Zevachim 90

We've all learned Chumash, maybe even thought we understood, but now, with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature up-tempo Daf Yomi style, Reb Sruly Bornstein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the derech halimud of the base medrash meets pshat, discover the shiur that's redefining how people learn Chumash. Reb Sruly Bornstein's Chumash shiur. Find it on the Lakewood Daf Yomi app or wherever this shiur is being heard. Today's daf is Vochin daf tzadik. And we are nine lines from the bottom of daf pay tes alef beis. So, yesterday, we began perek kol hatoder, the theme of which is a kohen is in the Beis Hamikdash and he has many korbanos to bring. So, is there a halacha that dictates which carbon needs to be brought first? And we saw two mishnayos. One mishna said, kol hatoder mechavero kodem mechavero. If there are two korbanos and one carbon is more toder than the other carbon, so whichever carbon is toder, that's the one that should be brought first. For example, the carbon tamid, which was brought every day, came before the musafin that were only brought on special days. If it was Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, so the carbon musaf of Shabbos was brought before the carbon musaf of Rosh Chodesh because Shabbos happens more often than Rosh Chodesh does. Another mishna we saw was kol hamikudash mechavero kodem mechavero. And that's already a little bit more complex. So, kohen has two korbanos. One is not more toder than the other. There's another determining factor that can dictate which carbon should be brought first, and that is the one that's more kodash. So, the carbon that's more kodash, that will be brought before the carbon that is less kodash. And the mishna went through a whole bunch of different examples to tell us, I mean, how do you know which carbon is more kodash? All korbanos are kodash, but it's because different korbanos have different details, different shifey katon in terms of the way these korbanos were brought. And those halachos determine its its kedusha. So, we saw a mishna and a whole gemara that discussed it. Regardless, the gemara picks up on that note, but first, a digression. Amar Rav Zeira bar Sheva, Rav Zeira bar Sheva said, "Imurei kodashim kalim, the imurim of kodashim kalim, so the imurim was the cheilek of the carbon that was not eaten by the kohanim or the baalim, but rather the cheilek of the carbon that was put on the mizbei'ach. So, that we know that korbanos are animals. Animals have meat. What do you do with the meat of a carbon? The dam, shchitah, kabalah, zrikah. What did you do with the meat? So, part of it was eaten, part of it was burnt on the mizbei'ach. The sh'tei achilos achal adam v'achad achal mizbei'ach. The achad achal mizbei'ach. With the exception of the olos beheima, where none of it was eaten, all the basar was put on the mizbei'ach. And with the exception of the chatas ha'of, where all of it was eaten, none of it was put on the mizbei'ach. But ordinarily, part of it was eaten, some by the baalim, some by the kohanim, sometimes only by the kohanim, kodshei kodashim. And part of it was put on the mizbei'ach. We're discussing imurim. That's the basar that was put on the mizbei'ach of kodashim kalim sheyotzei lifnei zrikas damim. That left the azarah, but it left the azarah before the zrikah. Said Rav Zeira bar Sheva, "Pasul. It's going to be pasul." What's the pasul going to be? Yotzei. Now, why is this a chiddush? Imurim are supposed to go on the mizbei'ach. So, if it's supposed to go on the mizbei'ach, its makom is the azarah. So, naturally, there'll be a pasul yotzei if it leaves the azarah. The chiddush is that being that you were not allowed to put the imurim on the mizbei'ach before zrikah, so it comes out that the zrikah is really what gave it its din that it goes on the mizbei'ach. Before zrikah, it's imurei kodashim kalim. We can look at it maybe as basar of kodashim kalim. And being that kodashim kalim is nechal b'chol Yerushalayim, so maybe it doesn't have the kedusha yet that would beget a pasul yotzei for it leaving chutz la'azarah. Meaning, imurei kodshei kodashim, even lifnei zrikah, it's pasul. The halacha would be that there would be a pasul yotzei. It's kodshei kodashim. Kodshei kodashim's makom is always going to be in the azarah. The dam has to go on the mizbei'ach, which is in the azarah. The imurim have to go on the mizbei'ach, which is in the azarah. The basar that was eaten by the kohanim had to be eaten in the azarah. What about the imurim of kodashim kalim? Being that it's kodashim kalim, and kodashim kalim technically can be eaten, the cheilek that was nechal in the entire Yerushalayim, so maybe even the imurim, their makom is the entire Yerushalayim, albeit until the zrikah. Once there's zrikah, now there's a din that it has to go on the mizbei'ach. From a long distance perspective, once there's a zrikah, the imurei kodashim kalim now get a din kodshei kodashim. That's the long distance cuz anything that goes on the mizbei'ach has to be kodshei kodashim. So, the zrikah makes it kodshei kodashim. So, now already, it makes sense that its makom is the azarah. Now, it can't leave the azarah. And if it does, it's going to be a pasul yotzei. But the imurim, although it will have a din kodshei kodashim, it will have a din to go on the mizbei'ach, but that's only l'achar zrikah. Maybe lifnei zrikah, there won't be a pasul yotzei. So, that was Rav Zeira bar Sheva's chiddush that imurei kodashim kalim, even though it's kodashim kalim sheyotzei lifnei zrikas damim, pasul, it's going to be pasul. Says the gemara, "Tana tuna, I'll bring you a raya from all places, from our mishna. Where do you see that in our mishna?" Cuz our mishna was discussing the halacha of ma'aser and ofos. So, let's say a kohen had two korbanos to bring. One was ma'aser beheima and the other one was a chatas ha'of. Where Rashi had been mefaresh the mishna now and now. So, ma'aser beheima, chatas ha'of, which one is supposed to go first? So, the mishna said, ma'aser beheima goes first for two reasons. Number one, mipnei shehu zevach, it's an animal as opposed to an of which is only a bird. Number two, v'yeish bo kodshei kodashim dam v'imurim. Ma'aser beheima has two parts of it that's kodshei kodashim. Again, although ma'aser beheima is kodashim kalim, but whatever goes on the mizbei'ach has a din kodshei kodashim. That's one of the chiddushim that we're going to see in this gemara. So, the dam which goes on the mizbei'ach, it is treated as kodshei kodashim despite the fact that it comes from an animal that's kodashim kalim. The imurim also goes on the mizbei'ach. Whereas the chatas ha'of, only the dam goes on the mizbei'ach. The basar of the chatas ha'of did not go on the mizbei'ach. So, there's two mailos that ma'aser beheima has over chatas ha'of. Number one, ma'aser