בענין ״לא יחשב״ במחשת שלא לשמה

The topic of the beginning of Masacres Menachis is the same as the topic of the beginning of Masacres Vochin. And it's the Halachas of Shma. When a Masacres Shma has an impact on a carbon, when it's going to be kosher elishley olam olam chover, when it's going to be possible, etc. etc. etc. One of the Hadushim that is mevor in the beginning of Masacres Menachis and the beginning of Masacres Vochin as well is that in addition to the fact that a Masacres Shma has a negative impact on a carbon, it's also assur. It's also prohibited for a person to have a Masacres Shma. Where do you see that? It's always meforish in the Gemara. I mean, literally, it's from the first Halachas of of Masacres Vochin and Masacres Menachis, right? Reading from Menachis. Homolili the Misni Misni olam olam olam olam olam. Why did the Misni say kol ha Menachis nikmas Shma charis elo olam olam olam chover? What it should have said was olam olam olam olam chover. How come olam said the Gemara? You want to know why the Misni said elo? It's coming to teach me that olam olam olam olam chover. Olam olam olam chover, right? It's coming to teach me that the Mincha itself, despite the fact that it's olam olam olam chover, is kosher, the assur lishnui. And therefore, moving forward, it would be assur to now by one of the subsequent avodas have a Masacres Shma. K'dei Rava, and it's based on something Rava said. Olam olam Shma assur lizrok dam Shma. So, it's meforish in the Gemara. That the idea of Shma is not only uh dover haba selas, it's also a question of issur v'heter. It is prohibited, it's forbidden for a person to have a machshava shelo lishma while he's doing one of the critical avodas. If you take a look at Rashi on the top of daf peh zayin amud beis, Rashi says that what's the makor that it's ossur lishnei? What's the makor that you're not allowed to have a machshava shelo lishma? Rashi says because it says im zevach shlamim korbanav and we learn from there she tehei zevicha leshem shlamim. Now, im zevach shlamim korbanav the Torah says in the parsha of shlamim, that's where the Torah introduces the shlamim and the Gemara learns in the first perek of maseches Zevachim and all the limudim that teach me how I know there's a din lishma, we learn from im zevach shlamim she tehei zevicha leshem shlamim. So Rashi says, you want to know why it's ossur lish- shnei? Why there's an idea that it's prohibited for a person to do an avoda with a korban with a machshava shelo lishma? It's because it says im zevach shlamim korbanav she tehei zevicha leshem shlamim. And that she tehei zevicha leshem shlamim is like a tzivui. Torah is telling you how you're supposed to do it and therefore you have to make sure that the zevicha is going to be leshem shlamim. Meaning, the parsha that tells me that shelo lishma has a negative impact on a korban is gufa the makor that it's ossur to do an avoda shelo lishma. If you take a look at Rashi on the identical Gemara in maseches Zevachim daf peh zayin amud beis, so Rashi over there says that you want to know why you can't have a machshava shelo lishma when it comes to zevachim because ta'am re'ah beperek sheini because the Gemara says in the second perek of maseches Zevachim ossur lehashiv bekotzin. You're not allowed to have a machshava pesula leshem bekotzin veyalif mikra and it's learned out from a pasuk dechasiv lo yichshev. It says in the Torah lo yichshev. What's this Gemara in the second perek of maseches Zevachim that Rashi is referring to? So the Gemara says amar Rebbi Yonah, minayin lemachshiv bekotzin shelo yikabel? Daf kuf tes amud beis. How do you know that if somebody would have a machshava pesula leshem bekotzin he would get malkus? Ta'am re'ah ba'as says in the Torah and being that it says yichshev that's a to teach me that if you have a you're going to get malcus. So told if you have a bad thought you're going to get malcus. So he told him back true when I said you're going to get malcus I meant it the love shame of You want to know why you want to know why you're not allowed to have a a bad on a carbon? It's because of the it says in the Torah and being that it says we learn me because according to you would even get malcus because he was looking at the bottom line is that's why you can't have a bad in other words we seem to have two in on the very very same that is being this in two completely different ways. Rashi in says that you want to know why you can't have a by it's because there's a which more. So if there's a obviously you can't think it says in the Torah should Rashi in says Rashi says because there's a it says in the Torah like you get malcus on the this is even ONE OF THE TORAH. First glance sort of beer why Rashi in was one way Rashi was the other way and really I think if you're going to ask the question properly the question is more Rashi than Rashi in Rashi in is saying that you want to know why you it's because it's one of the Torah it says why did Rashi in not learn the way that Rashi in so I think maybe we could be matziah two very simple psukim to explain Rashi Menachos daf bais amud bais, which is we're going to see is going to go to the core of understanding some of the sugyas of sh'lailas sh'main, and it's all based on d'varim