Zevachim 95

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 Beis Medrash meets pashtus p'shat, 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 aleph. We will begin from the Mishnah on the bottom of daf tzadik dalid amud beis. So, we're continuing to discuss the halachos of dam chatas. So, the 11th perek in Maseches Vochin is called perek dam chatas, and it deals with halachos that are mentioned in Parshas Tzav, perek vov, pasuk yud zayin through pasuk chof gimmel. The three halachos that are noge'a to these sugyos are number one, the pasuk says that if dam of a korban chatas goes on a beged, you're obligated to now wash that beged. V'ashe yizav yechabes b'makom kodesh. Another halacha, if dam of a korban chatas, or if a korban chatas is cooked in a kli cheres, the Torah says yishaber, you have to break the kli cheres. If the korban chatas was cooked not in a kli cheres, but rather in a kli nachoshes, then the pasuk says um verak v'shuta bamayim, you have to cleanse the keilim. You don't have to destroy it, but at the same time, you have to do merika v'shtika, which will be discussed in greater detail in tomorrow's daf. But for now, says the Mishnah, halacha beged she'al tzoch l'chulin, if dam chatas went on a beged, the beged now left the chumesh of the Azarah, nichnas um mechutz l'chatzar, you have to take the beged, bring it back into the Azarah, and do the kibush b'makom kodesh. The reason is because that's what the pasuk says. V'ashe yizav midam al habeged, ashe yizav alav, yechabes b'makom kodesh. It's not enough to do kibush. The kibush has to be done in the same place that our void was done, which is the mocking college. It had to be done within the club. What happens if the baggage got down on it then it left the club and left the and now when it was outside of the it became Tom. Now you have a problem because on the one hand you have a mix for to take the baggage and bring it back into the to have the mocking college. But at the flip side the baggage is now Tom. I mean that the baggage is Tommy now that I bring Tom into the so what do you do? Says the mission of first you tear the baggage. The thought is that by tearing the baggage you're going to destroy it thus it won't be Tommy anymore. Then then you bring it into the and and you watch it in the mocking college. The is going to ask the obvious question and that is that the extent that you're tearing the baggage thus it's not a baggage anymore with regards to Tom then it shouldn't be a baggage anymore with regards to the law. The heaviest of mocking college the mix of the heaviest of mocking college is to watch the baggage. So if the baggage was torn and therefore the baggage Tommy is no longer a baggage Tommy so that there's no issue of Tom then the how could you be the mix of of the heaviest of mocking college? A similar issue of the club in the event that the was cooked in the where the Torah says you shall what happens if the left the and you have to bring it back in the mocking college and you have to break it. In mocking college because just like there's a law of the heaviest of mocking college the mix of the heaviest has to be the mocking college as well. What happens if the became Tommy when it was outside of the and now you can't bring it back into the so a similar no you puncture a hole in it by puncturing a hole it's not Tommy anymore. Then now you bring it into the and you break it in the mocking college. Where there's a mix of America and that too has to be conscious in the event that it left the corner you bring it back in the market market conscious you do the people need to become Tommy outside of the same issue you can't bring it back in but you have a mix for the bring it back in so you destroy it to the degree that it's no longer a cleaner conscious so that there's no issue of Tommy anymore it's afterwards you bring it in market of a shape market conscious and you do the people the market conscious essentially repeated itself three times the same idea with regards to people of a with regards to a where a was cooked in and a cleaner where a was cooking so the first was that in the event that the that was left the you bring it back in and you do the market conscious what if it became Tommy so you can't bring it back in cuz you're not allowed to bring Tommy to the so first you tear it by tearing it it's not a anymore a could be a right and really in order to properly understand this tomorrow in order for something to has to be a has to be a has to be a finished product but if you have a piece of material that's not a the is it's not going to be so what you do is you you tear the thus it's not a anymore if it's not a so just like it can't be if it was and now it's not a anymore it loses its and then you bring it in the is what we spoke at in the master of the who had his period the hell why you bringing it back into the order to be the market conscious but that people has to be on a to the extent that you tore it and that's why there's no problem how you be in the midst of so the says the you don't tear it completely you don't rip it into shreds what you do is you tear it but at the same time you leave over a piece being that you tore it that's enough to take away the tumah, but being that you left over a katikha khashuva, a kiday mafiras, that's a sheer that somebody would use as a handkerchief, that's enough for it to still be considered a beged. And being that it's enough of a beged with regards to the mitzvah of kibud, that's why this works. But the Gemara says "Aini v'amar Rabbonan sh'lo yishayeh b'kiday mafiras." "I will shayeh b'kiday mafiras." Rabbonan said that as it relates to tumah, it's true that a beged becomes tumah, there's a way to take away the tumah, just rip it. But Rabbonan said you better really rip it. Cuz if you're going to leave over a kiday mafiras, it's still going to be considered tumah. So Rabbonan said before this that if you're leaving over the kiday mafiras, and that's how you're being mikayem the mitzvah of kibud, then there's still going to be tumah. Cuz Rabbonan clearly qualified this halakha in hilkhot tumah. Rabbonan wasn't discussing dam khatus. He was discussing the laws of tumah, and he said that if you're going to tear up and you're going to leave over a kiday mafiras, it's going to be a problem. So "Huchri kushi l'dokhtan." This doesn't work. If you tear it, you don't have a beged. If you don't tear it, it's tumah. And even if you tear it and you mishayer kiday mafiras, just like it's going to be a beged so that you can be mikayem the mitzvah of kibud, it's going to be a beged