parsha of in min hatzohar into the parsha that it says in min haboker. So just like in min hatzohar, there's a law of tzafon as the pasuk just quoted, v'shochat oso yerech hamizbe'ach, so too when it comes to in parsha of min haboker, you're going to have the same law as well. But the Gemara says elo madim elo madim elo madim ayikra that's what according to the madim that holds that you can use a vav to be mechaber two parshas and learn a law from one parsha to another parsha. So again, we're learning the din tzafon that it says in the parsha of the in min hatzohar to the parsha of the in min haboker. But according to the madim that holds elo madim ayikra the Tanya, who's this madim amar? So So, is now going to jump and bring a brice of Machlokes of Rebbe Akiva and the Chachamim regarding something unrelated. It's kasham, but it's unrelated to the halacha of kashrus of kodashim shchitasam b'tzofan. The Gemara's going to bring this brice because it thinks that in that brice, there's a Machlokes whether we darshan the vav or don't darshan the vav. That's the support to this kasha. Oh, nicha Manda Amar d'Mayda. Elo Manda Amar d'Mayda Amar d'Mayda. Who's the Manda Amar that holds the Mayda? Who's the Manda Amar that holds Ayla Mayda? The Gemara thinks it's this brice. This brice is going to take us to the bottom of the yama. So, we just started the daf and we're going to digress now literally for a half a daf, for an entire amud, at the end of the Gemara it's not even going to have such a Manda Amar. The Gemara is going to say that Machlokes of Rebbe Akiva and the Chachamim has nothing to do with whether we darshan the vav or we don't darshan the vav. But for now, we have a digression. So, again, nicha Manda Amar d'Mayda. That's all good if you darshan the vav. Elo Manda Amar d'Mayda Amar d'Mayda. The Tanna is going to bring the brice. It says, "The im nefesh l'chayev al safek eivoys asham taluy." So, the context of this Machlokes of Rebbe Akiva and the Chachamim is the halacha of the korban asham. So, we know there were five people that brought a korban asham. The Torah goes through in the end of parshas Vayikra who exactly it is that has to bring this this korban asham. The Torah is specifically talking about the asham mi'eivoys and then the asham taluy. The asham mi'eivoys was brought by somebody that was moel b'hekteish b'shogeg. Asham taluy was brought if somebody had a safek whether he didn't aveira b'shogeg she'lo yoda l'chores. In other words, if you have a safek if you have to bring a korban chatas, somebody eats chelev b'shogeg, he has to bring a korban chatas. If someone has a safek if he ate chelev b'shogeg, he used to bring an asham taluy. Taluy because it was taluy min ha'issurim. And then later, if you ever found out for sure whether you ate the korban chatas the chelev, you now have a chiyuv to bring the the korban chatas. So, the asham taluy it suspended any potential recourse that was going to come about from what took place. But the Torah writes these two parshas in succession. You have first the parsha of the asham mi'eivoys, then you have the partial of the and when the mentions the right after the Torah mentions the partial of the it starts with a love the and that's the partial of the to the says the why did the do that says you know why the teach me if somebody has a whether he was the egg That is he brings a that's really very big cuz ordinarily when do you bring if you have a if you did something says if you have a then you bring if somebody would be amazing he wouldn't be honest which means if somebody is but he doesn't bring a so if somebody has a if he was but he shouldn't have to bring so the fact that there's an told me by is a says I understand but it says the is the partial of to the partial of the of the of the how many how many of the my if you what's the matter with my aim of the this is why we're bringing this isn't the what do you you don't have to give it to the don't wrap up with the maybe everybody agrees with the kind of time that you want to know why the hold that there's no partial of the by cuz America the place the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the only time you ever have is what the man on the street thinks it's when you're over a so if you're over a of the of the of the it's then that you have the means that they don't hold of the they do hold of the but whatever that which the says is the that teaches me that asham talui applies only when chatas applies. It applies only for davar she done b'korban, that overrides the vav. So if it overrides the vav, it's not that they don't hold of the vav, they do hold of the vav. Says the Gemara b'Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Akiva agrees that there's a g'zeirah shavah, but Rebbi Akiva doesn't use the g'zeirah shavah to override the vav. Why not? Cuz mah al hamakom af kamakom. He uses the g'zeirah shavah between the word mitzvos that it says by asham talui and the word mitzvos that it says in the parsha of chatas to teach