Zevachim 75

Today's daf is working daf iron hey and we are at the two dots about 15 lines from the bottom of daf iron dalet amud bet. So, the first Mishnah in the eighth perek perek kol as vochen which is not a long Mishnah in kol as but it's a very long Mishnah in echos discussed an idea we have animals that are possible like voya and they were necessary with animals that are mutar like voya. So, you have zvochen kasherin and now within this mix of zvochen kasherin an animal that's possible like krovah got mixed up. The Mishnah discussed the possible share and this go what you do. One of the ameisois and then the Mishnah says that if the animal that got mixed up was a shur shin the baal zera or roiva v'neirvah muktzah neivah esnan machir kal ein treifah yoitzai doifein due to the fact is yiru achrei astablished. The Gemara begins with a technical question. Bishleimah mikulu lo yodeia. I understand all the aforementioned in the Mishnah how would be possible to have a taruf? So, you had a an animal that's a yoitzai doifein which means it was born Caesarean. Now it got mixed up with zvochen kasherin. You look at the taruvos of animals you have no way of knowing which animal was the kasher and which animal is the pasul. As a result, you have a taruvos question. You have a question of bitul barur and kol d'parish meiruvah barur. But ela haitrei fei chidami but it's treifah isn't that something that you should be able to discern? Isn't that something you should be able to see? Yedaya laisi v'lichlei if you see an animal do a bedika and see if the animal is a treifah, just take it out. And iloi yada d'leimi no yada d'yarif. Man of shuch, either you see the treifah then take it out and if you don't see the treifah then what are you worried about? Amidei Rebbi Yanai. Ach v'may as k'dei k'dei ariv n'kuvas achos b'n'kuvas chazeiv. You saw two animals that both had a hole in an area that would technically render the treif. Stating that one of them got this hole through a za'ev, a wolf, the other one from a thorn. The one that has the hole via the za'ev is a treif. The one that has the nekuba sakit, that got it from a thorn, is not a treif. And you don't know which one is which. As a result, you have an issue. You're right. If there was only one animal that had a this nekiv and you know this one treif, so you know which one is the treif. Just pull it out and now the rest of the taruvus is going to be kosher. But there are two animals that have a nekiv and you know that only one of them is a treif. As a result, you have an issue. said I have been a fool. It's possible for an animal to be a treif without it having any distinguishing symptoms. And that is if an animal falls, an animal that's nefula could sometimes be a treif. So what happened was the treif that's in this taruva is became a treif through nefila. You can't notice it. That's why you have a taruvus issue. But the mara says is that true when an animal falls and is a treif, there is an exam that you can give this animal and depending on whether it passes the exam or fails the exam, you'll know if it's a treif. Nefula nami livitko. Why don't you do a bitiko? So the mara says on the treif ace even if this animal gets up, so it looks like it's healthy, you still have to wait 24 hours. Holcha even if it walks treif there's a bitiko that needs to be done. The bottom line is that Rish Lakish holds that an animal that falls, it's not so simple to just do a bitiko. As a result, it didn't have any external characteristics that would tell us that it's a treif. We know this a treif. There's no way of doing a bitiko either. As a result, you have an issue. The third shot how it's possible to have a treif that's in the side of the taruvus. Again, the question is can't you see it? Going the Arab of a treif, it's talking about there wasn't a treif, but the child of a treif. The time of the year is treif. You know how to be mark of the blood treif. on the mizbeach. You know, so the Gemara had a very basic question. The question was, how is it possible to have a taruvos of a treyfa and animals that are not treyfas? A treyfa something that by definition you should be able to see. It should have some external characteristic trait that should tell us it's a treyfa. So, just notice the treyfa, pull it out of taruvos, and the rest should be kosher. So, the Amora'im had to go search for eitzos, for heichi temtzos, akimtos to try to understand the mishna why this is an issue. And the Gemara gave three akimtos. One was that there was an animal that had a nekiv, that was the treyfa, but there was more than one animal that had a nekiv, and the other animal or other animals, their nekiv didn't come in a way that would make it a treyfa. It was a nekivas sakois. It came from a thorn. As a result, there's no way of knowing which one is the treyfa. A second shot the Gemara said was ben afula. So, we're talking about where the treyfa fell. Again, it fell, that's what made it a treyfa, but it's not like there's a nekiv, there's not something you can notice. Alternatively, when the mishna says treyfa, it's using the word treyfa loosely. It means psul treyfa, but really it's the vlad of a treyfa. The The animal itself is not a treyfa. It's the child of a treyfa. A child of a treyfa gets the yichus of its parent in the sense that it too gets dinay treyfa, but being that it's physically not a treyfa, there's no way of noticing it. Says the Gemara, why did Eicha Mayra pick the shot that he said? Kulhu Rebbi Yanai le Amri. All the Amora'im didn't want to say the first shot Rebbi Yanai, that the teretz is that there was more than one animal that had a nekiv because ben nekivas sakois the juices made it din. Because the Amora'im must have held that you can tell the difference between an animal that has a nekiv that came through a koits and an animal that has a nekiv that came from a zaiv. What's the difference? Hai mashich, one is longer. Hai ogol, the other one is more round. Kveish Lokish le Amri, they don't want to learn like Kveish Lokish because Amri of the inei tzu chameish leish halacha, ein tzu chabedika because they hold that when an animal falls, it's actually there's a way to know whether or not the animal is a treyfa or not. Let it get up, let it walk. So, being that there's a way to know whether or not the animals are treif, so that would not be a reason for us to have a a safek now and have a taruvis, cuz let all the animals get up and walk and the one that can't walk, the one that can't stand, that must be the treif. And if it could walk, it could stand, that means even though it fell, it's not a treif. Kol Reb Yumi didn't want to learn Reb Yumi cuz Reb Yumi was making the mission that's talking not about a treif but rather about a blood treif, which is Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer like didn't want to learn Rebbi Rebbi Eliezer. Why not? Cuz Rebbi Eliezer, we know what Shamuti is, a lochis will put in cherem. We'll see more about Rebbi Eliezer later in the daf. But Rebbi Eliezer is mikame de Beis Shammai. Bottom line is three different shittin and an explanation why the respective Amora'im picked their own and didn't want to learn the other Mission continued and said what happens if you have a taruvis of animals, all of which are kosher to go on the mizbei'ach, stating that they are animals that belong to different people. Said the mission, it said kachin be kachin nim de minoi. So the kohein had two oiles that he had to be makriv. He had two chatois that he had to be makriv. Two ashams that he had to be makriv. And now the korbanos got mixed up, so he doesn't know which one is Reuvein's, which one is Shimon's. Mission said it's not a problem. Why isn't it a problem? He could be makriv both of them. Stam stam is b'shma. So even though there's a locha of shinu ba'alim, so that if the kohein would have in mind the wrong owner while he was bringing