with regards to tumah as well. And "Fartzu Gemara mid'rabbanan." "Who?" "Two words." This that Rabbonan said that if you leave over kiday mafiras, it's still going to be tumah, it was only mid'rabbanan. Mid'rabbanan acknowledged mid'oraisa that once you give it a good tear, you have to know what a good tear is. But once you give it a good tear, even if you leave over a kiday mafiras, it's going to be considered enough that it shouldn't be tumah anymore. This that he said if you leave over kiday mafiras, it's tumah, he was discussing mid'rabbanan. Mid'oraisa, it's not tumah. As it relates to the mitzvah of kibud, you could be mikayem the mitzvah of kibud. And being that you have over here a din d'oraisa that's luming, you want to be mikayem the mitzvah of kibud, so even though mid'rabbanan, if you leave over kiday mafiras, it's considered tumah d'rabbanan, over here d'rabbanan deferred to the d'oraisa, and they said, "We want to be mikayem the mitzvah of kibud, tear it, leave over kiday mafiras, even though on a rabbinical level it's still tumah, but mid'oraisa it's not." And being that mid'oraisa it's not, bring it into the azarah and do the kibud and kodesh. Kli charash and Mishnah said the same exact halacha regarding a kli charash. If you cook the carbon chatas in a kli charash, the Torah says shvirah. Where does the shvirah have to be? It has to be in the Azara. What happens if the left Azara became tamei outside of the Azara? On the one hand, you need to bring it in to be mekain the mitzvah of shvirah. On the flip side, you can't bring it in. So, what did the Mishnah say? Make a hole. Once you make a hole, you make a nekav. That's enough to take the kli charash out of its status of kli. Thus, it's not tamei anymore. Maylo, you can bring it in. You can be mekain the mitzvah. So again, making a hole is enough to make it not a keili with regards to the laws of tumah and taharah. It's not enough to make it not a keili with regards to the mitzvah of shvirah. So, it's not a keili with inyan tumah. It is a keili with inyan shvirah. But the Gemara says, "What's this mamon afsha? Kli omer achas, kli omer achas, kli omer achas." If it's not a keili with regards to tumah, and that's why you can bring it into the Azara, then it shouldn't be a kli with regards to the mitzvah of shvirah as well. So, the Gemara says, "Shnei keilim b'shnei kavvanos." Now, there's a certain type of hole which would render it a keili with regards to the laws of tumah, but it's still going to be considered a keili with regards to the mitzvah of kibbutz. Either way, we found this in between stage. Kli nachash poiksei, kli nachash the Mishnah said same thing. Kli nachash has a mitzvah of merikah b'shtifah if the chatas was cooked in it. It has to be done b'makom kodesh. If it was taken outside, you have to bring it back in. What if it was taken outside and it became tamei? You can't bring it back in because of the tumah. So, you do is you you poiksei it. Incidentally, Rashi is meduyak that by the kli charash, the Mishnah said noikfei. By the kli nachash, the Mishnah said poiksei. So, this is really meseches keilim 101, but it's more difficult to take a kli nachash and make it not a kli nachash anymore than it is a kli charash. For kli charash, all you have to do is make a nekav. That's something very small. Poiksei means you have to deform it. You have to do something a little bit more significant. But the bottom line is the Mishnah said that's what you're supposed to do. Wait, the Gemara will have kli omer once you poiksei it, it's not a keili anymore. If it's not a keili, how are you bringing it back in? And poiksei sounds like you really deformed it. You did something more significant. So, to the extent that you did something more significant, it's going to be very hard to argue and say, "Oh, just not a kayli with regards to tumah, but it is a kayli with regards to marikas shifa." So, the Gemara says you're right. The rots of martsev, what you do is you bring it into the azara and then you put it back together. And when you put it back together, then you could do the marikas shifa. That's the way Rashi learns the Gemara. Tosafos jumps on Rashi. And Tosafos says that if there's an option to just put it back together, then what was the whole issue? What's the problem with the beged? Tear the beged, bring it back in, and sew it back together, and then be mekayem the mitzvah of kibbus. What's the issue with the kli cheres? Break the kli cheres outside of the azara, destroy it. You don't have to leave over kedei machfires. We don't have to be doche Rav Huna's derabbanan. Just do the shvira outside, bring it back into the azara, and put it back together. Just like we're saying the rots of martsev works by kli cheres, why should the rots of martsev not work by kli cheres? And why should it not work by beged either? Either way, I'm toisfos. Zok the Gemara v'eitoima Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish said, "Me'il shenitma." What happens if the me'il, the me'il that the kohen used to wear, became tamei? So, says the Torah, it became ta- First, dam chatas went on the me'il. It left the azara, and now it became tamei. So, you want to bring the me'il back into the azara so you could be mekayem the mitzvah of kibbus. The problem is it's tamei. So, what was the eitzah that the Mishnah gave? Tear it, says Reish Lakish. That eitzah works for every beged except for the me'il. There you don't have that option. What do you need to do? Machnisa'i b'fochis mishalosh al shalosh um'chavsei. You take a small part of the me'il. You literally stand by Sha'ar Nikanor, right? Where the metzora used to stand, where the safek used to stand. You go to a place where you're literally at the border of where chulin meets kodash. You stick in a little bit of the me'il, fochis mishalosh al shalosh, is the minimum shear of Toma. See, you're taking a mail, excellent question, where the entire mail is Tome, but you're only going to be Magnus a parkers make a shear, but you taking this parkers make a shear and you never brought Toma into the Azara and you wash it, but the tear it is not an option. Why not? Mission of lawyer Korea. It's a possible pair of heads. The Torah is describing the mail. Suffered pure of summer of my say I reckon exactly lawyer Korea. The Torah says you're not allowed to tear the mail. So the lawyer says in the Torah to tear the mail. So since we tear the mail is not an option. So it means that you don't have the option of the mission and we need to resort to a plan B. There is a plan B. The plan B is take parkers and bring it into the