me a different halacha. To teach me that the only time you bring an asham talui is if you have a safek davar she done b'korban that had you done b'shogeg you would have brought a chatas kavui. Lafukei chatas of tumas mikdash v'kodashim of the olah v'yored. If the chatas that you would have brought had you known for sure that you did the aveirah b'shogeg would have been an olah v'yored, then if you have a safek if you did that aveirah, then you don't bring an olah v'yored. So they Rebbi Akiva also acknowledges that there's a g'zeirah shavah, and he understands conceptually at this point that g'zeirah shavah could override the vav. But he holds g'zeirah shavah is not teaching me lafukei me'ilah. The g'zeirah shavah is teaching me lafukei korban olah v'yored. Rabbanan and g'zeirah shavah d'maksa. The Rabbanan say once you have g'zeirah shavah you have g'zeirah shavah. Meaning if the g'zeirah shavah between the parsha of asham talui and the parsha of chatas is a real g'zeirah shavah, then just like you use it to tell me dafka chatas kavui cuz that's where it says mitzvos by chatas, it also teaches me dafka davar she done b'korban cuz every chatas is only by a davar she done b'korban, as opposed to a korban olah v'yored. But also as opposed to me'ilah. Rebbi Akiva thinks the Gemara good ta'ana. Nami eng'zeirah shavah d'maksa. So the Gemara says enochi nami, you're right. Rebbi Akiva must acknowledge it. Bach v'chakamim ask so what does Rebbi Akiva hold? Rebbi Akiva sova v'im nefesh se'evah me'isef al inyan rishon. Must be Rebbi Akiva holds of the vav. But the Gemara says Rabbanan nami oksi v'im nefesh. Rabbanan also seem to hold of the vav. Leima Rebbi Bach v'chakamim if you like, maybe this is the machlokes. The Gemara is just working this out. The mar sova a o dif, u'mar sova gezeirah shavah. If the says the Gemara, should we walk away from this machlokes saying that everybody may be hold to the vav like the Gemara suggesting right now. Meaning nobody disagrees that there's a concept of of a vav mosif. And vav can be makish to parshiyos and we can learn out halachos one from the other. As it relates to our sugiyah, we're going to come back to it soon with sofen. Everybody holds to the vav. Here the reason there's a machlokes with Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan where where do we connect the parsha of asham me'ilos and the parsha of asham talui is because over here in addition to the vav there's also a gezeirah shavah. And ordinarily a gezeirah shavah is machlokes. So the gezeirah shavah should teach me that the only time there's an ailah of a year is dumiya dechatas which means it has to be a dovash dumiya dechoras as opposed to the parsha of the me'ilah. Now, the Rabbanan hold to the gezeirah shavah and Rebbi Akiva doesn't hold to the gezeirah shavah. It's not because they're arguing conceptually whether there's something called gezeirah shavah. Everyone knows something called gezeirah shavah. It's not because they're arguing conceptually whether there's something called vav. Maybe like the Gemara suggesting now everybody holds to the vav. The shailah is if there's a question if I have to pick and choose, I have to pick the vav or pick the gezeirah shavah. That's the shailah. Rebbi Akiva holds vav adif. So vav adif, this chibur, the hekesh between the parsha of asham talui and asham me'ilos is adif from the gezeirah shavah and it tells me that there is asham talui by me'ilah. Whereas the Rabbanan hold gezeirah shavah adif, that even though there's a vav and ordinarily I'm okay darshening the vav but over here I have gezeirah shavah that tells me that the only time you have the halacha of asham talui is when it's dumiya dechatas. But the Gemara says like it could be the kulya of the hekesh adif. Maybe everybody holds vav would ordinarily supersede gezeirah shavah. But I'm going to tell you the Rabbanan the Rabbanan are going to tell you that over here the reason I'm not darshening the vav is because I used the vav different than the way Rebbi Akiva does. Meaning the Rabbanan agreed that there's a vav and the vav would override the gezeirah shavah. So that if the vav came head on with gezeirah shavah, they would agree let's go with the vav. Over here the Rabbanan are going to darshen the vav and they're going to darshen the gezeirah shavah. They're going to use the verb differently. As a result, there's no head-on contradiction between the verb and the are in trouble. And it's for that reason they're about to end up having are in trouble. Meaning, they're going to use the verb for something else. What are they going to use it to teach me are in trouble may are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble to tell me that just like are in trouble are in trouble the carbon itself had to be worth at least are in trouble. So too the are in trouble had to be worth at least are in trouble. So this is an idea that you find throughout say the culture. When the are in trouble talks about different carbons that had different