beheima is a zevach. Number two, ma'aser beheima has two parts that are kodshei kodashim as opposed to the chatas ha'of that only has one part that's kodshei kodashim. And the gemara makes a deyak. Again, the mishna said that ma'aser comes before chatas ha'of mipnei shehu zevach, v'yeish bo kodshei kodashim dam v'imurim. It has two parts that are kodshei kodashim. Bishlama imurim, says the gemara, I understand why the mishna mentioned imurim l'asid l'avo ofos. Because the chatas ha'of doesn't have any imurim. It was completely nechal. The ma'aser beheima does. So, the mishna is mentioning that ma'aser beheima has that maila. It's imurei kodshei kodashim as opposed to chatas ha'of that doesn't have any basar that's kodshei kodashim in the sense that it goes on the mizbei'ach. Ela v'dam miya yotzei? But why are we mentioning dam? Chatas ha'of has dam just like ma'aser beheima has dam. Ela l'af kamashma lan mishna to the mishna coming to tell me an agav urcha kamashma lan some chiddush that the imurim kedam that the imurim of the chatas ha'of of the ma'aser beheima is like the dam of the ma'aser beheima. Madom lifnei zrikah just like the dam has a din kodshei kodashim even before the zrikah. Obviously, the dam doesn't need zrikah to be matir to go on the mizbei'ach. You do the zrikah with the dam. So, the dam has its din to be on the mizbei'ach kodshei kodashim lifnei zrikah. Af imurim kodem zrikah. So, today, imurim are going to have a din kodshei kodashim lifnei zrikah. V'chol karnei kodshei kodashim. Oh, and the mishna calls it kodshei kodashim. If that's the case, so madom imurim yotzei? Just like the dam is mutar yotzei before the zrikah, af imurim mutar yotzei. So, today, imurim are going to be pasul yotzei as well. Says the gemara, "Even though Rav Zeira bar Sheva said a big chiddush, and even though there's no raya in the furashas, not from a mishna or a braisa or a tosefta anywhere to Rav Zeira bar Sheva's chiddush, but the tana tuna, I can make a deyak in our mishna to Rav Zeira bar Sheva's halacha that the imurim, even of kodashim kalim, such as ma'aser beheima, which is what our mishna is discussing, even lifnei zrikah, just like the dam, even lifnei zrikah, is going to be kodshei kodashim. Thus, there's going to be a pasul yotzei." Says the gemara, "Nima sayeila. L'chura, I could bring you a raya from another discussion amongst amei ram, the gedolei gedolei amei ram, kodshei basar kodashim kalim sheyotzei lifnei zrikas damim. What happens if basar of kodashim kalim was yotzei lifnei zrikas damim? So, Rav Zeira bar Sheva was discussing the imurim of kodashim kalim. That's the cheilek that went on the mizbei'ach. This This discussion is the basar, the cheilek that was nechal. Basar kodashim kalim sheyotzei lifnei zrikas damim. So, it was yotzei, but before zrikah. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says it's kodashim pasul. Reish Lakish says it's pasul. Meicham Amar Rav Kahana, Meicham Amar said it's kasher. Hoyil d'seifa lotzei, because even though right now, you're not allowed to eat the basar kodashim kalim, but even after the zrikah, it's still going to be kodashim kalim because the basar is always going to be nechal. So, why in the world should you look at it as being any more chomer now than it will be l'achar zrikah? The animal's kodashim kalim. This part of the animal will be nechal, nechal b'chol Yerushalayim. So, there's no reason it can't go anywhere in Yerushalayim even before the zrikah. See, you did the shchitah, you have the meat and meat, you didn't do the zrikah yet. Says Rav Yochanan, "Hoyil d'seifa lotzei, there's not going to be a pasul yotzei if it leaves the azarah." Reish Lakish Amar, Reish Lakish says pasul. Ad haynu gizman lotzei. It's true, basar kodashim kalim will have a din to be nechal in Yerushalayim, but it's only going to be allowed to be eaten once there's a zrikah. And being the zrikah didn't happen yet, right now, we look at it as being more chomer and there's a halacha pasul yotzei. I can't answer the gemara. We figure out about this machlokes between Rav and Reish Lakish is regarding basar kodashim kalim, the cheilek that was nechal. About the imurim as related to the part that went on the mizbei'ach, it sounds like there was no machlokes. What does it sound like? It sounds like everybody agrees that the imurim is going to have a pasul yotzei. The whole question is the basar. Hoyil d'seifa lotzei, Reish Lakish being that it will go out one day, so there, Rav Yochanan says it's going to be kasher. But as it relates to the imurim, where you don't have this photo of lot says even though it's from cotton column. It sounds like it's going to be partial that is going to be absolutely so it was but says the name in the from lucky but the says it could be who I didn't maybe the even regarding meaning even argued by it could be regarding would argue by as well. So that where said possible column would it could be cotton column would be kosher as well. If they argue why didn't they argue as well? Why didn't they why didn't they did they not argue by as well? Why they only argue by with the teacher and the safe for lot says even which is safe for lot says I'm right now I don't know if it is not a lot says being that right now it didn't go out yet. This is going to be absolutely meaning it could be the of is not only by possible so that you could bring a riot by everybody holds is absolutely right to be could be the side by possible and side by if that's the case why did they pick possible to argue? Why didn't they argue by as well? Says the Gamora if the purpose of the my was to say the biggest in we would have said it by but for whatever reason we want to say the biggest in lucky even though usually that but here we want to say the biggest in who holds there is absolutely not only is there absolutely by which is going to happen is there even by the I didn't know yet after this but this is before this so before this possible cotton column is going to have absolutely says the maybe it's a time so we started off with a member of from one of the we said name of from earlier regarding now the Gamora says maybe it's even a time on take it back a step further and we're going to column say to us literally I wish I would be more than the head of the Gamora of cotton column that was but it was regarding so here the is not regarding it's regarding something else regarding says there's no the additionally there's going to be no nice of a time regarding says there is the Gamora my love but the right little play key now this price is a little bit sauce and says the Gamora it would seem that this is discussing with a more than cotton column left and then they came back into the and the is this right now going to work to say that there's and that you have the laws of which is something that would normally would have the ability to do or do you say