Azara. And that's a little bit of a kid niche. The reason it's a kid niche is this idea of parkers make a mail means that there's a certain minimum shear that something has to be in order for it to be my couple Toma. In order for it to be Tome so that all the Toma going to apply. What's the shear of a bag? It has to be a bag. It's a very small shear, but there is a shear nonetheless. What we're saying is that here you have a big bag. It's a nice size bag. But you if you're Magnus into the Azara parkers make a mail at a time, so in that case you would never over the issue of Toma because the shear that you brought in was a parkers make a shear so to speak. Even though it's part of a bag that's already Tome. Stating that it's not an issue. To do Korea is not going to work because the Torah says lawyer Korea. This is the only option. Places small places second to last place on the ask a bomb cash. We learned the sugar earlier in the last days be a big mix. Small beer or large small beer. Meaning someone that's Tome is not allowed to enter the Azara. What if he doesn't enter he's just a big mix. He sticks his thumbs in. Is that considered a beer into the Azara so that you're over the issue of Toma mix because of the maybe not. Maybe you need beer as cooler. But there's a man number that holds beer as mix as small beer. Great places according to the man that holds beer mix beer. Why you let it take a little bit of the bag head? The by taking a little bit of the bag head, it's beer. It's the entire bag head. Enter. So doesn't have a problem fundamentally with the eight so. But this feels that it's totally in the in whether beer mix beer or beer mix beer. If a person that's is not allowed to enter the mix that a bag head that's shouldn't be able to enter the mix either. And the head says that even though there's a man that holds beer mix beer, that's only a person. A bag head, a there's no beer mix beer. By a person there's an idea of beer mix beer. By a bag head or a there's no this small but gives a reason that in common either way. We'll speak out some more rate but for that for now the question. What is the matter with the so said that if the head that was days allowed, it left the club. You want to bring it back inside. It said how you do that? You tear it. The million dollar tear it doesn't like you correct. So what do you do? You purpose me show you shall show this. So asked the Derek I got in the king. The mission says this is came in pair of grass. You haven't made it that far but either way I have a king in my hand show oh show the sheer the minimum sheer of the oven or a king and rocking things materials that are very thick or materials that are very very soft is not show show this. Rather there's show show this. So ordinarily the minimum sheer material to be to be three at twice or three at twice. We said it's a very small sheer. But something that's thick rocking something that's very soft via the sheer is a bigger sheer. The sheer is show show this three out three. What's the question? The question that the says Rashi to the kind of human you I find out of them waste. It was made of a thick material. So, why did Rashi say machnisay katanus shaalos shaalos? Well, you have a little bit more flexibility. You don't have to do it machnisay shaalos shaalos as long as it's within shloisha shloisha. That would be enough. So, the Gemara says what's the point in shaalos shaalos versus shloisha shloisha? It has to be a shaalos chosam. Ordinarily, material is chashuv as long as once it's shaalos shaalos. Shaalos shaalos is chashuv. If something's too very thick or something's very very soft, the material is deemed to not be chashuv unless it's shaalos shaalos. That's why it's not mekabel tumah unless it's shaalos shaalos. The il was of a thick material. But, being that it was part of the il, so it was chashuv even if it's shaalos shaalos. So, although ordinarily a regular piece of material that's thick is not considered chashuv unless it's shaalos shaalos. Thus, there's no halachos of tumah unless it's shaalos shaalos. But, the il being that it's part of its father, so to speak, in this case the il it's chashuv even if it's shaalos shaalos. Less than shaalos shaalos is not chashuv, but at the very least if it's shaalos shaalos, that will be chashuv. Straight to the Gemara, another kasha. So, you have the halacha of dam chatis. It's a pasuk in the Torah. V'ashe yizenah midamah l'begedah v'ashe yizenah l'chaberes b'makom kodesh. Straight to the Gemara, a general question on the whole halacha of kibbus dam chatis, which is the theme of the first part of this perek. And that is that the way yishaveh shamenim on it. The way that dam chatis was washed from a beged was by using the seven shamenim. Dam Nachman amar Rabba bar Avuha, dam chatis umaris nigon shichin shivah shamenim. Rab Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha that when the Torah says l'chaberes and you have to do kibbus of dam chatis, so you couldn't just take soap or detergent and wash it off. There's a very specific way that you need to do it. And you have to use the shiva samanim, the same shiva samanim that I used in Marisa to take out a a neck. What's the problem? The problem is that one of the shiva samanim was me raglaim. Rashi lists them. It's like a maran either samach and base. Roik toffel and me raglaim and buris and kamunya and ashlock. The problem is how could you do it in a makan kodesh? She ain't machnisin me raglaim in the mikdash. The me ain't called it maran doesn't say that. But we know you not allowed to bring me raglaim into the base hamikdash. So the maran is asking a general question. There's a mitzvah of kibbos on a beged that has nam chadas on it. The mitzvah of kibbos has to be be makan kodesh. So much so that the mishnah says that if it left the club you have to bring it back inside. The kasha is it needs to be done with the shiva samanim and one of the shiva samanim is me raglaim. The ain't machnisin me raglaim in the mikdash. The me ain't called it chitem in the maran shiva samanim. You'll tell me maybe you mixed it up together with the other samanim. You maran chitem and use them all together. What time are we going to the mishnah? Like it's too jump. If you did it out of order meaning there's an order that you need to do it. O she have the mishnah and the mishnah is like or if you mix them all together you did it in one shot it's not good. Meaning that you can't be mevatel it in some other min in some other ingredient. You have to do them all at the same time. The chitem in the maran chitem samanim. So maybe when