are in trouble the are in trouble says are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble. There was a minimum dollar amount that the are in trouble had to be worth. It's based on a positive in the are in trouble. The are in trouble the carbon are in trouble had to be worth are in trouble. Now that positive that says the minimum dollar amount that every are in trouble had to cost in order for it to be are in trouble. It says by the are in trouble. It doesn't say it by the are in trouble. How do I know that are in trouble also has are in trouble? I know it from that are in trouble. And are in trouble you could have thought in are in Maybe there is no minimum. Why? Nice are in trouble. So maybe are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble are in trouble doesn't have to have a minimum dollar amount. It could be a are in trouble. It could be nothing. You got a good deal? Good for you. But so does it make sense now that the are in trouble which is brought when you have a are in you have to bring a are in trouble should have a dollar amount. So there's a very good are in trouble to argue that maybe there's no are in trouble when it comes to the are in trouble. That's what the are in trouble wanted to teach me. So the are in trouble agree with the verb. Again, nobody's arguing that you are in trouble the verb. As relates to our are in trouble again as we'll come back to it. There's a verb. The verb is are in trouble the are in trouble and are in trouble. I isn't there are in trouble are in trouble? There is are in trouble. And the are in trouble is not whether you are in trouble the verb. It's not even whether are in trouble is other than the verb. Verb is other than are in trouble. The question is how do you learn the verb? The question is do you use the verb to teach me that you have a are in trouble by are in trouble even though it's not are in trouble or like the are in trouble are that what I use the verb for is to tell me that even the asha has a kids for just like the asha why would you have thought not? Because the asha doesn't have a kids for. And the asha is brought when you have a safek so safek be says the asha for me the uses the verb in the other direction to teach me the of asha by how does asha know the of kids for when it comes to asha it says the knows it from somewhere else. There's asha and asha are compared to each other so once you know what asha are compared to each other so once you know what asha has the of kids for so I know the other asha so but really asha says the asha of asha and the brings the asha and asha and asha if you don't the how you going to know the asha says the asha this is asha Okay, so the asha asha can actually help me for this asha it says the asha asha asha so I have asha between asha and asha but there's another asha says the asha the asha asha where it doesn't say the asha and if you don't asha how am I going to know that there says the asha asha asha asha has a different asha bottom line is why we get into the asha asha and asha and asha asha already by the end of the so the reason we got into this was is because the asha was discussing the of asha asha asha where does it say asha asha asha it says it one time in the it says it by the asha specifically the asha asha asha asha asha but terms of asha it could be asha or it could be asha the asha asha etc. The asha asha the final of it says the Gamorah, I know an oil that's been outside. What about an oil that's been about it says in time right after the partial of in min haboker the verb is the two partials earlier and that just like min hatzoin has to be min haboker too. The Gamorah said does everybody hold of this verb? Isn't that the whether or not me'ilah bring it totally? The Gamorah says no, it's not me'ilah. Everybody agrees with you and the rabbonim that you bring awesome totally when you have a me'ilah. What then is the shaila? The shaila is something else. The shaila is whether or the Gamorah had different suggestions but bottom line is as it relates to our sugia there is no everybody agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it. I'll leave it to the cooliam and this could be the makor. That concludes part one of the daf. Part two. How do we know how do you know that a korban needs tzofin? The first example of korban that the Mishnah bring was the korban specifically the min the Gamorah said why was it even a korban if it's not okay but so what is the korban? So the Gamorah it says by the Yochid the it says we just said we need to bring the korban it's that's the case that means that the korban has to be brought but it's often the truth is before we start this next Gamorah it's just to remember that not all were created equally meaning there's many different types of of korban and it's very relevant for this Gamorah right now. The classic case of is what the Gamorah always refers to as a Yochid. A person is over in a in a that had he done the he would have been karus. The is he brings a korban. The Torah partials