the korban, it would render the korban posul, but you don't have to have in mind the wrong one. Fact, you don't even have to have in mind the right one like Pesachim spoke out of the mission. Just don't have in mind anything. Stam is k'lishma, stam is kosher. So be makriv both oiles, be makriv both chatois, it's not going to be an issue. Freight the Gemara with a technical problem. Reb Boi Smicha. One of the mitzvos, one of the shiyurei mitzvos that was done when a korban was brought was smicha. Only the korban would go, the samach yadoi the kol kochoi, he would lean his entire weight and his entire body on the korban before the korban was brought. Who did the smicha? The ba'alim had to be the one to do the smicha. If we don't know who the owner is, there's no way to do smicha. And by the way, you can't take both ba'alim and have them do smicha on both animals. You know why? Because smicha is a double-edged sword. There's a mitzvah to do smicha, but if you don't have a mitzvah smicha, you're actually not allowed to do smicha on an animal. Because when you do smicha b'chol kocha, you're being mena from kochi. And that's not something you're allowed to do either. So, it's a mamon of shach. You have to know who the right owner is in order to do smicha. And the ba'alim has to do smicha. So, the ta'anis the Gemara kochi and the kochi and the mena says the mishna, "What's the big deal? Just bring both korbanos. What are you worried about? You don't know who the owner is?" Stam as lishma. Yeah, that's all good from the lishma perspective, but what happened to mitzvah smicha? So, what are you going to tell me? Smicha is not my active anyways. But, the way the rishonim explain it's a pretty long ta'anis, but the way the re- very long ta'anis, the way the rishonim explain is that being that if you are makriv both korbanos, you're going to be mevatal mitzvah smicha b'yadim. Wouldn't it make more sense to pull a year who actually studied, be poider the two animals, buy new kochi with the money, and then be makriv those korbanos l'chatchila? It's true smicha is not my active, but at the end of the day, bringing a carbon without smicha is sort of a b'dieved. So, why are we going l'chatchila and bringing the carbon in a b'dieved? That's the Gemara's kasha. Amora Yosef Amora Yosef said the carbon nashim we're talking about where the owner of these korbanos were women. As a result, a woman doesn't have a mitzvah smicha. It's true, a man has a mitzvah smicha, but a woman does not have a mitzvah smicha. Says the Gemara, "Abu korban nashim Abu korban nashim." In other words, you're trying to say, says the Gemara to Abu Yosef, that when it comes to a korban nashim, this halacha wouldn't be true because we're not going to go l'chatchila and be mevatal mitzvah smicha. Is there a ba'aya? Ba'aya asks Abu Yosef a kasha from the following braisa. "Korban yochid and sar Abu korban yochid we're talking about Abu korban yochid got mixed up." What happens in a kasha? an oil and an oil just to keep it simple. Or if the carbon is big carbon or two carbon which they got mixed up. So you had an oil carbon and another oil carbon they both got confused. A khatis carbon and another khatis carbon both got confused. Or if the carbon carbon or a carbon and a carbon got mixed up. Rashi says so you know see which is a carbon it's a khatis this year of a lion which is a a khatis carbon or oil or oil. You had a regular oil carbon that a wanted to bring with carbon top which is an oil carbon. So whether it's a carbon or a carbon even a carbon carbon so what do you do? So you have these two carbon khatis. So the is you could do the the carbon the when it comes to time to do this nice and done each one you give in the case with the both you going to do a regular on the carbon which in the case when they're both you going to do and but the point is it's going to be nice and done with me nice and done with me if you burn only one from each one it's fine. That's based on the first mission that all carbon besides for the me but she does but all carbon besides for the me this carbon all you need to do is is do one then I don't even know what what does that mean? So if you look in in the in the we shouldn't grapple to understand but the but the most simple is that just like if they were both if you if they were if you gave four from all four meaning you also bottom line is the price of discusses a very straight forward case where there was a with carbon the two animals got mixed up you now have an opportunity the coin wants to go and he wants to be market this carbon, what do you do with this Rica? So like a hero bring down with my tone eyes for each carbon. If it's a hot on the dollar kind of is if it's an oil stain should have a But the effort one is going to be okay. I made my mom what is this kitchen table kind that's only if they got mixed up while they were alive. I don't know what to do but let's say the street that happened and then afterwards they got mixed up. Noise and have a my tone noise me Cuba. Then what you supposed to do is is take the whole time reverse as we'll see in a moment the assumption is is that the blood got mixed up. It wasn't just chocolate but the dam got mixed up. So you take four my tone noise from the tower of voice and you could be nice and with each my tone noise you're being nice so for both carbon noise that are in this tower of voice. You have two hot toys that are necessary in this dam right now. You do four and we cut healer not with the other we cut healer you're going to be nice so both hot toys even though it's it's one striker for each. That's fine. Meaning you're doing four for two carbon noise. Really you should need eight for two carbon noise. The carrots is then the one striker the one that Cena is going to work for both carbon noise. So that's my tone noise me Cuba nice so being that with the other you don't have to do four but the other all you have to do is one. So so too but the other if you do one it's going to work for both hot toys. Ready have a day every says no it's not so simple. Right in the my tone noise me Cuba the other day was like share Then lots of you have to look at how much blood one of them is bad. There's a sheer of how much time has to go on the way. Zrica has a sheer. We never spoke about a sheer Zrica. Is there a sheer how much time we spoke about the my coin and and the mountain and and shall I even call my so discuss the lot how long cuz about Zrica the my show but that the coin had while he was doing the Zrica but is there a sheer? Is there a lot of how much time there has to be? That's this rabbit. Rabbit says yes we have to there is a sheer and you have to make sure if you want one Zrica to work for two carbon noise conceptually that's okay. I don't have a problem with that. You just have to make sure that there's going to be enough time. Good. What do we want from this price? So I can tell you the price I had had live carbon noise that got mixed up with it a yachid by yachid, whether it was a yachid by tzibur, whether it was a tzibur by tzibur. And it says yachid with a tzibur, we lumped together the yachid and the tzibur. It's machura. Tain is the gemara mat tzibur gabri af yachid gabri. Who participates in the carbon tzibur? Only men. Women do not participate in the carbon tzibur. The possuk says it's because the carbon tzibur was paid for by the machatzis hashekel and only men contributed to the machatzis hashekel. Women did not contribute to the machatzis hashekel. So who are the baalim of a carbon tzibur? It's the men. So when we discuss the carbonois tzibur, the owners are men. So l'chura when the braisa discusses a carbon yachid and it's a carbon yachid, we're probably discussing a similar case where the owner is a man. And still there's a halacha that if it was nisarev, you can go ahead and and be makriv it. What's the kasha? What happened to smicha? Rebbe