the mishnah says that you can't mix it it means you can't mix them all together. But maybe you can mix it with one. But the maran says that doesn't either work. But the kasha is all of them the whole thing the mishnah says you have to take each ingredient individually and you have to rub it three times. The point here is there's there's no ambiguity over here. It's not like you can somehow come up you need to take each ingredient individually. One of them is the me raglaim. Ain't machnisin me raglaim in the mikdash. So the maran says the maran toffel. No, you know why it's not a problem? Because they used to mix it together with roik toffel. That's tasteless saliva. Don't worry shlakish. Shlakish said roik toffel she ain't called the whole shlakish said that all of the seven samanim were mixed together with roik toffel. The me raglaim was also mixed with the right topple. Suppose mixed with the right topple said there's no issue. A machine is the mayor of Gline and make this one a cover as if you're bringing the mayor of Gline in by itself. But once it's mixed with something else, at that point it's not going to be an issue. Thus, that would be the absence of excess. So before we go right there to ours. So the theme of this morning's staff, the first part of this morning's staff is there's a mix for of kibos by Adam Shinitz is all the way. There's a mix for shiver of a carbon that was cooked in the liquid. There's a mix for America with a carbon that was cooked in a clean of dishes. The mix of kibos, shiver, America with dishes respectively all had to be done in the other. Mission discuss what happens if the bag is or the cave is left out or that it became common you can't bring it back in. So the mission discuss hey, if it was a bag is what you do is you tear it outside the bag is. You tear it so that there shouldn't be a problem with the you leave over a my forest it's still considered a bag is with regards to the rules of kibos and that's the way you make the mix of kibos by mocking college. He said that would work for every single bag is other than the mail. It says in the Torah regarding the mail and I want to tear the mail. So it's not an option. So came up with another item pockets of why not slice of slice of the series slice of slice of as long as you bring in pockets of at a time. There's no beer of mixes when it comes to a bag is. That would be the of how to is a very stark answer on which lucky said that I have one problem with the mission meaning I have one example one with the law of the mission wouldn't apply and that is the mail and the reason is because it says in the Torah you can't tear. The random in the period test of the says somebody tears the of the mail gets mouth is shana mar lo you can't the whole idea says the random the same is true for all big day shaka or some day. The Rambam's clear again. Perek Halacha Gimel Halachos Klei Mikdash. That even though when it says in the Torah Lo Yikarei'ah, the Torah says it by the Me'il. Lo Yikarei'ah after the Me'il. The same is true for all the big day Kohanim again. And then the Rambam continues. V'hu Hadin L'chol Big Day Kohanim. So the Rambam is before us. The Rambam says that this Halacha of Lo Yikarei'ah not exclusive to the Me'il. It's true for all big day Kohanim. And even though the Torah said it by the Me'il, but really it applies to all big day Kohanim. If that's the case, and the Mishneh Berurah brings the Kasha from the Baal Korban Chagigah that he doesn't understand. If that's the case, why did Reish Lakish say Me'il? V'hu it's not only with regards to the Me'il. It's true for all big day Kohanim. So possibly you're going to tell me because the Torah said Lo Yikarei'ah by the Me'il. Maybe that's why Reish Lakish said the Me'il. But the Baal Korban Chagigah wasn't happy with that. The Baal Korban Chagigah felt at the end of the day Reish Lakish is saying a Halacha. And if Reish Lakish is saying a Halacha, why Reish Lakish only say the Halacha by the Me'il when the Halacha is true for all the big day Kohanim as well. And in fact, if you take a look at the Rambam, the Rambam in in Perek Halachos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos, where the Rambam brings the Halacha, the Rambam also brings it by the Me'il. Me'il She'Nis'eiv Al Od Dam Chatas, D'Yatz'a V'Nis'eiv B'Chutz, K'She'Nis'eiv Oiso, V'Hakorei'ah Oiso Likeha, K'Ma'aseh V'Yarnu. So the Rambam says, what happens if the Me'il breaks? He brings the Halacha by the Mishnah. Then the Beged tears. I mean, if the Beged became Tamei outside of the Azarah, just tear it, says the Rambam. What about the Me'il? We learn in the fire. We ask K'Ma'aseh V'Yarnu. They now learn it to the Me'il. So what do you do if the Me'il became Tamei? Why is the Kasha only by the Me'il? Like the Korban Chagigah, it's not only a Kasha by the Me'il, it's a Kasha for all the big day Kohanim. At the end of the day the Rambam said V'hu Hadin L'chol Big Day Kohanim. A bomb Kasha. Says the Baal Korban Chagigah that if you look carefully at the Shulchan Aruch of [ __ ] Zalman, you're going to see that the Rambam changed his wording when he mentioned the issue of Yakar regarding the mail versus when he mentioned the issue of Yakar by Shabbos Bigdei Kehuna again. The Keriah P'ei Mail Like It. If somebody tears the mail, he gets Malchus. She'Ne'emar Lo Yikare'a. Continues the Rambam, V'Hu Hadin B'Chol Bigdei Kehuna. The same is true for all Bigdei Kehuna. She'Keriah Osem Derech Hashchasa Like It. That if somebody tears it Derech Hashchasa Like It. You see, by the mail, the Rambam doesn't say Derech Hashchasa. The Rambam added Derech Hashchasa when it comes to Shabbos Bigdei Kehuna. Said the Baal Korban Chagigah, every word in the Rambam, every syllable in the Rambam has a Cheshbon. By Shabbos Bigdei Kehuna, it's true there's an issue of Lo Yikare'a. There's an issue to tear it, but it's only Asur if you tear it Derech Hashchasa. It's Davka by the mail where there's an issue to tear the mail even Shelo Derech Hashchasa. Says the Baal Korban Chagigah, if you're going to tear the Beged, and the purpose of tearing the Beged is for some Tikun, like Eizeh Tikun, in that case, it's not going to be considered Derech Hashchasa. Why are you tearing this Beged? Because there's Dam Chatos in the Beged, and you want to be Mekayem a Mitzvas Esrei D'Oraisa of the Chavis B'Mokom Kodshim. That's why you're tearing the Beged. You want to bring it back inside. There's no other way to get it into the Azarah to be Mekayem the Mitzvah. So, it's true, Keriah in a vacuum is a destructive act, but you're doing it for a