that being that it was a more than there's no being that people so it seems to be a regarding what's the regarding what's the the child probably is is this possible if there's absolutely on the more than then there's no that's going to be more than that's possible and there's no that's going to be that's possible but if there's if there is no absolutely if there's no absolutely then there would be that's there would be this regarding is regarding the Gamora says no it could be to the extent that they would went back into the there's no regarding everybody would agree to regarding it could be everybody would agree everybody would agree that there is no absolutely what is the the is where remained outside the regarding holds that doesn't work for something that's outside regarding holds regarding the regarding we're not discussing where it was where it ended up coming back inside the regarding has nothing to do regarding regarding we're discussing where it remained outside oh remained outside this is already a whole different it's over there the regarding says is that the regarding is not going to work for regarding because regarding but and and even regarding argues that's a regarding even though it was at the time of the regarding still regarding is so we said this regarding regarding said that this regarding regarding was discussing not when the came back absolutely but when it was outside at the time of the regarding where the regarding is regarding could work for something that's regarding can't be for something that's regarding regarding regarding had said this regarding said regarding a different and the context over there was the these were the the carbon that were brought on to us that came together with bread so some carbon came together with bread tell you the dialogue one of the carbon that came with bread was the carbon the one carbon that was ever above which was known as the was brought on to us it came together with over there there's a similar regarding what would be the if the was absolutely the regarding of the regarding which created on those to the extent the was absolutely does the regarding have an ability to impact the or does it not and it's the same exact regarding says no regarding says yeah and regarding said but there is no that was not talking about with the remained outside at the time that the regarding was done to the contrary but the regarding regarding was when it was brought back inside now at first glance you would think these two are between regarding is the same in one case we're discussing a regarding impacting the that were absolutely in one place we're discussing a regarding impacting the that were absolutely in both cases regarding says and regarding says regarding and in one case regarding said the regarding is not when it remained outside but when it came back inside and the other case regarding said the regarding is when it remained outside why would the same regarding be two regarding which at first glance seem to be very high level in one case one way and the other case the other way says the Gamora tell you why because the two cases are actually different this that regarding explained the case of regarding where it was regarding regarding meaning if it was outside he said which means that even regarding would hold the regarding doesn't work that's regarding that's why the which is not part of the carbon even though these breads came together with the but it wasn't one it wasn't part and parcel of the one is an animal one is breads they're not the same thing so regarding held that if it remained outside nobody would hold the regarding works and even regarding would hold the regarding doesn't work must be what's the regarding regarding is where it came back in and over there the does the regarding work now despite the fact that it was or does the regarding not work and that's regarding that the regarding is going to work I believe but by the the group of the where the is part of the carbon so we hear but there is no regarding here he held just the opposite here he held that everybody would agree that it could be even regarding would hold that where it's outside the regarding would work thus if it came back inside there's no regarding the regarding is that it was outside I mean the only time regarding was willing to entertain a sheet of that the regarding is is by the where it's group of the which is not group of the over there he was not willing to entertain even such a possibility excel for a rather difficult so before we go back there I just wanted to go back to one piece of yesterday's so the was discussing call hot other one of the things the said was is that the carbon was to the carbon so came before the why and the gave two reasons number one the said the thing with the the way was done with the carbon was for on the four corners of the number two the two the carbon had a as opposed to the carbon that didn't have a first glance you learn this without delving into it too deeply you would walk away and make a terrible mistake you would think that there was no by the carbon the carbon has a the that's one of the two has and it's for that reason that the comes before the but the truth is it's not that way we know that the carbon also had a what then does the what the is that by the carbon is in the that you're supposed to do by the carbon it's not that you're supposed to do regarding being that it's by the and it's not by the that gives the a it gives it a over the because it's true both of them have the but by one the said it explicitly and by the other one it's only implicit it's only something that I know from or one of the but it's but it's nonetheless I mean that one is that one is not the one that's has a over the one that's not the wrote a conscious called conscious where he talks about regarding regarding and and that I learned that from the discusses the by and the and there's a tremendous amount of in the conscious the we've spoken out our and pieces of it over the years. One of the things regarding says is I'll bring you three rias from shas that if you have two mitzvahs that are rias, one is a mefurash pasuk in the Torah and the other one is only learned out from midrash. So the one that's a mefurash pasuk in the Torah has a chashivus, it has a maila. Rav Chanan's third raya is this mishna right here. The mishna says chatos is kodesh kodashim. Why? Shvi'i she ra'ui. What do you mean they both have shvi'i she ra'ui? No, the Torah says like we just spoke out. By the chatos it's mefurash in the Torah and the asham is not mefurash in the Torah. So you see that something that's mefurash in the Torah has a chashivus. Says Rav Chanan, this is my third raya, my third raya that something that's mefurash in the Torah has a maila over something that's not mefurash in the Torah. What are the other two mailas? The other two rias. The