Yossi said that when our mishna said kotzin bikotzin min b'mino, the halacha is you can be makriv it stoma and you have no problems. Rebbe Yossi made it clear that we're talking about carbon noshin because we're never going to allow l'chatchila to go be mevatal the mitzvas smicha. Here I have a m'furash braisa and I know this braisa is talking about men. How? Mishna doesn't mention the word men. But what the mishna does do, it equates a carbon yachid that was nisarev with a carbon yachid to a carbon tzibur that was nisarev with a carbon tzibur or a carbon yachid that was nisarev with a carbon tzibur. Point is we're talking about carbon yachid, carbon tzibur. The owners of a carbon tzibur are men. Women cannot be an owner of a carbon tzibur. So l'chura doesn't it make sense to be consistent and say that the owners of the carbon yachid are men as well? Bottom line is you have a carbon that has a mitzvas smicha and still if it was nisarev while it was alive, there's an eitza l'chatchila how to go ahead to do the shchita kabala, yochin zrika. Omar Rabba, Rabba said it is braisa. Ham mitratz to here. This is something that the gemara often does. And a logic that you have to be familiar with. The gemara says you're asking a kasha from this brysa. This is a this is a problem brysa. Meaning it's not a perfect brysa. You can only ask kashas from brysa's that were vetted out, that were edited properly, that we know have good mesorah, that every word, every syllable in this brysa is meduyak. Such a brysa you can ask a kasha from. But anytime there's a little bit of a a of a slippery slope within a brysa where you can tell that this brysa needs a little bit more editing, can't ask kashas from brysa's like this. And Rava said you're asking a kasha from such This is not a brysa that tracks. This is not a a meyushevdigga brysa. This brysa has issues. I'll prove it to you. The Tani cuz the brysa is contrasting between where the taruva is happening, where the animals were alive, versus when the taruva is happening when the animals were already shochal. Now, what was the emphasis when the animals were already shochal? Now that there was a taruva so the halachas were different. The point was we had to speak it out cuz it wasn't a first in the brysa. It means you did the shchita, you did the kabala, you did the halacha. Meaning the animals are already the the and and you took the dam of both respective korbanos and you mixed them together. That's where you had this new halacha that you don't have to do four from each. There is no four from each. You could just do four. According to Rebbe you have to make sure there's a shiur. So it says it the Rava diktani the brysa said medvar mamurim k'chinus chaya al medvar shchutem like malichai malishchutem. The point of the brysa is not chaim and shchutem. What was the point in the brysa? Were the dam nisayiv or what was the dam nisayiv? Elo hachi kom. You have to say that's the shaila. That it meaning we need to edit the brysa. So let me show you Rava says how I'm going to edit the brysa and you're not going to have a kasha on Rebbe Yosi. The medvar mamurim the way the brysa reads is chinus shchutem k'ein chaim because when it says the medvar muksha shchutem doesn't mean it was literally shchutem. Cuz it was literally shchutem you'd run into a smicha problem. It's talking about where I'm sorry, when it says that it wasn't shochal it doesn't mean literally that it wasn't shochal. Cuz if it wasn't you run into what it means is what the dams mix or what the dams not mix meaning but if the dams were mixed up prices two cases are not one where the animals are alive and the other one is when the animals were already at the and the dams got mixed up. The two cases of the prices one when the and the dams didn't get mixed up and the other one where the and the dams did get mixed up. That's what we're contrasting with the dams mixed or with the dams not mixed but if the animals were alive this price would have been true because the price is talking about a carbon and notion even though it doesn't say it but being that the carbon volume is a is a man so presumably the carbon in this price is volume is also a man. The bottom line is if the animal was alive and the owner is a man that would have been true like said because you would need it. But the price is not discussing with animals but doesn't the price to make a between and and by definition means the animals alive. What we mean is in case we mean in one case the dams were mixed and the other case the dams were not mixed again like Robert said this is not a thing of price so we have to add a little in order to understand the price which is precisely why Robert said what you can't ask any questions of Joseph in this price. He said that what happens again you have two oilers two hot oilers carbon carbon and now the dams all got mixed up. So if you have two hot oilers the dams got mixed up. Pick one case. Now the oilers and he needs to do this so to the price the says just do four oilers on the four corners of the and you're going to be fine. Why is that enough? Because there are two carbons each is going to work for both carbons. Robert says that's so possible that you can do one z'rika of a two carbonas. There's a sheer of how much time there has to be in a z'rika. So, Rebbe said, "Roy in a samatana. We have to analyze the amount of blood that's going on in the mizbeach." If yesh b'kiday u'kiday If there's enough blood for two z'rikas, then it's takka kosher. Then what if there's not enough blood for two z'rikas, psula? Then it's going to be a psul. Rebbe said, "Rebbe I swore this Rebbe really holds that there's a sheer of how much time has to go on the mizbeach in order to have a kosher z'rika." But time we're going to learn this. Oh, my Rebbe. Rebbe said, "The divrei Rebbe Eliezer, according to Rebbe Eliezer." Now, who's this Rebbe Eliezer? So, Rashi says, "This is Rebbe Eliezer that we're going to have later in the massekhta. It's a Rebbe Eliezer massekhes Parah where Rebbe Eliezer says that if you had the mei chatas, that's the mayim chayim that was mixed together with the efer of the parah adumah to prepare this mixture now that's going to go on the person that's tamei tumas meis to make him tahor. What happens if this mei chatas was nisareh with mayim psul? So, there's a taruves. So, Rebbe Eliezer has an eitzah. Again, Rashi tells you you could wait until daf pei to really understand the the the details and the oimek of shittas Rebbe Eliezer. But for now, Rebbe Eliezer holds that just because you have psul mayim that was nisareh with the mayim chayim, that in and of itself doesn't disqualify the mayim for parah adumah. So, says Rebbe, "According to this shittas Rebbe Eliezer, that you could have a taruves of good mayim and bad mayim for the efer for the parah adumah. Hazal kashyu with that. It must be that Rebbe Eliezer holds that there's no sheer of how much mayim there needs to be from the mayim chayim with the efer of the parah. Because if there's a sheer of how much mayim you have to have in every taruves, shouldn't we be concerned that maybe there isn't the sheer the requisite sheer of the mayim chayim? Let the mayim psul mess up in the sense that now when I'm spritzing water, I don't know if it's mayim psul or mayim chayim." And Rebbi said in Rebbi Eliezer there must be a premise, and that is that there is no share. There's no share, and as long as there's a turup, as long as there's a a mashu, that's enough for it to be kosher. Additionally, another thing that you see in Rebbi Eliezer that has a mix of kosher, mix of possel, is also okay. That just because there's mine possel that was misaired, that in and of itself is not an issue. Again, two khidushin that the Gemara is going to discuss later, that's more relevant when you learn in Maseches Parah. But for now, the Gemara just wants one thing. The Gemara said that