from the g'dolei acharonim, and that is the Rambam in Hilchos Psulei Hamukdashim. This is in perek Yud Ches, halacha Aleph. The Rambam Any person that thinks a machshava Chareisa over lo yisa sei. He's over lo yisa sei. Sh'harei hu over lo yichasheiv. Because it says lo yichasheiv, and lo yichasheiv is a lo yisa sei that's coming to teach me you're not allowed to have a machshava hap'sulah. What's the makor to this Rambam? It's the Gemara in Zevachim daf kuf tes amud bais. Says the Rambam, we have a mesorah sh'vaklalim zeh that included in the words lo yichasheiv that you shouldn't ruin the korban with a bad thought. Says the Rambam, you know why? Sh'harei zeh domeh l'matir mum b'korban. Because if a person would do an avodah on korban, and he would do it a machshavah with a machshavah p'sulah, it would be the equivalent thereof to being matir mum b'korban. And it's for that reason this is not something that's okay. Af al pi kein ein lo laikas achrei haRambam sh'ein lo machshava maiseh. And then the Rambam goes on and on and on. R' Meisimcha Or Samei'ach says that it's so interesting why the Rambam would go and give like an explanation almost like a ta'amei d'kra for why there's a lav in the Torah of lo yichasheiv. The Rambam says if you have a machshava einan rachoinan b'korban, you get malkus as lo yichasheiv. And then the Rambam gives an explanation sh'harei zeh domeh l'matir mum b'korban. What's like this? I mean, whatever, you want to tell me it's like being matir mum b'korban? It's neither here nor there. At the end of the day einan rachoinan because it says in the Torah lo yichasheiv. Vos alt mir this very fancy reason sh'harei domeh Like is this something that even matters? First glance, it's something that's neither here nor there. And the it's not ever do something like this in his maybe in the but not in the what did the mean when he said so may said he said the with those words was coming to teach me a you know what he was coming to say? That although it's true but the only time that's true is if the is going to make the carbon possible. But what WOULD BE IF SOMEONE HAD A BUT THE IS THAT THE CARBON'S GOING TO BE FOR EXAMPLE ALL THOSE ARE ALL said the was coming to teach you in that case you would not be over THE TIME THIS IS IF IT'S WHERE YOU THE ON THE LEVEL YOU CAN'T EAT THE YOU CAN'T eat the you can't be in in a situation like that said that's what the coming to teach you it's there and only there that you're going to be over the but if somebody WOULD BE A WITH IS GOING TO BE KOSHER EVEN THOUGH IT'S which means your was a it had a negative impact on the carbon but I feel the that's not something that you're going to be over the wasn't just giving a muscle to what the was coming to do was the was coming to say a that if somebody would have a by the Halacha the Halacha, he would not be over the love of Lo Yichshav. I found in the Shiurim from Rav Meshulam Dovid Halevi, it's from the first Shiur in Maseches Zevachim, he clarifies this Shaila that we know there's a love in the Torah of Lo Yichshav. Yish lo hishtabik if the love of Lo Yichshav is something that would be true only by a Pesach and a Chatas or in the world of Menachos by Minchas Chotzei and a Minchas Chinuch like Rav, maybe a Minchas Omer, but the bottom line is that is it only then where it's actually possul that you're over the love of Lo Yichshav? But where it's kosher, elishley al oilam haba and oilam hazeh chova, maybe not. I mean, maybe not. Maybe once you have a machshava shelo lishma, I don't care if it's possul, I don't care if it's kosher. The end of the day, even when it's kosher, you see you were machshiv the korbon. It's like oilam haba and oilam hazeh chova, on some level it's not perfect. And if that's the case, maybe b'chay gavna you'd be over the love of Lo Yichshav as well. So, Rav Meshulam Dovid said it's in Mefurash in Tosefta. This Tosefta is in Perek Yud Beis of Maseches Zevachim. It's the very, very last excerpt of Halacha Chass of the last Tosefta of Perek Yud Beis. Just going to read it. "Aval Hakoymes v'Hamikabel v'Hamahavech, kibel hazor kibel aposel kibel b'smol kibel b'chli choyel, nosen es any tonen al mato al maylo es any tonen al mato al mato, es any tonen b'fnim b'chutz es any tonen b'chutz b'fnim." We're listing off a whole bunch of examples where a koyhen did the avodah and he did it b'ofen possul. "Or ha Pesach v'ha Chatas sheshachtan shelo lishma, harei eilu v'eilu lo yotzei." So, in all these cases they're going to be over Lo Yotzei. Said Rav Meshulam Dovid Halevi it's in Mefurash in Tosefta. In the Tosefta you see that dafka the Pesach and the Chatas SHELO LISHMA, IT'S DAFKA then you're going to be over the love of Lo Yichshav. But as it relates to the Zevachim with Halacha that's kosher, there you're not going to be over the love of Lo Yichshav. But Al Korbanem, it's m'vurah over here, a very big chiddush. Rav Meshulam pointed it out in the Rambam Perek Chass Halacha Alef. from said it's and that is the love of do you have the love of when you're dealing with carbon is that a kosher with the was done or is it only the or the right because when you master because when you MASTER THE NOW THE IS SO THEN YOU HAVE THE LOVE OF BUT THE EXTENT THAT YOU WANT TO MASTER the maybe over