first raya Rav Chanan brings is from the metzora. We know that the metzora was tamei. As a result, he wasn't allowed to enter certain parts of of the Beis Hamikdash. Stating that in the Torah says that when the matan dam was done with the metzora it had to be lifnei Hashem, it had to be by shaar Nikanor. So the metzora would stand by the shaar Nikanor and he would stick his thumbs matan b'ohal noish, he would stick his thumbs into the azar and the kohen would go ahead and do zrika. Peisas asks a kasha that according to the mandam that holds that beer b'miktzas shma beer, we don't have to do it together in Maseches Vochin amud beis. So according to the mandam that holds beer b'miktzas shma beer, that means when the metzora sticks his thumbs into the azar, he's technically entering the azar. If that's the case, why do you have to inconvenience him? Why does he have to stand on one foot with his thumb here looking there? Let him just walk in. What's the difference? Beer b'miktzas shma beer anyways. He's anyways walking in. If you hold beer b'miktzas lo shma beer, okay, so he never entered the azar. We never violated the law that a tamei is not allowed to enter the azar. But according to the mandam that holds beer b'miktzas shma beer, let the metzora just walk in shaar Nikanor. He can walk in derech melech. Why is he standing there with his thumbs? Says Peisas, it's true that beer b'miktzas is shma beer, but it's not a but it's a drasha. It's a drasha that beer [clears throat] b'miktzas is is shma beer. So says Peisas, the fact that a metzora is not allowed to walk into the azar like all men, that's a pasuk in the Torah. The fact that beer b'miktzas is considered walking into the azar, that's only something that's a drasha. That's not mefurash in the Torah. So you can ask me a kasha, let him walk in. No, I'd rather be over a deraisa that's not mefurash in the Torah than be over a deraisa that is mefurash in the Torah. Says Rav Chanan, who cares? They're both deraisas. They're both deraisas. A person can be chayev skila for being over a deraisa that's not mefurash in the Torah. Who cares if it's mefurash? That's Rav Chanan, this is the var. The heinei havar. There is a chashivus, there's an adifus for a deraisa that's mefurash in the Torah versus a deraisa that's not mefurash in the Torah. Thus, we'd rather be over the beer b'miktzas shma beer than a beer skila. That's why the metzora doesn't walk in derech melech. That's why he only walks in with with his bones. That's Rav Chanan's first var. What's his second raya? So we're going over here to the base counterclockwise, three one now two. Says Rav Chanan, it's the Ran. Which Ran? The Ran. The Ran in Nedarim daf ches where the Ran says a gavaldige yesod that even though we know the halacha is that nishba l'vatel mitzvah or nishba l'avar al divrei Torah, so the shvua is not chal, but it's only a davar mefurash b'Torah. The Ran's yesod. But something that's not mefurash in the Torah, the Ran says there's no halacha. So a person can't make a shvua to be mevatel over divrei Torah. But if it's not mefurash in the Torah, if it's not a a mefurash pasuk, then the halacha is it's not going to it's not going to be a problem. What's the difference? What's the difference if it's mefurash in the Torah or if it's not mefurash in the Torah? This is the point. When it's mefurash in the Torah it's it has a chashivus and as a result you can't make a shvua to be mevatel something that's mefurash in the Torah. He once spoke out, reminding myself now from Rav Shmuel Yankev, zichro tzaddik livracha. So he spoke out once from Shmuel Yankev, he said what's the pshat? What's the pshat in this Ran? What's the difference if it's mefurash in the Torah or if it's not mefurash in the Torah? So Shmuel Yankev said because what's the reason that a person can't make a shvua to be over al divrei Torah, for example? The reason he can't do this is you're already mushba b'Har Sinai because we stood at Har Sinai and we swore that we're going to be mekayem the mitzvos. So meaning that when we were mushba b'Har Sinai, if you make a shvua now, you're making a shvua to be mevatel a shvua. It's not only a shvua chala a shvua, it's for that reason you're not able to do it. Peisas asks a kasha that b'chura the Yidden we know said na'aseh v'nishma. But at the same time, Chazal say it was kafah aleihem har k'gigis. So which one was it? Were the Yidden mekayem the Torah b'ratzon or were they mekayem the Torah kafah aleihem har k'gigis? Rava said mekayem divrei Torah deraisa. So the famous Torah it's the Tanchuma says lo kashya k'dei Torah she b'ksav k'dei Torah she b'al peh. Torah she b'ksav there was na'aseh v'nishma. Torah she b'al peh that they were afraid of. And that was already kafah aleihem har k'gigis. So says Rav Shmuel Yankev, it comes out that when the Yidden stood at Har Sinai and they swore that they would keep Torah and mitzvos. As it relates to Torah she b'ksav, that was a real shvua that they did b'da'as, that they did b'ratzon. That was na'aseh v'nishma. But as it relates to Torah she b'al peh, the dinei deraisa, but the things that aren't mefurash in the Torah, it's all the mesora that Torah she b'al peh that they would never make a shvua because that shvua was done b'kfiya. That was shvua's onsin. That was kafah aleihem har k'gigis. So says Rav Shmuel Yankev, you only have the mushba b'Har Sinai on the Torah SHE B'KSAV WHERE THERE WAS a real shvua. On the Torah she b'al peh you don't have it. The mail nishba l'avar al divrei Torah, when it's a davar mefurash b'Torah, that's in shvua chala shvua. But when it comes to Torah she b'al peh, something that's not mefurash in the Torah, maybe that's the beer in this in this Rav Chanan's yesod a little bit that one Klal Yisrael said na'aseh v'nishma. The other one was only kafah aleihem har k'gigis. On the na'aseh v'nishma maybe there's a chashivus. This is what we were mekayem b'ratzon. So anything that's mefurash in the Torah has a maila. Anything that comes from the world of of drashos, that's the nishmi Torah she b'al peh. And even though it's deraisa and of course it's in terms of your obligation of observance, it's the same thing. But the bottom line is one is a na'aseh v'nishma that's that's supporting it. The other one doesn't have a na'aseh v'nishma supporting it. It could be for that reason there would be a chelek between the two things. Rav Chanan himself explains it very possibly. He says the tam v'shal davar is a pasuk misvara. He says if the Torah wrote something mefurash, it's obvious the Torah really wants you to know this. And it must be that it's more chashuv than something that the Torah only gave over b'remiza. It's very simple. That's what it is. And he quotes Chazal. You know, Chazal say that the story of Eliezer eved Avraham is repeated twice in the Torah. And say Chazal, you see from there yofa