Rebbi was medayek on Rebbi Eliezer, that Rebbi Eliezer holds there's no share of how much mayim you need when you do the hazah onto the person that's tamei meis. If that's the case, tied to the Gemara, shouldn't Rebbi be consistent, and Rebbi also that there's no much there's no share of how much dam there has to be when you're doing the zerikah on the mizbei'ach? If there's no share of how much mayim you have to have, shouldn't there be no share of how much dam? They're both hazahs. In one case you're being mazeh from the mayim in the eighth of the parah adumah on the tamei meis, and in one case you're being mazeh from the dam on the mizbei'ach. So why here does Rebbi hold there's a share, here Rebbi holds there's no share? So the Gemara says, very simple, either you could say the drash Rebbi Eliezer holds, Rebbi never said he holds that way. What was Rebbi Eliezer's lashon? What was Rebbi's lashon? Amar Rebbi, "The divrei Rebbi Eliezer." Okay, according to Rebbi Eliezer there's a share. And then in the Gemara, if you want to argue that the two should be told each other is that Rebbi would hold that but that according to Rebbi Eliezer there's also no share when it comes to zerikah. But this whole idea hazah kosher metaharas was holding Rebbi Eliezer's opinion. Hazah kosher metaharas is shani too. One is discussing parah adumah, the other one is discussing zerikah. Who said that these two things are going to be told each other is that excel? So before we go right there, just three short ha'aros related to some of the things that we just discussed. Number one, so we had an the Gemara began with a kasha. The kasha was, kosher with kosher bemeinoi, so the halachah is that the kohein is makreh v'od korbanos, they're both oilos, what's What's difference? They both go to the mat mikhtas sikrah, they're both shnei shnei arbah, they both have to be connected the they both have a dinner of they both have a right. Oh, what's the problem? You don't know who the owner is. Some of them are smart. It's not a problem. It's not going to be an issue. But the asks the what happened to isn't an issue? And even though is not but you don't go what's my alternative option? The alternative option is let these animals graze, let them get a people the animals then take the money buy new and bring those to knowing who the with the that was the question. said carbon right the mission is talking about a carbon that the owner of the carbon is a woman being that the owner of the carbon is a woman therefore there is no women so women if they bring carbon always had no what about a woman that brings a carbon and wants to do can she do or can she not do at first glance they'll tell me okay it's a nice it's a but the truth it's not a this is a this is a Torah this is a and believe it or not that in the answer to this question is a to a tremendous amount of relevant rate so in but just the and that is one of the many places that this is mentioned in is that and the is discussing a woman doesn't have a of because is a that is what if a woman wants to blow it maybe even wants to hear let's say a woman wants to blow that's what the mission of the is discussing could a woman blow or could a woman not blow and the makes a from a that that if a woman would want to blow we'd stop it you can't blow I don't mean a woman being a a congregation with that's a whole another story I'm talking about a woman who wants to blow for herself she says she knows there's a mitzvah of shofar and she wants the blue shofar. Could she or could she not? So the Gemara makes a deyak in the Mishna that it's mashma that she can't. But says the Gemara it's also simple. Really it's totally a machlokes. What's the machlokes? Says the Gemara the tan in the braysa "Daber el benei Yisrael" and right afterwards the Torah says there's a mitzvah of smicha on a korban. Zogt the Gemara "Benei Yisrael daber benei Yisrael somechin ve'ein benos Yisrael somechos." Devey Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Yehuda holds that if a woman wants to do smicha, she cannot do smicha. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon say "Nosnin somechos reshus." She doesn't have to do smicha. "Daber benei Yisrael" means doesn't have to do but if she wants to do it, she's allowed to do it. Now there was a machlokes gedolei atanaim. Rebbi Yehuda holds that if a woman wanted to do smicha she wasn't allowed to do smicha. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon both said that if a woman wants to do smicha, she could do smicha. Says the Gemara this shaila of whether or not a woman can blow shofar and cannot blow shofar is totally in this machlokes tanayim whether a woman can do smicha or a woman cannot do smicha. In other words, the way the Gemara understands this shaila of smicha is it's not a specific local regional question related to smicha. This is a a shaila of international consequences. And that is anytime a woman is patur from doing a mitzvah, if she now wants to do the mitzvah, can she do the mitzvah or can't she not do the mitzvah? Says the Gemara according to Rebbi Yehuda that holds that a woman's not allowed to do smicha, a woman can't blow shofar either. Now the reason a woman is patur from smicha was "Daber benei Yisrael v'lo benei Yisrael." The reason a woman is patur from shofar shaila is because the mitzvah is "Ish ish" not "Gever gever." It's not the same reason. But the principle is the same. That a woman is patur, can she or can't she not? Rebbi Yehuda's shita is she cannot. Whereas according to Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon that says "Nosnin somechos reshus," they just don't have a chiyuv but if they want to they could. There's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to blow shofar either. Says Tosfos and this is also a very long Tosfos and this Tosfos comes up many places in Shas that the Gemara the sugya began with a stam Mishna. There was a Stam Mishna where the Gemara made a deyak that a woman is not allowed to blow shofar. If that's the case, at first glance you should walk away saying that the halacha is like Rebbi Yehuda. A woman can't blow shofar, a woman can't do mitzvah, a woman cannot do any mitzvah that she's not obligated to do. Any mitzvah that she's patur. So if a woman wants to sit in a Sukkah, you'd have to tell her, "Sorry, can't sit in a Sukkah. You sit in the dining room, we're going to sit in the Sukkah. We're going to do what we do." That would be the pashut. It's a Stam Mishna, right? Stating that, says Tosfos. "Omer Rebbi Yosi Tanha." I forgot the Stam Mishna could be Rebbi Yehuda. Even though the Stam Mishna is like Rebbi Yehuda that a woman can't blow shofar, halacha is like Rebbi Yosi. The halacha is like Rebbi Yosi. "Dinei Mukayim." What Tosfos means is a lashon of Gemara in Maseches Gittin, perek Gomer, where the Gemara says the halacha is always like Rebbi Yosi. "U'maiseira." And Tosfos says, "I'll find you stories in Shas where you find that women were mekayem mitzvos that they weren't obligated to do." Tosfos says, "Eiruvin daf vov amud alef, Michal bas Shaul hoisa manachas tefillin." Michal bas Shaul used to wear tefillin, even though women are patur from wearing tefillin. "Ishto shel Yona hoisa oila l'regel." Yona's wife used to be oila l'regel. Bottom line is, Tosfos as a segues into a very, very long discussion, can women be mekayem mitzvos asei she'lo zman grama or not? And Tosfos says that even though it would be very tempting to walk away from Rosh Hashanah amud alef and say that a woman is not allowed to be mekayem a mitzvah asei she'lo zman grama. A woman can't blow shofar, it's a Stam Mishna. But, says Tosfos, "I bring you maiseira from places in Shas that that's not the halacha." What about does she make a bracha? So that's what Tosfos says right here. "K'ilu machlokes is between the Rambam and the Rambam whether women make brachos when they're mekayem