there you're not over here we're discussing call me Nick Michelle Michelle what does it mean that even though it's so you would have had a that maybe what maybe you can go ahead now and maybe you could go and maybe you could have a commercial but what type of is that we're talking about we're talking about THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT BY DEFINITION KOSHER BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BECAUSE THOSE THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE ANYWAYS SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT could be kosher right so if we're talking about something that's kosher and now it's IN THE RIGHT COULDN'T SAY AND THE REASON IS THAT I CAN RUN like I can say I can say because the only time YOU HAVE THE SO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY on such a carbon and the reason is because if we were handling over here a or and we're saying I've had the would have said but we're discussing the call as well the color of the that is also the Schnee AND THAT THE MISSION IS COMING TO TEACH me that I feel lucky also the Schnee. It's still going to be something that you're not allowed to do. Over there you don't have the issue of what is then the the issue of I Rashi and my year Rashi and obviously all there is but the bottom line is this I may assume and this I may assume was a beautiful day and it after but then today this could be is what's going on over here. What's playing itself out between these two Rashi's. The Rashi and the base the Rashi and the but maybe you could say another maybe you could say the heck them. The in the Baba Kama the is discussing the is discussing the right this is one of the few places where Baba Kama meets so Baba Kama begins so about we know that the brings a that added to that he said that they were not four of his but they were 13 of his then the Bryson for a Rashi said they weren't 13 of his they were actually 24 of his and the goes and tells us according to what all the of his are. Now when he said they're 24 of his so he counted them and the says we know is always it's always coming to exclude something. We only count when there's something that you think should have been included in your ranking on your list that for whatever reason is being excluded. So the says as it relates to I just explained the the coming to be my mind and the 24th. Revolution is 13 is coming to be my the revolution is other 11. But maxed out he gave you everything. So if covered the whole spectrum, so what is he coming to be my mind? It's coming to be my mind if someone is a moiser, you would think he should be he should be included in the obvious not a mylist additionally mefago. Obviously between the moiser and the mefago which one do we need? We need the mefago, right? So says the Gamara is telling me the number 24 because he wants you to know that mefago is not going to be included. What does that even mean? So the background to mefago is a mishna in perek zakin in mesectes gittin where the mishna says that had a machshava pigul while they were doing the avoda. So if they had a machshava b'mezed the chiyuv the chiyuv as a mazik. And based on that so I have another example of avois nezikin. If somebody would have a machshava pigul l'chayera that would come with chiyuv maman and based on that it should be included. Minyana the that a mefago is not going to be included in those. And he says why takana? Why not? I mean it sounds like you should be included in the list. The Gamara says because because Bava Kama is not kochen very much not and as a result we're not talking about kochen. The kochen we'll deal with when we learn kochen. But because Bava Kama and it's for that reason it's not included. Rashi on the word of the Gamara mefago says something that is very hard to even say over with a straight face. Right? This moment goes down as one of the most fair Rashis of all time. Rashi says what does it mean mefago? A cohen that took the carbon of a Yisrael and he shach'ted it and he was bringing a instead of a he had in mind a shlamim. Is that what a mefago is? A mefago is when you have in mind to do an achila chutz l'zman or chutz l'kamei. Rashi didn't taich mefagel as what we know as pigul. Rashi taiched it as sh'lo l'shma. The Kamatz comes in the shtabel. We have several raid bites. Mamish going back to the beginning of time to try to be meyashev this very very svara. Rashi the Pnei Yehoshua is very matmi on this. And other gedolei acharonim were very bothered with Rashi l'chayav was tov b'dvar Mishna. Rashi mamish made the most basic error it sounds like. He's taiching mefagel as really being sh'lo l'shma. So the Chasam Sofer in Bava Kamma daf mem alef he says a dovor naful. He says lulei d'mistafina. I want to say maybe a little bit of a p'shat in Rashi. And that is a vadai Rashi's being motzi mefagel midei p'shuta. Rashi knows what pigul is. Rashi knows what sh'lo l'shma is, right? And Rashi's purposely taiching pigul not as pigul but rather as sh'lo l'shma. But there was a reason for it. And the reason is because the Etzem said the Chasam Sofer, I don't even understand how it's possible that the Mishna could say that Kohanim that had a machshavas pigul the halacha is that they're going to be chayav