constructive motive. You're doing it because you want to be Metayer it so that you should be able to be Mekayem the Mitzvah of the Chavis B'Mokom Kodshim. So, by Shabbos Bigdei Kehuna, where although it's true you're not allowed to tear the Bigdei Kehuna, but the Torah says Hakria Osem Derech Hashchasa Like It. Only where it's Derech Hashchasa. So, there is no issue, you can tear it. I I thought it's Asur to tear even Shabbos Bigdei Kehuna. Only Derech Hashchasa. This is not Derech Hashchasa. It's Davka the mail where the Pasuk says Lo Yikare'a. Hakria P'ei Mail Like It. And the Rambam doesn't qualify by saying that there even if it's Derek people it's going to be awesome over there even if it's Derek people it's going to be awesome. That's why we all is by the ill and that's why the rabbinic brought it only with regards to the question is what's the beer if by the way Korea means even Derek has the way by should be different admits for co-pilot and sorry for the area 7 race Schnauzer and it's really take a look at the it's it's pretty clear in the in the discussion of the in the rabbinic that rabbinic was as follows the says by the so really it's only by the that you have this new lab that you know what I mean either rabbinic says you know what I mean as well the reason should be is not because of Korea's regards to the the reason should be is for the same reason you know what I mean the same as I said it's the same reason that the rabbinic the same cut you know what I mean of a stone from the or from the the reason is is because it's a mountain college it's a and you know what I mean destroy could you show the that is also a possible in the it's a better known possible that that comes up very often and that is I mean it's called I should tell you that you going to go and tell you to you have to destroy you have to eradicate all the places that the worship then he touched them what should you do you should destroy them as if she bought them as you should knock down the same as that should be empty you should burn their you and you should uproot their the you should erase and then the says all these things that I'm commanding you that I'm telling you you need to do for the avodah zarah. And this pasuk is the makor that you're not allowed to be mikayem the shem Hashem. Because it says the shem Hashem alone. The shem is avodah zarah. You have a mitzvah to be mikayem the shem Hashem alone. You're not allowed to do it the shem Hashem alone. This is the makor that you're not allowed to be mikayem the mizbayach. Because it says when you and then it says the shem Hashem alone. That had the Rambam that you're not allowed to be mikayem the big day alone. Because that's pasuk in in this idea of the shem Hashem alone. Destroy everything related to avodah zarah would mean that if you see the big day alone that the priest, the [ __ ] used to wear when he used to worship avodah zarah there'd be a mitzvah to get rid of it. If there's a mitzvah to get rid of his garments then there's the shem Hashem alone. The shem Hashem alone. That means the makor to mikayem is not mikayem. It's this pasuk the shem Hashem alone. Not mikayem would be that that's pasuk that when it comes to the shem Hashem alone it's only pasuk that's awesome. But mikayem is it's going to be okay. Meaning you're not allowed to be mikayem the shem Hashem. But mikayem you are allowed to be mikayem the shem Hashem. You're not allowed to be mikayem the mizbayach. But mikayem you are allowed to be mikayem the mizbayach. There were times in history where they had to remove and and and destroy avodah zarah avodah zarah alone. They had to be mikayem avodah zarah alone. They had to do these things. So these are all things that are okay as long as you're doing it mikayem because then it's not the shem Hashem alone. The shem Hashem alone is the Torah says destroy the avodah zarah and don't do the same thing. The Torah the shem Hashem alone says the shem Hashem alone. What if you would destroy the avodah zarah of avodah zarah alone. Would you be mikayem the mitzvah of avodah zarah alone? Says no, be a horrible disgusting thing. It means the shem Hashem the shem Hashem alone alone. It also means the shem Hashem alone. But the extent that meaning the shem Hashem alone the shem Hashem alone is governed by what the Shulchan Aruch and the Shulchan Aruch and being Shulchan Aruch means there are Kashrut. There's only Kashrut. There'd be no Kashrut on the Kashrut on the Kashrut, so to speak. So, so to the be Kashrut that's what the Kashrut becomes there it says in the Torah there is no wiggle room. There the Torah says very clearly you need to go ahead and you need to make sure that you don't tear it. Doesn't matter if it's there Kashrut or if it's there are Kashrut. It's not related to Kashrut. Being it's not related to Kashrut there is going to be no issue. Incidentally, there's no time for this this morning, but that in the again it's in the beginning of the was there was a that was writing a Torah and there were mistakes in the Torah. The question was that could you start erasing things which would involve erasing you'd be erasing the Torah. You know you're not allowed to be erasing the Torah. It's one of the worst things a person can do. It's mentioned in the quotes to the word that the Torah one of the terrible things they did shame on used to be erased in the Torah. It's a very very bad thing. The bottom line is what we here you're not just doing it frivolously. You're doing it because the Torah made a mistake. You don't want to have to get rid of the entire Torah or an entire Torah. That was the question that was asked in the Torah and the Torah was very unsure. And the Torah told him it should be okay and then he had a from a Torah Torah and then he said let's see if we can bring a from Torah. So, the Torah goes through an exercise can we find a from Torah that the Torah Torah is not an issue if you do it on the Torah Torah. Meaning I'm not sure the reason you're not allowed to be erasing the Torah is because of the Torah. Is that only if you do it on the Torah Torah? What if it's not on the Torah Torah? And this was a question where a Torah wants to now erase the Torah in a Torah Torah wants to be erased in the Torah. But, he's doing it on the Torah Torah wants to preserve the Torah. So, if it okay or is it not okay? So, the Sifrei goes through rayas. He has a raya from a Gemara here. One of his rayas is S'vochin d'atzidei obviously. And S'vochin d'atzidei Resh Lakish said me'il. Why did Resh Lakish say me'il? What about the shabbos de'kuna? The Rambam says shabbos