says that that that partial to you that's coming to the now to bring this korban carbon hatas, had a choice. The carbon could be either a kisba, a female sheep, or a se'irah, a female goat. But he had two choices. And the Torah mentions the parsha of im na kisba carbonai, if se'irah is carbonai. But it's two options. He could bring either a kisba or a se'irah. Additionally, you had the parsha of the hatas nasi. If the nasi did the aveirah, so the Torah says that he too brings a carbon hatas. Again, if it's a dovish is done in kares b'shogeg. But he didn't bring a kisba or a se'irah. His animal had to be a male, not a female, and it had to be a goat. It had to be a sa'ir. Then you had the par kohen mashiach. The par and the par helavim sh'al tzibur. That's when the aveirah that was done b'shogeg was done b' shigegas tzibur. Par helavim sh'al tzibur if Klal Yisrael did it. The par kohen mashiach who was the kohen gadol b'shemen hamishcha. You had the sa'ir of Yom Kippur if the aveirah that rove of Klal Yisrael did was avodah zarah. In addition to the par that was a sa'ir. You had the par of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippurim that we spoke so much about recently. You had the hatas metzora. Metzora had to bring a carbon hatas. You had the hatas nazir. Nazir had to bring a carbon hatas. That is not related to a dovish is done in kares b'shogeg. That's just part of his taharah, part of his kaparah. Hatas nachshon, the nasi. Last week's parsha, parshas Naso. By yeah, makrivim carbonai. They brought their carbonais. Sa'ir of Klal Yisrael. One of the things they brought was a a carbon hatas. Then you had the musafin and carbonais that were brought on Yom Tov. There were many hata'os that were brought. So the bottom line is there were many different hata'os that were brought. And as we're going to see, all the hata'os, maybe, had a halacha of tzofeh. And we're going to need mekoros to help us out over here to figure out these different types of hata'os. Either way, so the Gemara begins. Hatas min olah tzofeh in the k'seiv sh'chatah es hahatas b'makom ha'olah. Now, where does it say that? It says that with regards to a hatas yachid. A a yachid that did an aveirah b' shogeg sh' done in kares and is bringing a se'irah. So the halacha is, the pasuk says bring the hatas and shachat b'makom ha'olah. So it's very clear. B'makom ha'olah which is tzofeh in Ashkanaz sh'chita. Kabalah min olah. And how do you have that kavanah? of the services right after that right after it says it says the market is going back on the market and if the market is softened so that's how I know the couple of also has to be softened the couple of how do you know that the market itself the coin that's doing the he too had to be in softened as opposed to the coin being in and just extending his hand into to do the couple of the market it says the market and we learn from the market teaches me that he should take himself right she says play around with the words the market not and then but rather the market that he himself has to be in softened as well okay so I have the market that it's it's a anytime it says something in culture one time it's a you need it to say it twice in order for it to be how do you know it's so the market says the it says another it says the market actually showed us that that is also talking about the market talking about the market the time you went to the market where is the it says the market the market the market we know is in softened so I've said it's softened thank the market but like for example there's another that says the market showed us the market the market now that is a third and that is in it's talking about all the I'll read the the all the the market the market the market the market so this is a general that's talking about all the the time is the market why do I need this is a a by don't I have a general the market the market the market the market so why didn't it tell me it's coming to teach me it's coming to tell me says the you're telling me telling it to me for maybe what the terrorists telling me is that even though there's a general positive this positive of Chloe so you say which would seem to suggest that first glance that all the needs often don't get misled by that positive it's and what's the basis to say that because if you look at the positive that it says by the it says very important for them maybe it as opposed to anything else so says the an emphasis because it says the it says by the the event that the chose to bring us that's the first positive the brought it says the where does it say the word again the and then again the the actual word comes to teach me that when it says the it means all the actual word it means all the the actual word by the Sierra's your kid teaches me that every single is going to need something if that's the case the so that it says by the can't be coming to be reminded all the other what then is it coming to tell me must be that it's coming to tell me that by the nothing it's