malkos. The Gemara says in Bava Kamma daf chof tes amud bet that if someone has a machshava haposeles b'kodshim the halacha is that he gets malkos. Now we know the rule is that a person is never like a meshulam. It's very difficult to say a g'val d'nikasha. How could it be that Kohanim that were mefagel b'meized are going to be chayav malkos to the extent that they get malkos based on the lav of lo yichalenu. The Gemara in Zevachim chof tes amud bet you have a kamma with the Rav and an issue. So now already it's ein lo k'meshulam. K'dei rishus tzip. So if there's ein lo k'meshulam so based on that, based on that l'chayav there should be no chayav malkos. So stam is it the whole conversation in the Mishna in Gittin and the Gemara saying l'muta mefagel, to me this whole thing is a dovor pelah. Said the Chasam Sofer, I know what you're going to probably tell me, you'll tell me according to Yehuda that holds which the said in the base is the one that holds that culture is going to be like you're sure you're talking not going to pay money you're going to get you're not going to get money cuz you're in a when the mission says in getting that the government is amazing moment I want to get more money other or because the culture we're all going in the WORLD OF THE CUZ IN THE WORLD OF there is no cuz IF THERE'S NO NO ONE IS GOING TO BE SO VERY OBVIOUS response right but at the same time it doesn't work you know why cuz if you go through the of a camera the camera makes a certain certain claw and certain rules as it relates to what is included in the and then in the and then later in the the of of the king and one of the rules is like a merry all of these things were things that had to work the other one which means that why if the camera was entertaining to say that a is one of the of the king that means it would be true not only according to the that allows you to but even according to that holds by my side is yes like you know but if that's the case they have to some say that how could the camera entertain that you should be money by being a liberal government a liberal government that holds by my side like you know the government is like you know the government is going to get more money once you get to get more money you can't have a moment cuz you're in a liberal and you can't tell me that the government wasn't a liberal government the government was only in the because the liberal government AND THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T SAY THE GOVERNMENT CUZ THE LIBERAL government the government said because the government is A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH MEANS THAT REALLY it meets all the after mentioned criteria. It seems it conforms with people like a myrtle. That means when the tomorrow wants my father tomorrow means that I'll leave it to talk to some say for this is what was bothering Rashi. Right? In the home show we always talk about what's bothering Rashi. This is what was bothering Rashi. Rashi got going in living this kasha. He couldn't understand that the tomorrow over here is handling that you should be high of moment for people even I leave it to WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FACT THAT YOU AIN'T LIKE A MACHINE. DO you know what? You know what Rashi said? That my father must mean not my father. You know what my father must mean to learn and didn't bother Rashi. And the say for says you know what? I'll tell you a finish here is going to stand up. The reason is because even though it says in the Torah and the learns from here that if someone has a bad because you're going TO GET A IS ONLY TRUE BY BUT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN AND THE SAYS WHERE DOES IT SAY THE WORD IT? It says it in the that's where it says it. So really based on that truth is there's another car. There's another to we're going to talk about this in the next few days. It's a we see cold over raw key and Rashi quotes this what does it mean don't call a little bit it's an and I would have a and the says if you look up the free and the free keeps on saying people people why does it keep on saying people? Because the only time you're over a laugh when it comes to is if the is a people. If however the WOULD BE A OVER THERE NOT says the that's why Rashi said my father means because Rashi was trying to get out of this kasha that how could it be people who do would be high of moment people who do get for and you're in a way late. Says the that's why Rashi said that mefago doesn't mean pigel, but rather mefago means shiloy lishma. If mefago means shiloy lishma, but shiloy lishma there's no love of loy yichashev. If there's no love of loy yichashev, there's no problem with the like of Mashallah. Therefore, therefore there's a sugia over here of whether mefago is in the are the always in Zeken. It's not included in the always in Zeken. Truth is this same sofer which is in Bava Kama daf heh mem alef is more barichus in a trufa. The trufa is in Mishpatim resh dalet. It was written to the great going Reb Dovid Deutch. It's a very cut from the good trufa. It's very much related to this Indian that we're discussing right now. And over there he says this Indian barichus that he always held that it could be that the love of loy yichashev is