sichasan shel ha'avois yoseir me me me from parshiyos in the Torah. What's the point? The point is from the fact that the Torah went into such great detail to tell the story of Eliezer eved Avraham. That's a sign of yofa. It says something about it. So says Rav Chanan, take that principle and apply it. That that's what it means. Anything that's mefurash in the Torah, that's a siman, that's a siman that it's more chashuv. We're being moisef that maybe it's related to Shmuel Yankev's yesod that something that's mefurash that has the na'aseh v'nishma supporting it. Something that's not, that's more because of the kafah aleihem har k'gigis, maybe that gives it a chashivus. Regardless, zachti Gemara va'eider. So the mishna again was going through kol hamikdash mechavero kodem l'chavero. The mishna said oifos kodem l'minachos. The oifos come before the minachos. Why? Because the oifos have blood and minachos don't have any blood. Ad Rav Freida Gemara minachos kodem oifos. I can make the argument that maybe the mincha should come before the oif. She can yesh b'tzibur k'viyachid because you find a mincha tzibur. For example, the korban omer was a mincha. That's an example of mincha tzibur, the shtei halechem. So there is a concept of a mincha tzibur, but you never find that the tzibur brought a a korban that was an oif. So maybe the mincha has a maila because of yesh b'tzibur. Rav Dovid meina davar meina davar meina davar meina davar. Minchas choiteh. The mishna said within the world of minchos there's also a packing order. Minchas choiteh comes before the minchas nedava. Any mincha that a choiteh is bringing, for example, the korban oif b'yoreid. If the person was b'daley dalos, he couldn't afford an animal, he couldn't afford an oif, so what did he bring? He he brought the korban, he brought the korban mincha. So the minchas choiteh has a kedima over the minchas nedava. And the reason is it's ba'al cheit. Just like the chatos comes before the oilah because the chatos is mechaper, so too the minchas choiteh comes before the minchas nedava. The Gemara says ad Rav Nachman, minchas nedava kodem choiteh. Maybe the minchas nedava should come first. She came to the shul of Avraham Avinu. You know, the minchas nedava had shul of Avraham Avinu. The minchas choiteh didn't have shul of Avraham Avinu. I think Rav Nachman says the minchas choiteh ba'al cheit adif l'mechaper. This maila, this chashivus is better than the other maila. Eibay ilahu, minchas choiteh u'minchas nedava is mem kodem es. What? If you have a minchas choiteh and a minchas nedava, so we know that the choiteh also had to bring a a korban mincha. And that mincha's purpose was l'vareir avon, the Gemara always says. Meaning the choiteh needed the korban mincha in order for the mayim ham'arim to be able to be bodek. If there was no korban mincha, the mayim would never work. Remember Rav Rav Yosef Engel's kasha? Gevuras Shmuel. Rav Yosef Engel wrote a sefer called Gevuras Shmuel where he asks a kasha. He gives 80 tirutzim to this kasha. The kasha was according to the mandam in the perek b'shama that holds that the ba'alim have an ability to be mefagel. He says any choiteh who knows that she's guilty has an easy way to get out. She's the ba'alas hakorban of the minchas choiteh. When the kohen brings the mincha, let her have a machsheves pigul. According to the mandam that holds the ba'alim mefagel, it's a real machshava. If it's a machshava, the korban's going to be pasul, it won't be mevareir avon. The purpose of the mincha is to be mevareir avon. So according to the mandam that holds m'lamed cha ba'alim mefagel, she has an easy way out. Let her be mefagel and by doing that, it won't be mevareir avon. Even if she's guilty as anything, she's going to walk out looking clean. Rav Yosef Engel said 80 tirutzim to this kasha. Either way, eibay ilahu, minchas choiteh u'minchas nedava is mem kodem es. What happens if the kohen has the minchas choiteh and the minchas nedava? So the minchas choiteh comes before the minchas nedava. What about the minchas choiteh? What's the stavam? Do you say minchas nedava kodem choiteh? She came to the shul of Avraham Avinu. The minchas nedava had shul of Avraham Avinu. The minchas choiteh like the minchas choiteh did not have shul of Avraham Avinu. I don't know. Minchas choiteh kodem choiteh b'lav vareir avon. Maybe l'vareir avon is also a maila over nedava and as a result, the choiteh would be what's my mind if also come before the >> [snorts] >> that not only is the before the but even the before the but the mix honey with Paris slow down. I don't know if that's a dick because when the mission gave the reason, what was the reason that the comes before the dollar? issue ball head. Now, had the mission to say Paris, so clearly we only mean the height day as in the carbon as opposed to the but it's not what the mission said. What she bought head guitar what the mission said is that the was of over the that it's not the is also so maybe is inclusive and includes even the height day and although it's not a day in the in the in the more in the pure sense because it's not coming to be it's purpose is not it's purpose is but it is right in order to be a that has to be it all starts with another so maybe to the contrary included in the mission is is the which means that does come before the so the says bring you right from a price is to discussing two now which two are is is the price of discussing or we not talking about the and and clearly the which is comes before the which is even the says why maybe the price is discussing the and the not the but rather the which is also and the which is right the were usually it was flower the flower was made from wheat as opposed to the that was the one that came from the that the reason the came from is because is my and what she did was my and for that reason we give her her is my but either way one one loved after we mean the over maybe we mean over that's not a because is a for sure it comes before everything but the says if the price and means the compare and contrast the and the then why we saying that it's my is over typically that you should say the more obvious reason the is supposed to it's not but because you want to tell me that the price means and that that's your that the comes before the then why again are you telling me one is one is I also have another reason typically the and all the way now is the way now what do you have to say tell me whatever that they say means it's giving one of other one of maybe multiple reasons because regardless whether it means or over there were other reasons you can get bottom line is you can't bring any from this mission that could live just like the comes before the so to the can before the you know how do you know that how do you know that the comes before the the again this is talking about the of the year there were certain that