says the so again we have a car now that oh Hattus to be but soften. There's a general possuk in parshas itself there's two Hattus the mocking mash the shoket the over the shoket Hattus. And we know from the extra word Hattus in the possuk of serious Hattus Yochid that every single Hattus is included in that possuk. When it says there's a Hattus it means what you think it means. Every single one. The Gamorah's question was but akiva how do you know that it's Hattus? Doesn't it say it twice? So the word Hattus not see we found the possuk where it says it twice. It says the Gamorah akiva the mitzvah we found a mitzvah the din the kachila for every single Hattus needing softening. La'akiv ask here not see the mitzvah akiv. You find here not see the mitzvah akiv. You have the general possuk and you have the shina possuk akiv that it says by the Hattus not see. Shara toys not the akiva every other Hattus I also have a mitzvah. La'akiv how do I know la'akiv by all the other ones? So it says the Gamorah kishva biksiva because in addition to the extra possuk that it says by the Hattus not see there's two other extra possuk. One by the se'ira of the Hattus Yochid. That's the possuk the Gamorah quoted. And one by the kishva of the Hattus Yochid. It says the same thing there. The some of the other Hattus the shoket of the Hattus the kishva the Hattus so if I have an extra one by kishva and I have an extra one by se'ira it's all these extra possuk teach me that every single Hattus it's going to be akiv. So the bottom line is I know what the kachila and I know la'akiv. Says the Gamorah la'akiv. The Gamorah in the brice that it brought regarding the Hattus not see had a hava mina that when the Torah was singled out the din softening by the Hattus not see it meant it akiva for the Hattus not see as opposed to all the Hattus. It was a hava mina it's not true but there was such a hava mina. What was the hava mina based on? Because it says the shoket osei and osei the Gamorah thought maybe it's coming to akiva all the other Hattus. It says the Gamorah elo osei la'akiv. If that's not what osei is coming to teach me because really all the Hattus have a din softening then what is osei coming to teach me? Says the Gamorah osei soften the insia soften only a regular Hattus hat as Rashi says that comes to be but the the saw here that brought beyond for the first 12 days those carbon noise are not Tanya we know there's a mitzvah of by the and it says the word extra is speaking is coming to be that the also needed you would have thought not cuz it's different but that word has that it did says the Syria the word is not coming to be the but it's coming to be you want to know what is coming to be it's coming to be action why would you think has it often needs a reason a positive reason to think that should need something to understand why you need a also to tell me that it doesn't have a often that have a minute would have been being that holds that is so I would have thought that would have is once we're the let's be the as well come out the that holds that there's a by that so I would have thought of the by that so so to the by that's why I need to tell me that there's no by but according to Rep Shimon my but according to Rep Shimon that doesn't hold that there's a by so what's the should be that I need to be and piles on and according to do you understand it I don't think the is is going to be with either because just because you find a ribbit needs that means that you would think it needs something as well that I need a possible now to tell me that it doesn't need something. Doesn't it make sense to say that my rabbi is rabbi maybe the whole ribbit was only regarding just because you see the title was national doesn't necessarily mean that you should be with something that I need now to tell me that there's no and if you're going to tell me that you know what maybe let's keep it simple. Maybe it's very simple. You want to know why I would have thought that national needs something because it's a I would have thought that if a regular if you find it by the yokel by the Nazi the parish of a from the ones you find that it makes sense that you should be true by the national as well seeing this price that that's not true because I'm going to go for what's the of you where the national needs doesn't need every needs so why should this be different you have to say there's no now why not there's like a tell so in other words so you can't tell me says the that that it says by Nazi is coming to be in my national because why would there ever be a to think that national should be something the is of something that it says by I'm talking about and national is not about it's not a that's about and I'll prove to you that you can't necessarily learn a national from a regular because you see this I don't know what is the by national. Now if every needs why should national be different you can't necessarily learn national from an ordinary by the way if you remember in the first paragraph