mitzvos asei she'lo zman grama or not. But either way, this is where it comes from. The shaila is, what would be the big deal? A woman is patur from a mitzvah mitzvah asei she'lo zman grama. So now she wants to Actually, she doesn't have to blow shofar. She wants to blow shofar. Why do we care so badly? A woman doesn't have a chiyuv to do smicha. She wants to do smicha. A woman doesn't have to sit in a Sukkah. She wants to sit in a Sukkah. What should be the issue? So the answer is that most Rishonim say that the whole discussion of a woman not being allowed to do a mitzvah that she's parted from doing is only no gear where there's double edge sword with an invoice that comes along with this mitzvah. For example, we're learning the Sugya of Smicha. So, if a woman would go ahead and do Smicha, so it's true. You on the one hand you'll argue there's a mitzvah to do Smicha, but here's the counter argument. The counter argument is is that when you lean the whole on an animal, so you're benefiting from an animal that's hectic. You'll be mild to hectic. That's not something that you're allowed to do. That's not something you're allowed to do. So, every time there's a discussion say the Rishonim of a woman doing a mitzvah that she's parted from doing it's always in the context where there's a side issue in the mitzvah. It's just that there's a mitzvah. So, a woman who's parted from doing the mitzvah, maybe she's not allowed to do it because of the side issue. But, let's say you would have a mitzvah that has Then it could be in that case it wouldn't be a problem. Like sitting in a Sukkah. Is there a side issue from sitting in a Sukkah? So, that's already a big discussion. We learned the beginning of the second Perek of Maseches Sukkah. There's tremendous ray that I think we spoke out when we were in Maseches Sukkah at the time. She took it from a small Zuzovsky and but the bottom line is is that you would have to sit down and analyze each mitzvah that has no and if you could come up with a side issue, then you can argue maybe a woman shouldn't be able to do it. But, if there's no side issue in say the Rishonim there's no stating that there's a Rashi in Rosh Hashanah Gimel and this Rashi is in Maseches Eruvin in a few places where Rashi says, "You know what the title of the Gemara is? That a woman shouldn't be able to You know why there's a sheet that says that a woman's not allowed to do Smicha? Cuz if a woman doesn't have a mitzvah to do Smicha and she does Smicha she's over Bal Tosif. Anytime a person's not to do a mitzvah and they do the mitzvah, there's a Bal Tosif. Rashi says this in a few places in Shas. There's going to be a a Bal Tosif. This Rashi means a Bal Tosif not a Bal Tosif either way that's the first part. The second part is is that we mentioned over here that a Korban Sevor, a Korban Musaf, who is the Balim of a Korban Sevor? The Balim of the carbon C board is only men. Women are not bylam of carbon carbon C board. Only men are We said the Shabbas Parsha. The reason is is because how do you pay for the carbon C board? It was paid for by the machatzis hashekel. It's a mishna in masechtas Keilim, right? The mishna says in masechtas Shekalim that only men contributed to the machatzis hashekel. Women were parted from machatzis hashekel. So if a woman is parted from machatzis hashekel, she she has no chelek in the carbon C board. If she has no chelek in the carbon C board, so based on that she can't be the bylam of the carbon C board. Spoken about many times that this is what Rebbe Akiva Eiger in Teshuvos Siman Tes and Rebbe Akiva Eiger also in Igros Moshe Siman Kuf Lamed Beis brings from the Besamim Rosh a chiddush halacha. He says that's the case. Even though the Machaber paskens that women are chayev in tefillah, it's in Meforshei Halacha in Shulchan Aruch that women are chayev in tefillah. Eruvin Chaim Siman Kuf Vav Sif Katan Aleph stating that says Rebbe Akiva Eiger women would be parted from davening Mussaf. Because tefillas Mussaf is k'neged the carbon Mussaf. The carbon Mussaf was a carbon C board. The carbon C board was paid for by the machatzis hashekel. Women are parted from machatzis hashekel. Only men were considered the bylam of the carbon C board. How do I know that? It's from the Gemara in Ein Yaakov. There's many Gemaras, but this is one. The Gemara we just learned. So based on this Gemara right here and other Gemaras says Rebbe Akiva Eiger it should come out that a woman should be parted from davening Mussaf. The kasha developed to ask from Rebbe Akiva Eiger is if that's the case, then the mishna also says that a katan didn't contribute to machatzis hashekel. And many rishonim say the definition of katan really in machatzis hashekel was me ben esrim shana u'ma'ala like the pasuk says in Parshas Ki Sisa. The same 20 and older that contributed to the machatzis hashekel in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. Only those were chayev in machatzis hashekel in those days. So if you're less than 20 years old, you're not a chayev in machatzis hashekel. If that's the case, anyone that's less than 20 should also be parted from davening Mussaf. That's already a That's already a very big chiddush. Some want to be machmir and say there's an inyan not to send someone that's less than 20 years old to daven for Yom Kippur carbon C board the Mussaf. This is already that we've spoken about in the past. But the Ein Base Medrash Beis Yisrael chiddush and that is is that there's a very important flaw in the Yad Yehudah in masechtas Berachos daf chof amud beis. And that's the makor that discusses women whether they chiyuv in tefillah or they're not chiyuv in tefillah. It's a mishna. The mishna says noshim v'avodim u'ktanim kturin mikriashma u'min hatfillin v'chiyuvin b'tefillah u'v'mezuzah u'v'birchas hamazon. Think there's some great in that mishna. So, the mishna says that women are patur from kriashma and fillin. They're chiyuv in tefillah. They're chiyuv in mezuzah. And they're chiyuv in birchas hamazon. Sukt the gemara. Chiyuvin b'tefillah. Why? D'rachmei no. Because tefillah is rachamei. What is tefillah? You're asking Hakadosh Baruch Hu for rachamim. And women are shiyach to rachamim. Just like men are. Says the gemara stating that m'aud detaima I would have thought holy shivah erev uboker v'tzohorayim. Being that with regards to tefillah it says when are you supposed to daven? At night, in the morning, in the afternoon. And where does it say this? K'mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma. You would have thought it's a mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma. K'moshma. Meaning the gemara is saying that really you need to speak out that women are chiyuv in tefillah. Because the women would have mean they should be patur. The havah minah is it's a mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma. Being that it's a mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma you daven in the morning, afternoon, and night. That's a classic mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma. So, you would think that women should be patur. K'moshma lon it's rachamei. A poshut shiyach is that even though it's a mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma but being that it's rachamim still the halacha is that women are going to be Says the Nadvirna Rebbe though all tefillah is a rachamim. With the exception of one. Musaf. Musaf is not rachamim. Shacharis is rachamim. Mincha is rachamim. Maariv is rachamim. But musaf is connected to the korban musaf. That's the whole idea of tefillas musaf is in the shalom aleichem u'v'seinu. Says the Nadvirna Rebbe it's not rachamim. If it's not rachamim then you have to have the m'aud detaima of the gemara. It's a mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma. Mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma they will not be patur. But really the gemara held that tefillah should be a mitzvah she sa'asheis mangaruma. No, it's rachamim. Says the Nadvirna Rebbe in his slach on that gemara broches daf chof that being that this is not rachamim it's for that reason that women are going to be patur. I saw uh uh in the Sefer Ish Yisrael. So, it brings an af kaminah between Rav Akiva's reason why women are patur, and why the and the Nezer HaBehudah's reason why women are patur. Meaning, Rav Akiva and the Nezer HaBehudah couldn't took in contemporaries and two gedolei Yisrael. They were both mechaven to the same chiddush. That even though the Mechaber paskens that women are chiyuv in tefillah, but they're patur from tefillas mussaf. Rav Akiva said because mussaf tefillas mussaf is connected to the korban mussaf, which was paid for by the machatzis hashekel, women had no chelek in the machatzis hashekel, the women are patur from tefillas mussaf. Now, the Nezer came from a different angle. He said that the Gemara held tefillas mussaf is a mitzvas asseh shezman gerama, not because it's rachame. Mussaf is not rachame. Meaning, so he said an af kaminah al halacha would be, what about mussaf on Rosh Hashanah? Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is kullei rachamin. That's the it's the tefillah of of Rosh Hashanah. It's mallei rachamin. According to the Nezer HaBehudah, that the whole reason that women are patur from mussaf is because it's not rachame. That's true mussaf on Rosh Chodesh. That's true mussaf on Shabbos. But mussaf on Rosh Hashanah, how can you tell me it's not rachame? But according to Rav Akiva, that at the end of the day, tefillas mussaf has a connection to the korban mussaf. The korban mussaf on Rosh Hashanah was also paid for by the machatzis hashekel. So, if women had no chelek in the korban mussaf on Rosh Hashanah, that even though there's so much rachame in this tefillah, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, they're going to be patur. They're not going to have a chelek in it. Just one other ha'arah, one other chiddush in this in Beis Medrash for lay chiddush. And that is Nezer HaBehudah says that really you can argue that I'm saying what if a woman wants to daven mussaf? Let's say she wants to. So, I'm saying the chiddush of Nezer HaBehudah, that even though women are chiyuv in tefillah, they're patur from mussaf because really it's a mitzvas asseh shezman gerama, not because it's rachame. Over here it's it's not rachame. But let's say a woman wants to. Could she or or could she not? It's totally really in the first ha'arah that we spoke out. This whole shailah, the shailah of whether or not women could be mekayem a mitzvas asseh shezman gerama even though they're not obligated to or not. But we know the halacha of course is that women do. Right? A woman A woman's allowed to be mekayem a mitzvas asseh shezman gerama. But says Nezer HaBehudah, I have a different shailah. Because the know there's a major and it's a what a woman makes a when she's when you it's all that's what it's all on the side that a woman doesn't make a when she's so she's going to sit in a she doesn't make a cuz it's true she could be but no so no based on that maybe she shouldn't be able to have either because the whole of is so the whole of is and a woman can't make a when she's so even though she's allowed to be even though she's from that standpoint why not have a if I could sit in a I could have a I'll tell you why because that's good according to the that hold you a lot of but if I can't make a then I shouldn't be able to have a so maybe this is a very big there's no problem with a woman making a that she's not to make that's not the point if a woman's allowed to be kind of then in theory she's able to make a either you know what the issue is when you make a you say the problem is the word that's the issue I mean that a woman's from a so she cannot say the word if she can't say the word that's where she's tripping up that's where she has an issue time is the lady over here there's no when you have a you don't say being that you don't say it's for that reason there's not going to be a problem just one final note and you can't go by this without speaking out another wrinkle to this beautiful thesis and that is that we mentioned a that the said in the context of this is really last week's but but the we've spoken about many times from the in his so he wrote a it's called and it's really is to his on on and he begins with a well-known the says the whole thing Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim to mikabel the Torah, shama kol Hakadosh Baruchu sh'osek b'Parshas Parah Adumah." You heard Hakadosh Baruchu's voice, and Kavyochol Hashem was learning. And he was learning Maseches Parah. And he said over halacha in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, a halacha with regards to the age of how old the Parah Adumah has to be. "Amal lifnei Ribono shel Olam, he rotsin sheyeitzei m'chalatzai." He davened to Hashem, "I should be zocheh that Rabbi Eliezer should come from me." Amal es what he had to say. "Talmud Chacham sheyeitzei m'chalatzai." "Sh'neimar, "B'shem El Eliezer." Pasuk says, "B'shem El Eliezer." You're right, Eliezer. Of course not the same Rabbi Eliezer. It's a Medrash Pliah. But the bottom line is, that's what the that's what the psukta says. And and the Radal goes on to say that it's it's interesting that if you learn Maseches Parah, you're going to find that the Tanna Rabbi Eliezer is mentioned disproportionately. He counts 21 times that you have the Tanna Rabbi Eliezer. And not just that, ordinarily Rabbi Eliezer was makpid like Rabbi Shimon, he was a machmir. But the exception of three Rabbi Eliezer's in Maseches Parah, every Rabbi Eliezer there is meikel. And he has this whole thesis. But the bottom line is, that was the greatness of Rabbi Eliezer. Parah Adumah is a machshavah amukah min ha'amukos. Even HaMelech couldn't fully grasp the sugyos of Parah. It was so beyond him. And but Rabbi Eliezer did. And that was this hispa'alus that Moshe Rabbeinu had when he hears Hakadosh Baruchu saying over Torah in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, he was he was blown away. "He rotsin sheyeitzei m'chalatzai." The bottom line is, that's the great Rabbi Eliezer. But here's the chiddush. He says one beautiful thing. Says he's a He found another psukta. It's also B'Midbar Rabbah. So it's a Medrash in two places. The Medrash says, quote, "D'varim sh'lo niglu l'Moshe, things that weren't revealed to Moshe, niglu l'Rabbi Akiva v'chaveiro." They were nisgala to Rabbi Akiva v'chaveiro. Says the Radal, he thinks that that Medrash, what's it referring to? Do the things Rabbi Akiva knew? Rabbi Akiva v'chaveiro that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't know? He thinks it's the topic of Parah Adumah. The topic of Parah Adumah that Chazal say so many times is a machshavah amukah min ha'amukos. Even Moshe Rabbeinu didn't really know. Rabbi Eliezer knew. Rabbi Akiva v'chaveiro is referring to who? It's referring to Rebbe Eliezer. Rebbe Eliezer was Khaveiro of Rebbe Akiva even though Rebbe Eliezer was Rebbe Akiva's Rebbe. Akiva referred to him Khaveiro. He discusses that and he says if you go through Maseches Parah it is not Rebbe Akiva. It is not Rebbe Akiva, Rav Nehemiah, Rebbe Yehudah, all the Tanaim that you find throughout Shas, you don't really find. Now they knew Parah Adumah and that's why it's Rebbe Akiva and Khaveiro but they only knew because they were Mekabel from their Rebbe, Rebbe Eliezer. But it all came through the conduit. Who was the person that was able to understand Parah? It was Rebbe Eliezer. He taught it to us and we have a Hassagah in his Talmidim certainly had Hassagah in it. But it all came from Rebbe Eliezer and that's the Divrei HaShem Niglu LeMoshe, Niglu LeRebbe Akiva VeKhaveiro. Moshe Rabbeinu hears a Maimar from Rebbe Eliezer and HaShem tells Moshe that even