if a person couldn't afford to bring a regular carbon so the terrorist said we'll work with you you could bring instead of the carbon you could bring it but you never bring one you always bring two we spoke at the yesterday it's always that so says the the the says that which do you bring first when there's a first you bring the says the why do you have to say why do we have to emphasize that the is first she ain't you can't tell me the reason saying it is to tell me that it's brought first because it says two later that the second one should be the so the second one is the we can do the math the first one must be the so why does the have to say the you know why the told it to me it's a you know to tell me that any time there's a and an you always bring the before the oil it doesn't matter if they're both being if they're both and here's the punchline feel even if the is a and is a the will than the it doesn't matter even over there the is that the always comes before the you'll the makes a for us that the the comes before the from the that's the second that we just brought that's in the of the of the year that's saying you know the comes before the how do you know the comes before the with the that was yesterday's the comes before the the comes before the was learned down from the of the that the this big that the comes even before the how do you know that that's that's this the she ain't no man it didn't have to say it that's coming to teach me that the always comes before the even if one is an and the other one is a that's the way that it's always going to be says the I have a with all this call this for us anytime the is that if you can afford it you bring a carbon if you can't afford to bring the carbon meaning we're replacing the with something else instead you bring snake machine of the such as what's the classic example that's the such as what's the classic example that's the the is you bring the before you bring the the over here what is over here referring to the this so the the said used to bring a carbon oil she would bring a carbon oil the oil was a and she would bring a so the is partial is mentioned in the beginning of issue so she had to bring a carbon in order for her to be able to eat from the carbon so the says what she's supposed to bring what she's supposed to bring she brought a that's an animal as a carbon oil or or a and then she brought a so that's interesting usually bring either the or you bring the and the is an anomaly the every single walks into the she brings a and she brings an the was an oil and the was a then the says that if she can't afford to bring the so over there she like in the case of the carbon oil of the year in lieu of the can bring not one two snake machine of the so so the is a little bit similar to the year of the but there's a very important difference and that difference is the next part of this stuff the carbon oil of the year of the is a person that didn't have a year that's for us so if you can afford it he brings an animal a his animal is supposed to be a carbon if he can't afford to bring the carbon he can't afford to bring the the instead he brings snake two one is an oil and one is going to be a the always brings an oil and a if she can't afford to bring the oil or so instead of bringing she brings an oil the difference that's in the is that in the carbon oil of the year of the the only is bringing the oil instead of the carbon in the case of the year of the the only is bringing the oil instead of the oil so said the call this anytime the is a carbon or the and now you can't afford the so instead you're bringing the and the oil so but the over here by the year of the where the carbon is the oil and you're replacing the oil with the oil anyways we're going to bring a because even that she will bring the over here over here the oil is going to come before the another said call the because anytime the and the oil the comes first the but the year of the who's not bringing because of an oil over here the oil is going to come first so it's not a second it's a second reason for the same and then he continued he said she is not because anytime both are both the comes first in the case of the oil of the year of the the and the oil of the year of the are both coming in lieu of the if you can afford it you bring a if you can't you have to bring a and an oil the by the year of the where the oil is only coming in lieu of the oil because the oil of the year of the brings she anyways was supposed to bring oil over there the oil is going to bring regardless said three reasons why the oil of the is going to come before the oil by the year of the now how did know this he made this up in no He knew this cuz if you read the the passage says clearly the voice in the other day said it sounds like it was coming first. Rabbi was just being very kind of a crowd. And gave three reasons why although by the carbon the hottest comes before the over here the is going to come before the hottest. But what does the want with this? What's the toshma? You see from here that it's not true that it's a that the hottest always comes before the and having a case over here the carbon with the comes before the hottest. Rabbi explained it he had three of them. But the bottom line is is that you see the comes before the hottest. How does this what we just said? Says the Rabbi said he came to it's true the says that the comes before the hottest but it's only the and there's a very important between and the the I call you anything about the cases and we'll go with Rabbi says you know what it means he came to the doesn't mean that the doesn't mean that really the supposed to be brought before the hottest. It just means that when you read it you're going to say the wrote it as if the would come before the hottest. And Rabbi was giving three reasons why the did that. But it's not I don't know the previous price is right that the hottest always comes before the what a that's what Rabbi says that you want to know what comes first the hottest comes before the it's a what is the hottest the hottest always comes before the it doesn't mean it hottest always hottest hottest baby hottest BABY THE HOTTEST ALWAYS COMES BEFORE the carbon. I hear you have a you wrote this where it's what what hottest it sounds like the comes before the hottest and Rabbi said three stick to explain it. It's all very nice. He was only coming to explain what the wrote it that way. But you want to know what is not the way it is. It has a problem with this as you can imagine but that is Rabbi says Rabbi says it's only as it relates to the it's in the in the world of but in terms of the world of the way the world I think that's no. That's our Rabbi the hottest always came before the says the Rabbi another part of so there's a new packing order if the is sitting in the he has to bring and the different were