de'kuna is also an issur to do kriah. The Torah says that's related to loisason and this is not derech hashkacha. So, he says you see loisason that naturally to derech hashkacha. It's gewaldig. He's asking a shaila and he'll say the ta'am. You have to know dam chatus. You have to know what You have to know what maseches S'vochin is. Anyway, that's the first part. The second part is the Kreinem ask a kasha. The Kreinem ask a kasha. So, Resh Lakish says the me'il and the ta'am. So, the me'il and the ta'am and the me'il, what's the eitzah with the me'il? So, the Mishnah says the Resh Lakish says an eitzah. The eitzah is machnisin pasus mishalush shalush. Take less than a shiur shalush shalush be machnisin into the azarah and that's going to be okay. Meaning, if you would take the entire me'il and bring it into the azarah, that would be a problem. If you take pasus mikishur, it's not an issue. Tois says the kasha, what happened to be'ah be'miktzas mavie? Tois says that when it comes to a beged or a keili, you don't have that halacha of be'ah be'miktzas mavie. But the Kreinem ask a different kasha. The Kreinem ask that what happened to chatzi shiur osur min ha'Torah? Meaning, you're not allowed to eat a kazayis of nevelah. So, does that mean I can eat less than a kazayis? Machlokes of Rebbe Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Rebbe Yochanan says chatzi shiur osur min ha'Torah. That even mid'Oraisa you're not allowed to eat pasus mikazayis. I I've always heard kazayis. That's with regards to the oines. You don't get malkus if you ate a kazayis. But chatzi shiur osur min ha'Torah. Even Resh Lakish there argues. Resh Lakish holds chatzi shiur is only osur is mutar min ha'Torah but it's osur mid'Rabbanan. But mid'Rabbanan al kol panim, everybody agrees that chatzi shiur is osur. So, fragen the Kreinem ask a kasha, what's this eitzah be'machnis pasus mishalush? Why is cooking in less than shalush shalush any different? Why is that any different than eating less than a kazayis of nevelah? Where being the chatzi shiur is osur, l'chumra it should be osur to be machnis even pasus mishalush shalush. And the Kreinem answers a very nice pishlaim Resh lucky who said it's an issue this Mishawaka's cuz Mishawaka's is the man in charge to be in the Mishawaka's so right it's not also to be taken Parkas Mishawaka's we have a Mishawaka's of the Mishawaka's kibbles and just like the Mishawaka's said that even though Korea we will even go over this Mishawaka's to bring it into the Mishawaka's but the Mishawaka's kibbles Mishawaka's Mishawaka's that is the Mishawaka's so to here too even though by being Mishawaka's Parkas Mishawaka's you can be over but the Mishawaka's kibbles is going to BE MISHAWAKA'S THE PROBLEM is the Mishawaka's it always comes down to the Mishawaka's the Mishawaka's passes like Mishawaka's is allowed like we mentioned earlier the Mishawaka's says that you can be Mishawaka's Parkas Mishawaka's the Mishawaka's also passes like we the Mishawaka's Mishawaka's that the Mishawaka's the Mishawaka's Mishawaka's you Mishawaka's why is this a good idea to take the Mishawaka's in Parkas Mishawaka's what happened the Mishawaka's Mishawaka's so the truth is what's the answer what's the answer the answer is based on the Mishawaka's spoken on many times in the Mishawaka's and that is when it comes to Mishawaka's there's no Mishawaka's when it comes to Mishawaka's there's a Mishawaka's but when it comes to Mishawaka's even though Mishawaka's has implications a Mishawaka's a Mishawaka's you can't bring Mishawaka's to the Mishawaka's Mishawaka's Mishawaka's takes up a lot of real estate in Mishawaka's right there's a lot of laws that are related to Mishawaka's but Mishawaka's at its core is not a question of this is a Mishawaka's Mishawaka's at its core is is a Mishawaka's Mishawaka's and when it comes to Mishawaka's there's no Mishawaka's Mishawaka's we always speak at a very nice Mishawaka's and that's a Mishawaka's tucked away Mishawaka's Mishawaka's the context is Mishawaka's who Mishawaka's lost 10 sons we will not speak out the Mishawaka's but Mishawaka's lost 10 sons and he used to walk around with the bone of his 10 sons and he would be Mishawaka's Some who would say Mishawaka's Mishawaka's that's Rashi and Rashi over there throws in three words. Rashi says that when Rebbe Yochonon walked around with a bone, it was "pachas mikasayro" Rashi says. It was less than the size of a barley. It was "pachas mikasayro." Why does Rashi say it was like that? If it was bigger than a barley, what does a barley have to do with anything? The reason is because Rebbe Yochonon was a kohen. Tosafos asks the kasha, "How could Rebbe Yochonon walk around with a bone? Rebbe Yochonon was a kohen. A kohen is not allowed to be metameh." So, Rashi it was "pachas mikasayro." "Freyg in der kraynim, pachas mikasayro." Whatever Rebbe Yochonon says to you. If a kohen is not allowed to be metameh to a "sayder," he shouldn't be able to be metameh to "pachas mikasayro" either. The teretz is why cuz a "chashisha"? It's "tumah." By "tumah" there's no "chashisha." But "ein beis medrash kodesh." And I'm going to be digressing. So, just indulge us please for about two minutes. "Ein beis medrash kodesh." Cuz the "tshuvah" from the Chasam Sofer So, the Chasam Sofer's "tshuvah" is in "siman tes vov." The context over there is "hilchos nedarim." So, this is a good "marah makom" to remember. That's the "shaila" when we learn "maseches nedarim" again. But the "shaila" was like this. Somebody sent the Chasam Sofer a "shaila" that there was a year that he was on a business trip. And apparently it was a very very rough trip. There were a lot of delays and it was very very rough. And this man was so frustrated that he said, and I quote, "Den ich zurik kem in Yotzei Shamayim u Ba'aretz, zol mir assur zayn ein meilel vegesh zu gehen." Basically what he said was, and they bring the translation, thankfully not in English but in "Loshon Hakodesh." "Im amale im amale kasha achser mi Yotzei Shamayim u Ba'aretz, yei assur alai laleches bidrachim afilu parsa achas." He said that. He said that when I come back, THAT'S IT, DONE. I'm quitting my job. Going back to "kolel." I AM NOT going on another business trip again. He said and he said not just that, I'm not even going to go one "parsa." One "parsa." Anyways, he makes this "neder besheim umalchus" and he's all excited with himself. He comes home and the first time, you know, he wants to go to the grocery store within a parsha. He wants to know if he's allowed to leave his house. He had a major issues. He sent it to his