the had a whole story that national even though it's a but if it was brought to light it was kosher because it's not really during what the said. So it's not a regular so if it's not a regular I should think that there's a something that I should now need I should say to tell me that no need soften. The guy says you're right. I should say The word Oise that it says by the is not coming to remind something else. Oise soften and coming to tell me that the street itself had to be soften but the street didn't have to be standing soften. The guy says street, I know I agree with but I learned from somewhere else. Why does it say the street? We should be soften and then I don't know what possibly find by Oise that if the guy doing the was standing in and he did the in soften it's possible. You have second I would have thought the same thing. The street has to be soften so maybe the street has to be soften. Oise Oise soften the soften. Why is true the street doesn't have to be soften but I know from somewhere else. Not from Oise that it says by the Nazi but from the street that it says by the Nazi that it says by the Oise the animal has to be soften the street needs to be soften but the street doesn't have to be soften. So again what's Oise by Nazi coming to teach you? Oise soften maybe it's coming to teach me that Oise and even though it's to the but the Oise doesn't have to be meaning the doesn't need to be street needs to be soften needs to be but I don't know what I don't know I would have thought that it would have been soften but I don't know it makes sense. Which it's it doesn't need it needs soften coming to teach me but I don't know it doesn't need anything so maybe that's what is coming to teach me but the guy says no I can't be what is coming to teach me because there's no way to learn from street. You just said street is more than street. Street is required but at the same time I don't know she can claim even though it there's a but it requires question but it clearly definitely requires as opposed to Malika that didn't require a clear. Not Malika cuz there was no to be rather I ain't but coming to be married is that it requires something but the carbon Pesach didn't need something. Meaning there was a that the carbon Pesach should need something even though we're talking about but there's a that the carbon Pesach should need it. What do you mean that the which has no set time when you're supposed to bring it. Still there's a something Pesach should cover this the Pesach that had to be Nissan certainly there should be a something but that's what going to teach me but the says what you have a Pesach from an Malo much more common than Pesach. It's completely consumed by the so the says I hear but maybe learn Malachatos should cover this that this is also way more common than than Pesach. It's a crisis so the says I hear may also even though we didn't bring them a car to yet that's tomorrow's stuff but we know that is also so maybe we'll learn it from also but the says you can't how can you learn Pesach from also then the says by the way once we have that you can't learn it from or from or from you can't even learn it from the side of between the three because they're all they telling me that you need cuz there would have been a the carbon Pesach needs something. What would have been the learn how Pesach from and there's no way you can learn Pesach from that I should need a to tell me don't learn it from there. Says the so what do we do with what do we do with that it says by the in the very beginning of the the I say that it says by the it's coming to exclude all the other ties the clarify that that's not the case cuz you have it too many times in the so that's not going to fly. So the question is what is coming to be my mind? The had five or so suggestions but every suggestion that the attempted the disproves so the says we're going to go back to what we said earlier. We said a lot of things earlier. Which one? It's coming to teach me that only the the animal has to be but the himself doesn't What was the how did the knock it out? The we learned from somewhere else. Love them it's the actual that the doesn't have to be that I know from you know what we're coming to be at the end of the I will what we're coming to tell me now from the second is I already know no emphasis on and but the he doesn't have to be so here told me that the this right now is coming to teach me that it's only the that doesn't have to be but the doesn't have to be but the we had a for that as well. We had that on the remember remember the take the and the flip it around instead of the make it so says the look at the obviously this time it didn't hold that was a good we started move the and the and the and the so at the end of the day I've added all the need so how do I know it? I know it from the I isn't there a word in the that would seem to suggest that not all what's the word it says only it not the other I just come to be my something else. What's it coming to be my