different animals. One was a the other was a that next one was a and the fourth one was a so you have all the animals in the right there you have all the animals there. So there's a the comes before the the comes before the comes before the now the says my love the aren't we talking about so I mean when else did you have this cocktail of so all by the they used to bring all these all these animals. Now we know that the that's the last one mentioned was the so the reason that was the last one. And it sounds like the was brought last. Why was it brought last? You know what the reason must be? Says the probably cuz the is a more animal and the and the more than the the holy goat. That's why he's brought last. So what do you see from here? That it's not true the always comes first. You have to take the animal into consideration. So just LIKE THE GOAT WHEN it's a goes last then the shouldn't it make sense that the should also go after the meaning we're saying that the always comes first even a before I one is a bird the other one is an animal doesn't matter but one is a one is an I see over here that the animal matters because you see the goes last even though it's a presumably cuz it's a different animal. The we're talking about a whole different thing over here. We're discussing not where there was the we were talking about it was in the meaning it's just a question over here where they're all they're all and the question is one is a one is a one is this one is that right the could be from different types of different different options of how you bring but they were all and if one of them was a even if the is the lowly goat that would come first. says the and why is the before the which came cuz the had more than the other ones. Even the also had more more than the one the comes before the which came cuz there was more the of the one of them was as opposed to the bottom line is we're talking about has no to our where you're discussing the versus the toshma the came before the the and the the this is a real price. So the and the came before the and the the was the came before the and the the and the and the and the and the and the and the right so what are we discussing? We're discussing the and the the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the was brought when the and the and did an the an ordinary person would bring a regular the the because of his special status he instead had to bring a his was obviously a the is when Rabbi they do an like the is they too have to bring a what's their it's also a the was brought in the event and this is the tricky part that the that did was so there instead of bringing they brought a and a and a so you had an you still had the but whereas ordinarily the the was a over here the is an and the instead is going to be so what happens if you have all these says the again the comes before the the comes before the which is an and and the comes before the now what's the we need the last part the of an or or the and still you see that the comes before the the comes before the oh probably cuz one is a that's and one is a that's not as the the let me ask you a from the the and the and the and the and the why does the come before the probably because one is a one is an the is a the the so don't you see the opposite no no the mean a when they're both there's no we don't know comes before the that's our we're discussing where it's different meaning we're discussing a versus an I'll bring you a from here you see that the of comes before the of keep coming to me I found an that comes before the if that's the case then the should probably come before the as well. I'm sorry the says you're right it's true you got checkmate you have a that the that an comes before the that's an what's the it's it's because of the cuz the the it says it it says without the has has soft there's no between the and the soft I mean that it's coming to teach me a you bring it after the you know it says the word the the national the way it's written in the I mean that in the the mentions first the the so it's for that reason that the the comes before the I know that you tell me you can going back to the original price the original price that discuss the before the before the before the we thought it's talking about the the is last I thought the is a it's the cuz there too it says the word it says it has to be brought in that order so really the always comes before the it doesn't matter what animal it is it's it's always even a before the there are some exceptions to the rule but there's going to have to be a that say this exception you one last hottest the or as in which one comes first? So says the take the should the come first comes before the that's the we just learned but the you have and we that's comes before the like the okay say should go first cuz comes before cuz the comes before cuz and the is only take the okay let's take three maybe the should go first the the the comes before doesn't come before the so the okay means over here they used to say the mission should come first because mission is a I mean the that's why it's going to go first my Rabbi so they used to say it differently they used to say that the the meaning that it's a that the the comes comes before the so the picks on the of the and therefore the even though the itself can't come before the the can't come before but it comes before the which comes before so once it comes before the it sort of takes on the of if comes before the would be able to come before as well just to conclude with one from the the that is we learned in the with the brought a from who said that even though every of the was made up of and and a if she couldn't afford to bring the regular was beheima, too would bring an ola, and a chatas. [snorts] But they were But they were different. The chatas, the Torah says the chatas came before the ola. When it came to the yelados, the Torah says that the ola came came before the chatas. Rebbe Eliezer gave three reasons. And the Gemara took this braisa very very literally and thought, "Oh, it sounds like Rebbe Eliezer is saying that a yeladah s'ania, who can't afford to bring an olah beheima, she instead is bringing the chatas save an ola save. You bring the ola save before the chatas save." And the Gemara had a problem with that. And the Gemara says, "No, that there is no such thing." What then does What was Rebbe Eliezer referring to? He was referring to He was talking about He was just explaining the lashon of the pasuk. Cuz the pasuk at the end of the day, when you read the parsha in the Torah, the Torah mentions first the ola and then the chatas. And he was explaining why by the korban olah beheima the Torah mentioned the chatas before the ola and why by the yelados the Torah mentioned the ola before the chatas. What's the reason? The reason is because of the reason that he gave. But