local rabbi who forwarded the shilo to the Chasam Sofer. It's a beautiful chuva. Chasam Sofer starts off apparently wasn't well at the time. And he was very very not well and he had to describe some of his symptoms even and he's lying in bed and he said really has no koach, but he said that somebody sends me a shilo, I feel an achrayus to answer the shilo. And he wrote back the chuva begins on page nun vov and it ends on page ayin. So that's the response. It's a it's a brilliant response. But the bottom line is is that the shilo came from many angles. One of the angles achshav negiyus But the one that is a little bit negiyus negiyus is that he wanted to know that if the neder was that he's not going to go up to a This like really has no shiyachus. But he said if I'm if made a neder that he's not going to go up to a parsha, then maybe can't even go less than a parsha. Cuz chatzi shiur osam min haTorah, it's a great chiddush, right? So he wanted to know chatzi shiur osam min haTorah. So the Chasam Sofer tells him that you know, chatzi shiur osam min haTorah is is an overly quoted idea, right? Every kosher chatzi shiur, right? So so says the Chasam Sofer, I have to tell you a few yesodos. Oh, message Oh, oh, it's vaulted. So he says I have to tell you a few yesodos about chatzi shiur because cuz I see it's a misquoted idea. So he said I want to tell you two yesodos. One that's negiyus to the chuva and one that's negiyus to us. The one that was negiyus to the chuva that the Chasam Sofer said was he said that the only time you say chatzi shiur is when the shiur is not mefurash in the Torah. But any time the shiur is mefurash in the Torah, the Torah said what the shiur is, there's no chatzi shiur osam min haTorah. Kishmo. So for example, how do you know that when it says in the Torah lo le'echol min ha'eivel lo, it means a kezayis. Shiur min ha'eivel lo mefurash in the Torah. It's not mefurash in the Torah. It's halacha leMoshe miSinai. Being that the shiur is not mefurash in the Torah that you thou shalt not eat min ha'eivel lo means a kezayis, min ha'eivel chatzi shiur osam min haTorah says he also not eat pakos min kezayis. But whatever the shear is either mefurash or it's a drash in the Torah, so over there you don't say chatzi shiur min ha Torah. Oh, gevaldik. So all right, exactly. Like if I DIDN'T EAT. RIGHT. IT'S That is the tzurah of the mitzvah or the tzurah of the lav I should say. Yeah, the lamdus is gevaldik. And we've spoken about some of this lamdus in the past. But the point is this, the point is he says I'll give you two examples. Number one, dalet amos bishus ha rabim. You know you're not allowed to carry dalet amos bishus ha rabim. Now even though it's halacha l'Moshe mi Sinai, but there's a pasuk in the Torah. The Gemara in perek hazoyir brings it down from the pasuk. So the Gemara says you're not allowed to carry bishus ha rabim. And you can't even carry dalet amos. Dalet amos is mefurash in the Torah. So says the Chazon Ish, I've seen people ask a kasha that if you're not allowed to carry dalet amos, you shouldn't be able to carry two amos either. You shouldn't be able to carry three amos or one amos. Chatzi shiur min ha Torah. Says the Chazon Ish, because being that dalet amos is mefurash in the Torah, wherever the shiur is mefurash, you don't have that halacha of of chatzi shiur min ha Torah. So he says I'll give you another example. HE SAYS CHUM SHABBOS. HE SAYS CHUM SHABBOS. You're not allowed to go four amos outside of the chum. I shouldn't be able to go a thousand amos out of it. It's a klotz kasha. Why is it A KLOTZ? BECAUSE THAT IS THE SHIUR THAT TORAH SAID THE SHIUR. Wherever the Torah says the shiur, that is the shiur is a chelek of the tzurah of the lav I should say. It's not the pshat there's a lav and there's a shiur. The shiur is part and parcel of the lav as much as leaving the chum is part and parcel of the lav. The lav is don't go outside two thousand amos. If I didn't go two thousand amos, just like if I didn't go outside at all, that that wouldn't be the lav I should say. Because the shiur the shiur is a chelek of the of the cheftza of the tzurah of the gavra of everything. Of the chalois of the peulah. It's part of the lav. You can't have the lav without the shiur. So over there doesn't pass to say chatzi shiur as min ha Torah. So says the Chazon Ish, what was the person's neder? He said I'm not going to go a parsah. Being that he said I'm not going to go a parsah doesn't pass chatzi shiur. Because now the the the cheftza of the neder is a parsah. Being that the cheftza is a parsah, it's like chum shabbos, with a heft of the issue of the par mama. It's like hoitza'ah on shabbos, with a heft of the of the issue of the issue of the par mama. It doesn't make sense to have a heft of the issue of the par mama. The second you saw it, the heft of the issue of the par mama, which is the one that we need, he says, I want to tell you another issue of the par mama, and that is ain in heft of the issue of the par mama sh'ein lo iker klal b'torah b'lav. Something that's not at its core a lav, there's no heft of the issue of the par mama. Kid going kol shiyurei tumas ochlin u'mashkin u'meis, v'neveilah, v'sharetz, u'kayotzei ba'hem. Das m'chazino b'krov, d'ein d'vei am b'isser, rak kach amru u'b'pachas vadai lav. Bottom line is, says the Chazon Ish, that something that's not at its core a lav, such as tumah, even though says the Chazon Ish, it affects lav, and the avos b'dei'ah sh'ein malchus d'kurban, d'k'ein [ __ ] v'nozer, o nichnas b'mikdash, mikom makom lo amru chazal lashiyurei rak b'inyan d'ein ba'hem tumah u'b'pachas. U'm'meilah b'chol hamakus d'kurban vadai. Bottom line is, is those are two issue of the par mama that the Chazon Ish says. The first one was in Giyus Chubah, the second one he mentioned there that's why we mentioned the second one. He said something else there and that is that the Chazon Ish says at the end that why couldn't you just be matter neder, right? Let's just be matter neder. Hatoras Nedarim is a very big deal. So, he said that the Shiyur held that you couldn't be matter neder, if I'm understanding this properly, is because it seems that when this person made the neder, when he made the neder, listen to what he said. He said I want the neder to be like the neder of Shimshon Baal Delilah. He made like a nazir of Shimshon. And being that he made a nazir of Shimshon, we know nazir of Shimshon the Rambam says is no hatara. This is nazir 101. And being that there's no hatara on nazir of Shimshon, right, Shimshon HaGibor is the most famous nazir of all time. There