though true maybe you are Mechadeish to it, but Yichud it's it's someone that that's going to come from you. Bottom line that's Rebbe Eliezer and Halachos of Parah and on that note we'll finish the Daf. Doctor Yumarah Vayiten Misarvu Bechoros and Maseos what happens if two Kotzim were Misarvu not Min BeMinai but in this case it was Min BeShe Einai Einai. So what do you do now? A Chatas and an Olah. Chatas is Dam Lemalah, Olah is Dam Lematah. The Chazois, Zrikos it's a whole different Hakafah. So what are you supposed to do now? So the Mishnah says you have to let both animals graze. You have to wait until they get a Mum. You sell both of the animals. You take the money you buy a Chatas and an Olah. What if the animals aren't worth the same amount of money? Let's say one animal is worth $1,000 other one is $500. So are you going to and you don't know which was the Chatas which was the Olah? So you buy a $1,000 Chatas and a $500 Olah or a $1,000 Olah and a $500 Chatas? You have to buy a $1,000 Chatas and a $1,000 Olah and whoever patched up he's the one that's going to have to pay the difference. He's the person you send the bill to. But the bottom line is you're going to end up buying a $1,000 Chatas, $1,000 Olah. This is all if none of the animals were either a Bechor or Ma'aser Behemah. If one of the animals was Bechor or Ma'aser Behemah, so there's an added wrinkle the Mishnah said. The added wrinkle is is that you're not allowed to sell a you're not allowed to sell myse bechor. So possibly the Torah is now letting us sell. And being that you can't sell them, so you don't have the eitzah where do they get them all and then sell both animals? Cuz you're now allowed to sell both. Now, what if it was an oila and a bechor? So you could sell the oila, you can't sell the bechor. So what do you do? You wait for the oila and the bechor to both get a mum. Follow the steps. After they both get a mum, you sell the oila. The problem is is you don't know which one is the oila. So you have to assume the more expensive one is the oila. So if it was a thousand and a five hundred, you have to assume it it was a it was more expensive one. So you're going to now be poideh the oila. Again, you're being poideh the oila. You're going to take a thousand dollars now and buy a new carbon oila to replace the oila. The oila that you were poideh is now chulin. It's to mix together with the bechor and you're going to have to now leave them cuz again, you can't sell both. And now let them both go to chulin cuz the bechor you're now allowed to sell. So you can now treat this taruvah as as if they're both bechor. That's what you have to do. And you follow the rules of the bechor. Now, the good news is is that uh you're allowed to eat a bechor. That's a baal mum. So it's not the end of the world. It's not so bad. But the point is you can't sell both, let them both be chulin, do whatever you want, and now the the kedushah was transferred to the money and now figure out what you do with the money. In this case, when one of them was a bechor that you cannot be poideh, the option of selling both isn't a viable option. As a result, you have no choice but to only sell one. Says the Gemara, Amar Rabbi Berachya um Rabbi Berachya said, In the bechor of Beis Shammai, in machlokes um the nidah, so the halacha is that a bechor has kedushah. A bechor is a carbon. Right? When you think of a bechor in the times of the Beis Hamikdash, there's really two components to it. There was a there was a carbon component, there was the cheilev that went to the gavoha, and then there was the matanas kunos. One of the chof daal matanas kunos. The it went to the kohein. You gave it to the kohein. The kohein had an obligation to bring it to the Beis Hamikdash, to bring it as a carbon, and and he was able to eat the he was able to eat the basar. There's one big chiddush that you have in bechor that don't have anywhere else in kodshim. The Gemara says that in many times. And that is ordinarily once an animal has a mum, there's no dinei hachrava, there's no dinei nesina. A bechor ba'al mum still has a mitzvas nesina. The kohen gets to keep the bechor ba'al mum. Not just that, once it has a mum, it has a lesser degree of kedusha, but there is some level of kedusha nonetheless. Beis Shammai said that a bechor that's a ba'al mum, the halacha is you're not allowed to give a nidah to it. So even though a bechor ba'al mum has a lesser kedusha, so for example, a zar is allowed to eat it, and certain temei'im are allowed to eat it, but a nidah is not allowed to eat it. What's unique about a nidah is she's like a zavah or a zavah, she has a tum'ah hayotzei'es migufah, which has a very special place in halacha, it's considered a tum'ah chamurah. So even though there are people that ordinarily can't eat kodshim, a bechor ba'al mum they're allowed to eat. But Beis Shammai's shitah is that you're not allowed to be meichal a bechor ba'al mum to a nidah. Clearly the Gemara is saying, "Mah hu?" What if somebody has temurah? So you have a temurah of a bechor ba'al mum, can you give it to a a nidah or not? So the bechor ba'al mum itself, not. What about the temurah? So the Gemara says another shailah, "Bechor ein lo niftar." We know that a bechor even a ba'al mum you can't be poider. Oh, we just said that's our mishnah. A bechor even a ba'al mum you can't be poider. "Temurah say mah hu?" What about the temurah of a bechor ba'al mum? It takes on the life of a bechor. Could you be poider it or not? "Bechor ein lo nishkal balitrah." The kohen wants to sell the bechor, so he's not allowed to sell it in the shuk. So ordinarily somebody wanted to sell meat, so they would go to the shuk and they would put it on this weight, think of them as nayim, elo, right? You'd put the meat on one side, you'd put a weight on the other side, so they'd be able to know b'dyuk how much this meat weighs, so you'd be able to maximize the amount of money that you're going to get from selling this this piece of meat. A bechor, a kohen is not allowed to sell his basar with this litrah. It's considered a bizayon, a zilzul for the flesh. You can't do it, even if it's a mum. Even if the bechor had a ba'al mum, it doesn't matter. Lesser kedusha, you still can't sell it. The shailah is, baal mum ain lo nishkal ba litra. T'muras What about the t'mura of a baal mum? Lesser kedushas, one step less. If there's a mum, it's even the t'mura. Could I sell it ba litra? Could I not? Omar Rava, so Rava said, Tanya, I'll bring you a rai braisa says, baal mum has a mum. We need to deal with a baal mum. What is the t'mura? This t'mura? The t'mura What does it mean? Checkmate. It says clearly, t'mura What does it mean? It means a need to can't eat it. You can't be poyel it. And it means it's nishkal ba litra. But R' Akiva asked a different shaila. This is why it's in our sugia. What would be if a kohen had a baal mum and he decided to donate his baal mum to Beis Hamikdash? So he has a baal mum and he now decided to donate his baal mum to Beis Hamikdash, to the construction of the Beis Hamikdash. Can't go on the mizbei'ach, obviously, it has a mum. But he wants it to go to Beis Hamikdash. What's hekdesh going to do? They're going to sell it. And when they sell it, they're going to take the money and they're going to invest in the in the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash. The shaila is, when hekdesh now sells it, ma'asheh yishkal ba litra. Are they allowed to sell it in this way, where you put it on the miznayim, to get the maximum value of it, or you're not allowed to? What's the shaila? The shaila is that why is a kohen not allowed to do it? Meaning, if you have a kohen has this piece of meat and he wants to sell it. So the piece of meat is worth $100. If he just sells it, you know, based on people's best guess, he's going to get $90. That's right. If he could put it on the miznayim and show that