you want to know alacha l'maaseh, the chatas always comes before the ola. It says it's very interesting. What does it mean the mikra b'alma? Again, the way Rashi explains it, the way it's written in the Torah. But in terms of the alacha l'maaseh, it's not going to be that way. Says the Chidushei "A davar nifla." And if you have it in front of the reader, we spoke out of the year in the mesechta, it's it's literally half of a fellow. Says the Chidushei "You know what I think it means? It means that although the korban chatas was always brought before the korban ola, but the Torah wanted sometimes that when you read the parsha of the ola and the chatas, you should read the ola before you read the korban chatas. In the olam hakrova, there's a ma'ala to chatas over ola. But in the world of kriya, in the world of parshas in the world of the kol lo meyei kol isei chatas k'ilu kol isei ola k'ilu in the world of mikra b'alma, over there there's a ma'ala of the ola over the chatas. What's the reason? Says the Chidushei "I'll tell you two reasons. Number one, could be when a person reads the parsha of the ola, it's k'ilu When you read the parsha of the chatas, k'ilu So which one should I bring first? The chatas or the ola? So says the Chidushei "On the one hand you're going to tell me chatas comes before the ola. But it's not true. Cuz it's only the dam chatas that came before the dam ola. The same mishna, it's the next line in the mishna says the ola came before the chatas. For the haktara, the ola is more chashuv cuz it's kulai kulo. When you read the parsha of the chatas, the parsha of the ola, you're not just reading the parsha of dam, you're reading the parsha of haktara as well. So meaning that you're reading the parsha of haktara as well, may heichan k'eisi the chatas to be before the ola? Maybe the ola should be before the chatas." Says Rebbe Zalman, "I mean, I can come up with a svara why the ikar is the haktara. And if the ikar is the haktara, differently, there's more ma'alos in the haktara of ola over chatas than there is ma'alos in the zrika of chatas over ola, right? There's more chashivus, if you were going to rank which one is more chashuv than the other. The chashivus that haktaras ola has over haktaras chatas is greater than the chashivus that dam chatas has over dam ola. So maybe that's why in the kriya you read the ola first. Meaning in the kriya you have the dam and you have the emurim. You're right, mitzad the dam chatas has the chashivus. Mitzad the emurim ola has the chashivus. But being that they're both, you have to pick one. Maybe the ola is more chashuv. But says Rebbe Zalman, "I heard from Rav Tuvia Hamburger, who said a davar nifla." He said it in a drasha. And this is something that he brings in in his Tshuvas Siman Alef. He says al minyan shleima. He says, "You know what I heard? Shatzkavald, because even though it's k'ilu kol isei chatas k'ilu kol isei ola k'ilu, but it's only the cheilek that goes l'ma'ala. As it relates to the cheilek that was nachal, you can't say kol isei k'ilu. Cuz whenever it comes to achila, you have to have an ano. If you had an ano, you ate. If you didn't have an ano, you can't get yilu ate. You can get yilu a lot of things, but you can't get yilu ate. You have to eat. And if you don't eat, it's not considered nachal. [laughter] So there's no kol isei when it comes to the cheilek of achila. So the korban chatas that had a cheilek that was nachal to the kehuna, there was no way to bring a korban chatas b'shleimus. The korban ola that was kulai kulo, where all the basar was put on the mizbei'ach, that's something that you were able to bring b'shleimus. By the chatas, you were always missing the kehunim oichlim b'yomam u'sravam. By the korban ola, you were never missing anything. That's why in the olam of kriya, said Rebbe Zalman, "I believe you, it makes sense that the ola should come before the chatas." That's what the Gemara means. You know what the Gemara means in the mikra b'alma? The Gemara means that in the world of kriya, the ola is always going to be first. You know why the ola should be first? You know what the ma'ala of ola is? Cuz the ola is kulai kulo, as opposed to the chatas, which had a cheilek that was nachal. And in the world of kriya, where it's parshas the ola you can bring b'shleimus, the chatas you can't bring b'shleimus. And says Rebbe Zalman, "I'm going to prove to you that this is the pshat." Because Rebbe Eliezer was discussing one ola and chatas. He was discussing the the yelados. And he was giving reasons for yelados. But he says the emes is if you go through parshas Pinchas, let's go through parshas Pinchas. Read the end of parshas Pinchas, the musafin. What does the Torah say? U'v'chodesh hashvi'i b'echad l'chodesh, right? Rosh Rosh Hashana, just picking one. So Rosh Hashana, what should you bring? V'asitem ola u'v'rei'ach nicho'ach l'Hashem parim b'nei bakar echad ayil echad kvasim b'nei ishnaim u'minchasam. Then afterwards, u's'ir izim echad chatas l'chaper aleichem. First the Torah mentions the korban ola and then the Torah mentions the the korban chatas. U'v'chamisha asar yom l'chodesh hashvi'i, I'm skipping. It's now Sukkos already. V'hikravtem ola ish rei'ach nicho'ach l'Hashem. You should bring a korban ola parim b'nei bakar shloshah asar ayilim shnaim kvasim. And then the Torah says, u's'ir izim echad chatas. Says Rebbe Zalman, "I believe you, go through the musafin. The ola is always mentioned before the chatas. Because that's the Gemara in the mikra b'alma. When it comes to the olam of kriya, there the ola always has a kedima cuz the ola you can bring b'shleimus, the chatas you can't bring b'shleimus when it's being brought in the world of kriya. That's why the ola is before the chatas." And of course he ties it into the Maggid Mishneh. He said, "So pasht It's so pasht That's pshat in the Mechaber." The Mechaber says, "Akeida, parshas matanos, u'parshas ola mincha shlamim chatas v'asham." And the Maggid Mishneh says, "Nishalti l'ma chashuv ola and then chatas." How like I am very good this week in daf pei tes amud alef. The chatas kodem l'ola. That the chatas comes before the ola. K'ein k'eisi Rashi parshas Tetzaveh and shom b'rei. And he says a He says a whole pshat. Says it's pasht because in the world the Torah always mentions the ola before the chatas. Why shouldn't we mention the ola before the chatas? That's the beer in the mikra b'alma. He acknowledges that it's a very very big pshat. He prefaces it with the immortal words lulei d'mistafina, we're not afraid to say a pshat. And Rashi says a pshat. And Rebbe Chaim Akiva Eiger said a pshat. Meaning the gedolei ha'rishonim said a pshat. But in makom l'igdor, says Rebbe Zalman, "I believe you, it could be all this way that we keep on coming back to. The in base medrash it could be that's the beer in this Gemara right here. That's how I see it."