it's coming to in fact and tell me in an ironic way that the mekabbal, not shrita, but the mekabbal himself that's doing the kabbalah, he has to be standing bare soft so just to end the daf on a light note, just two light halachas. That is that so we're learning the halachas of tzafn. The Dov we're showing that the Shem Mishmuel brings a dover niflah from his father the Avnei Nezer. So the there's a halacha that comes to Kedoshim Shchitasam u'Tzafn. The ikkar halacha of tzafn it says by the carbon oil. But the Gemara says that a chatas also needs tzafn because the makom asher tishacheit ha'olah tishacheit ha'chatas. We saw it says it four times in the Torah. You have it in Parshas Tzav by the chatas Chloe, twice by the chatas Yochid, once by the kizban ha'seirah, and then you have it again by the by the chatas nasi. So you have this halacha that olah requires tzafn and chatas too. How do I know chatas? I learn it from olah because the makom asher tishacheit ha'olah tishacheit ha'chatas. So the Shem Mishmuel says that the reason olah requires tzafn is because olah the Ramban brings in Parshas Vayikra was mechaper on hirhurei aveirah. Right? Olah we know was mechaper on assei lav she'nitak l'assei. But the Ramban brings from a Mechilta d'Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai said that in addition to that olah is also mechaper on hirhurei aveirah. So if someone actually did an aveirah for that you bring a carbon chatas. But if somebody had a machshavah, he only had a hirhur to do an aveirah, you don't bring a carbon chatas. That's what olah is coming to be mechaper. He says the word tzafn is milashon tzafun, something that's hidden. Your hirhurei aveirah are hidden. When you do a ma'aseh aveirah, everyone knows what you did. But if you only had a hirhur to do an aveirah, so that is something that nobody knows. Only Hakadosh Baruch Hu knows what your thoughts are. So being that tzafn is milashon tzafun, hidden, it's for that reason the carbon olah was brought b'tzafn because to be meramez to this idea that this carbon is coming to be mechaper for something tzafn, something hidden, something that was done the hero of our life. So, after I was going to tell you a double nerve. He says, "How is it possible that a person should do an average thing? I mean, what's possible shot? A person is minding his own business, and next thing you know, he was over an average thing. How does a person come to do an average thing?" Said the same as sure, "Because sometimes people have a rule to do a verse." Person has my show to do an average. He wants to do an average. It's like after my day of and then he overcomes it. It's wonderful. The problem is the hero that he had to do an average. That my show was a my show of a rule. And that my show was going to have to take root somewhere in the world. Cuz that my show can't just go to waste. So, you know what happens? That my show causes that at some point a person is going to do an average. He's going to do an average in other words without a my show of a so that now we have the combination between the my show of a to do an average with a very wasn't done. And the my show of a that was done without the my show of a to do an average. That's its counterpart. Every my show of a has to have a counterpart. So, if a person has a my show of a to do an average there's going to be a my show. But he didn't do a my show. And later he doesn't want to do it. So, what happens is later in a my show of a show you get happened. So, that now between the my show of a to do the average and the my show of a that was done the show you get the two come together. But that means that every single carbon which was brought when somebody didn't have a very big show you get all began with its start. It started with someone that had a my show of a to do an average. That means every my show of a that was really once upon a time I have an island because it only came about for him to do this average thing because once upon a time he had a thought to do an average of a miss. And that my show of a which didn't take root at the time because first was able to overcome his evil inclination to do something really really horrible. But later on at some point in life it it it caught up to him. And it manifested itself with an average of a thing. So, it comes out that every started with an oil. That's why the Torah emphasizes Torah doesn't just say bring the carbon itself and cuz the why the needs something is for the same reason that needs something. Because you bring something when something comes from a place that's a phone, a place that's hidden. It comes from a place that nobody knows about other than that makes sense for the oil. How's that true for the it's because if you would understand the source of the carbon you would realize that every starts with an oil and that's the that's the place the double I was just thinking once and that is that the moral says we know that if Adam that says what's the he says because there's no such thing as