it's really $100, then he's going to get $100. So the kohen is losing $10 by not putting it on the miznayim. But, staying that it's hekdesh, and we're not going to allow the kohen to make an extra $10 at the expense of hekdesh. But over here, tiny is the gemara, who's the beneficiary of the proceeds of this baal mum? The kohen was makdish it to Beis Hamikdash. So now the beneficiary is going to be hekdesh. So maybe you could sell it on this litra. Meaning, even though there's a bazillion, but being that hectish will gain the profit from it, maybe it's Kadaya little bazillionness to to make a few dollars. Tiny Ralph could the hectish audit? What's more important? Making money or you doing the or maybe not being an age-old question. Says the Tush man, the Mishnah said that if there was an oil for example and it was with us you actually start we have to wait till all the animals get up. Boom. The what does it mean doesn't mean that if there's then wants to sell it they can't sell it the literal. That's the of the but the says and they both said even if you're right, even if when the price is says what it means is is that you're not allowed to sell it. You're not allowed to sell it in this way. This says the but I don't think it's a because fish what do you Mishnah it's a similar situation in our Mishnah right now hectish owns these animals so hectish is losing out and still it says you have to follow the which means this so you're you're telling me that hectish is going to lose out and still you can't sell it the literal. But the wants to say that over there the thing that's going to lose is the oil. It's the other animal that was missariv. So it could be you don't have a right to be missal one animal to profit for another animal. But over here over here where it's all in the same animal I'm going to profit from this animal by being missal on this animal. Maybe over here it would be okay. So even though there is a it is a it's not a perfect I'll ask you another question. wanted to know if you're allowed to sell a carbon with this lishka with this mishka belitra into profit for hectic. Kind of obvious but I have an if that's the case maybe you should be able to be paid a as well. I mean we know you're not allowed to be paid a maybe you should be able to be paid a but I don't even know what I'm talking about. So new new if someone's not this maybe you should be able to be paid it as well. I mean if you're entertaining the side that you could sell it in this ocean of maybe you should be able to pay this as well but the says you ask me a question of course you can. I love I mean says going back to the original again if a coin had this carbon. So if you wanted to sell it he wouldn't be able to sell it in the way people ordinarily sell meat. Now he was could sell it in that way. So the says he is the real question as far as like we are as if the element over here he gave him his rights his rights were limited in the sense that he couldn't sell it in this way being that his rights were limited in the fact that he can't sell it in that way hectic won't be able to sell in that way either. We'll just end with one last order. And that is mentioning this you're not allowed to sell the that's what the mission says. So if you have a for example it's a different because you can't be paid even if it has a you're not allowed to be paid there's an issue to be paid interesting. You know why it's interesting? Because it's in sharp contrast to a other. I mean you are discussing the one that was what do you do with the other? It's just the opposite kind of other and what are you supposed to you're supposed to be paid that's what is paid means paid so the father the child goes. He's paid instead of this child remaining of so to speak he redeems him for five he finds kind of a kiss and and he goes and he's paid up. He's paid up this He's paid up this child. So, it's funny that when it comes to a behavior of the Torah says lice sister in contrast to all other cultures where there's a pidyon. But when it comes to Adam, here is just the opposite. I'll just tell you one interesting that I saw in the safer Moshe. That's from Moshe and he brings from the safer dark game Moshe who said that what's So, you have this You have a child, your firstborn of a car. He's a She's a literally. What's the first thing you do? The first thing you do is you pay them. You remove his kosher. It seems so sacrilegious. Just the opposite. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow him to keep his kosher and raise this child as a Why are you removing the kosher of this child? He said an unbelievable hair. He said that in our religion, we need to work for the that we're going to achieve and nothing is supposed to be handed to a person on on a silver spoon. And we're supposed to work for things. And that's the message of the car. The message of that this child was born a realize that if somebody gives you that is not going to have such a It's not going to get you far in life. What do you mean? Let the child just be a Let him grow up a What kind of is he going to be? Because he was the firstborn child, he was a and there's something special about him. No, no, no. It doesn't work that way. The only way has a The only way it remains is when it's when it's worked for. When it's something that's achieved through a through a When you work for something, then you have a But when you don't work for something, you don't have a and he says perhaps the perfect the perfect paradigm for that is the as they're traveling through the midbar. As we go through these The they're traveling in the midbar and they had seen unbelievable at and then again they had seen and the minute there was any slip up whatsoever, they started complaining. How do you reconcile those two things? It doesn't make any sense. On the one hand, you have a nation that so much had and then again you have a nation that the minute something is a little imperfect, something isn't right, they start complaining. He says, "Imagine this. Imagine this." One of the complaints that the Yidden had was is they turned to Moshe Rabbeinu and they say, "You know, we remember when we were in Mitzrayim, we had cucumbers, we had Right? We had good food." He says, "Stop suffering, Yirmeyahu Hanavi. You're sitting around and he's complaining to Hashem. I remember the days, you know, when when I had cucumbers and You can't even say it with a straight face. It seems so silly. And here you have the Yidden that are They're They reached greater of Yirmeyahu, greater than Ben Buzi. And yet they're complaining over pettiness, over silliness. What's the The is very simple. Yirmeyahu Hanavi, you know why you can never fathom it? Because he achieved his on his own merit. Not Yirmeyahu Hanavi was about and he was and he lived a life of making good decisions, decisions of decisions of He became so by became Yirmeyahu. You're right. Someone on that is not possible. We remember the It's not But the Yidden never worked for anything. We got a gift. promised Avraham, that and that one day that they would stand by and be and they would see So like this and all the that took place in all these that took place. That was all but it was given to them. They got it on a silver platter. Easy come, easy go. That's a reality. And that's the message. The message of is that is that a child is born into this world, he's born with it's very nice. He's a but the first thing we do is we remind them that things that come easy don't have a and if I'm going to give it to you on a silver platter, it's not going to get you that far in life. In order to achieve a person has to work and when it works on it, that's when it really does have a and if I'm going to give it to you on a silver platter, it's not going to get you that far in life. In order to achieve a person has to work and when it works on it, that's when it really does have a kill.