were other famous nazir. Right, Shmuel was a nazir. There were other famous nazir. But, Yosef HaTzaddik the Gemara says was a nazir nazir of the kod kodashim nazir, but the point is that the most famous nazir, of course, was Shimshon. But, was also a very unique Nazir because the laws that Shimshon had to follow were not consistent with the basic halachas of of Nazirites. Ordinarily, even a Nazir for example, could use base he's allowed to be make a bed, he's allowed to trim his hair a little bit. Shimshon wasn't allowed to touch his hair. Powers came from his hair. But Shimshon wasn't allowed to he wasn't allowed to touch his hair. Additionally, Shimshon's Nazirite had no hatara. And a person throughout the day has a right to say that I want to be a Nazir but not just a Nazir like a Nazir Shimshon. And if he says he's a kabbalah Nazir Shimshon, his Nazirite is going to follow the laws of Nazir Shimshon, which means there's going to be no hatara. When this person made a Neder, he said he wanted to make a Neder like Shimshon Shimshon Bal Neder. And the Shulchan Aruch held that being that his Neder, he was toilo in Nazir Shimshon just like Nazir Shimshon there's no hatara, so too there's going to be no hatara here either. And the Chazon Ish doesn't even understand it. He says, "Nazir Shimshon is a chiddush in Nazirite. There's a concept of a regular Nazirite and then there's a Nazir Shimshon. You can make a Neder and be mafkid a Neder from today till tomorrow in Nazir Shimshon. But at the end of the day, the Neder doesn't take on the laws of Shimshon to say that this is a that this is a Neder that all of a sudden is not going to have the laws of hatara. Incidentally, he writes but there are chagas bikibalti. I have a kabbalah shanim l'hatir nedarim shel reshus. Listen to this. Somebody makes a Neder shel reshus not Neder mitzvah. But if somebody makes a Neder shel reshus, it's a bad thing. Right? Neder kilo bana bama, it's a bad thing. What are you supposed to do? You're supposed to be matir Neder. So the Chazon Ish says, "I have a kabbalah that if somebody makes a Neder and he doesn't want to be matir Neder, I'm uncomfortable being matir Neder. He's amona b'kabbalas chazal. You know why? Yishmak. Because the Mishnah says in Maseches Chagigah daf yud amud alef that hataras nedarim is parkin ba'avar. It's it's it's really not rooted in Torah sheb'al peh. It's very much in Torah sheb'al peh. So when a person says that I'm not comfortable being matir Neder, it sounds like he's like questioning the parkin ba'avar. Oh, you're not comfortable because it's not the forest that's not good. Now you're already touching on the but the bottom line is some and we go right so with regards to the of America America is really going to be the topic of the next two but just for now just to start the so if it's cooked in a clean so there's a America so there's the mission whether it was cooked the or the wasn't physically cooked right when you think of cooking you fill it up with water you put the meat inside you put it on top of a fire that's not what happened what happened was you had a that was made of clean you took of a carbon and you poured it you into the carbon so we know creates and has certain ramifications throughout so that's what happened over here says the mission that if you the of a carbon into this clean so that's enough to say that there's going to be a so whether it's or whether it's you have the of this is a very big because even though the mission is even though the talking about a carbon when the Torah mentions of and by a clean the Torah says all these we are by a carbon so it's it says about a carbon stating that the mission says all all need to be says all all need all does not need all it says the the clean all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the all You have the same mitzvah of marika of shidduch, hamal b'asher t'vusha boy shodeh, boy yishoveh. No matter how it got in, if there's bliyos now with the carbon chatus, yishoveh, you have to break it. What's the halacha if you suspended the chatus into the aver of the tanur, but the chatus never touched the aver. So, you have a tanur, it's made out of clay. This coals on the bottom, there's fire coming up. You take a a kebab, you put the meat, the chatus on the kebab, and now you you have it on top, it's grilling. Like the old uh campfires, right? So, it's grilling right now inside the fire. So, it never touched the tanur, right? It never touched the the the tanur. So, do you have a halacha now of shvira on this tanur shel cheres or do you not? Does it have to touch? Does it have to physically be inside or that's enough that it's been cooked from it? That would be okay. What's the question? Now, bishul b'liloh the carbon chatus do you need tzay that the chatus was cooked in the tanur and that there were bliyos? Over here, it was cooked in the tanur, but being that it's not touching the tanur, the assumption is there's no bliyos. I don't know about bishul b'liloh. Maybe it's enough that it was cooked inside even though there's no bliyos, meaning it never touched the kedeirah, the tanur, maybe that's enough that it should be a problem. I'm my rabbah. Rabbah said, "Tashma, bring your raya." Because the mishnah said, "Echad shebishul boy, the echad she'eero l'teich hareseiach." Whether the chatus was cooked inside the tanur or whether you were just ma'areh l'teich hareseiach. What's the halacha? The halacha is that there's a halacha of shvira. Now, l'churah, when you're eero l'teich hareseiach, all you have is bliyos, but it was never cooked inside because eero is not bishul. All the significance of eero is is that you're now going to have bliyos of the chatus inside the cheres. And what does the Torah say? What does the mishnah say? You have the halacha of yishoveh, it's learned out from a pasuk. So, just like bliyos without bishul is enough to have a mitzvah of shira, then bishul without bleah should also be enough. Because what was the shaila? A bishul u bilua kavita rahmana, do you need bishul and bleah, or maybe bishul's enough? Well, I know you don't need bishul and bleah, because I know that from yerui. Yerui is bleah without bishul. So, just like bleah without bishul is enough, then maybe bishul without bleah should be enough as well. But the the gemara says, no, I don't think that's a raya, because bilua without bishul like bishul without bleah without bishul, that's pasha, you would have it in shira. Ki kami bleah without bishul without bilua, the shaila is if there was bishul without bilua, what's the locha going to be for that?