a going to waste. A person has a to do good, to do bad. So, you know the bottom line is that the bottom line is real and being that a is real if a person has a to do something it needs to take root somewhere. So, he says that was they were they came now they wanted that should have to pay money. They wanted to get they wanted to be in later they found to be so their now was not going to play itself out but the can't go to waste. There has their needs to happen somewhere. So, you know what we do? We flip it back to them. Because there's no way that it should go to waste. So, so that there is a is going to have to end up rebounding hitting them in the head. It's going to have to go back. Let it JUST GO. SO, WHAT? They wanted him to get now we know they were lying there's no thing. If they wanted to get it has to be you know what's going to be them. They're the ones that had the they're the ones that end up getting the but that's the that's why it's why we know that if there's an acted upon the idols of the Adams are women, then you don't give them cashes over. Doesn't make sense. Right? That's why we actually explained it more like it's the base. My hobby is suckling a suckle above this. Right? That's the cover right in the base. So, what's the shot? What How does it make sense? Cashes over like cashes off. Cuz the whole small of that season of cashes over like cashes off is that the mashallah can go to in that case didn't go to waste. Something happened. There's an acted upon it. There's an gave it Marcus. They shouldn't have. But the point is the small of cashes over doesn't apply. Meaning that the small of cashes over doesn't apply, you're not going to have that soda cuz I'm safer. The safer also discusses why is it that the carbon over Why is it that the carbon cutters country condition with soften? He says a different mashallah. The safer again part of a a longer piece, but he says that soften is again we washing soften, we washing town one hidden. And he says that country condition with soften because the equal crave of who bites nail that a person that's created certainly a person that's country condition that person has to be with soften and hunger has to be in bad snail and he says you find that the more harsh of people were, the more but sneers they were. Just tell to one cuts give up. I'll end with this and that is that you say not more than before you show them to show them or beside the second to or will show them to or we carry condition to show them. Right? We all know that. So, the small of condition say if you want you can take a look at my show at the end of the first pair of kindness and it's good to show I got to say this that is Russia Davis Yasha Sadiq Hassid Kodesh and it describes four levels and I would have to say that from lowest to highest. So, Yasha then Sadiq is a higher major ego. Hassid is even a higher major ego than that. And Kodesh is the highest major ego. So, you say before you show them to show them or beside the second to show them or will show them to show them. tiskadesh u'v'kerev kedoshim tis'halal. We're describing four levels: yashar, tzaddik, chasid, kadosh. I once saw, I think it's a Kotsker vort, but the yashar is b'fi yesharim tishreima. He's m'roimim Hashem b'fi with his entire mouth. The tzaddik, who's one level higher, u'v'sifsei tzaddikim. It's not with his entire mouth. You don't hear him. It's just the sifsei lips. His lips are moving. U'v'lishon chasidim, the chasid, that's on a higher level, it's only with his tongue. You don't even see his lips moving. And the kadosh, who's the highest level, u'v'kerev kedoshim, doesn't even make it up there. It's all inside. It's all in his kishkes. You meet him, you don't even know. You think he's a pashte Yid, but it's all his kishkes. I saw in the Ohr Yisrael K'Sasson from the bottom of this piece, he brings from one of the K'Sasson Yisrael Aina Yakov who says that people remarked that when they saw Reb Aryeh Ze'ev Kivelevitch, right, the Aina Yakov from Kivelevitch, he said when they saw this the Ze'ev Kivelevitch, he said the pashte Yid that met Reb Kivelevitch had no idea who Reb Kivelevitch was. He said you had to be from the Yodei'a Davar to have been impressed with Reb Kivelevitch had you met him. He said you were He was someone that you recognized his godliness if you were someone that was attuned to it. But if you were a pashte Yid, and you were not amazing in being able to see godliness all around him, you would not have noticed any godliness when you saw Reb Kivelevitch. Reb Kivelevitch was b'kerev kedoshim tis'halal. He with all his greatness, and we all know how great Reb Kivelevitch was, but it was all b'kerev kedoshim. It was all inside of him. Unbelievable. But Al K'ponim, said the yashar is b'fi yesharim tishreima. The tzaddik is b'sifsei tzaddikim. The chasid is b'lishon chasidim. The kadosh, he's the highest madriga. It's b'kerev kedoshim tis'halal. That's kodesh kodashim. B'kerev kedoshim tis'halal, kodesh kodashim, sh'chitas b'tzofon.