not something that would apply to a machshavah shiloy lishma. The love of loy yichashev is something that would only apply where? It would only apply to a machshavah pigel. But not by the machshavah shiloy lishma. But the bottom line is if we have a same sofer, we learned that up in a Rashi. In a Rashi in Bava Kama daf heh mem alef. And the same sofer didn't just say it fleetingly. He says it barichus. And he brings it out in that trufa Mishpatim resh dalet. That could be there's no love of loy yichashev when it comes to machshavah shiloy lishma. So that would be another issue of hogging to Rashi in Menachos daf bet mem bet. Rashi says in the MISHNAH SHILOY LISHMA. RIGHT is are you allowed to have a machshavah shiloy lishma? It says in Korban she says RASHI IS SAYING GOOD. YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID BETTER. YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID WHAT YOU YOURSELF SAID ONE MASACHTA GOING DAF BET. IT'S NOT SHILOY YICHASHEV. The teretz is Rashi in obviously holds loy yichashev passes even for machshavah shiloy lishma. But Rashi in Menachos holds that it doesn't pass shiloy lishma. Again, we're not being meyashev the stira of Rashi. We're just coming to say a machalach in what the shaila might be whether it's out of shiloy yichashev or whether it's out of Korban. And specifically Rashi in Menachos like we mentioned in the beginning of this is all of love why would he not explain it based on yichashev? why would he explain it better why would he explain it better based on the first the first was that it's based on the fact that it could be when it comes to carbon where it's not going to be possible over there there's no problem of like was with my hair or more than maybe from the in the end of of of the second that it could be not only is there no when it comes to the that are there is never when it comes to even by the right someone has a bad after some maybe you could say it's only going to be true by but just to end and that is so the just said a very big right he just said that if somebody would have a that small by all he would not be able to love of it sounds like a right could be this is what's going on in between these two Rashi's and Rashi's what should that be totally in what should it totally in whether there's a love of by or not this is easy it should be totally in the it should be totally in the with the that we also spoke about so many times and that is the was without going through the whole that portion you learn that the reason has a negative impact on a carbon is because a carbon has to be based on all the a carbon has to be when you you took away the the mail it's possible cuz it's the but the was that really you can never take away the the carbon because is a in the carbon and a carbon is always based on the stomach before we knew maybe but once you know that point you can never take away the carbon. Why then is it that it should be a negative impact on a carbon? It's a piece of from one of the other places in this that a bad could have a negative impact on a carbon and that's the of a carbon having a negative impact on a carbon. If you hold that of carbon is that it's a negative carbon that parcels a carbon. Just like a pig or then it's possible that it should be included in in the carbon. If however the of every is not your positive had a negative impact on a carbon but rather when you have a what you're doing is you're removing the and the middle of the carbon is being parcel. If that's the case it's possible it doesn't pass means don't have a that's going to get impact the carbon. I just explained even though when you have the bad and you remove the the carbon is possible but it's not possible the point the way it became possible was the was the it's not the of the IT'S POSSIBLE FELT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT'S WHY IT'S POSSIBLE. You want to know how it became possible through a bad it's not means don't have a that's being the this is whether or not there should be a when it comes to carbon should be totally in the you do of the which would mean that maybe these two and this is what's going on over here again this is all being said by a pool of alma. I'll just be my own one hour before the of calls me out on this. And that is that the truth is if you look lighter and Rashi here in Menachos base on the base, so it's dibur hamaskil. Rashi's kan beshinui mechte machshava depasul rachmono bemincha hakasheiru. So with the middle of the I just read Rashi's words. Rashi says like this, how do you know that there's a pasul machshava shleima lishma by Menachos going in sheetas Rav Shimon from the beginning of the mesechta, we learn it as kasha, right? We learn it from a hekesh from zevachim. Okay, this rachmono mincha zevachim kidei tzeis kodshei kodashim hekesh kodashim. And maz zevachim pasul by machshava kidei tzeis hamakriv oiso lo yichshev af mincha nami. And if that's the case mali shinui kodash mali shinui bayin. Rashi seems to be saying that the reason a machshava pasuls, he's talking not about the lav, he's talking about a pasuling, but the reason it pasuls is because it says. It says in the Torah hamakriv oiso lo yichshev. This is Rashi in Menachos base on the base who's telling to lo yichshev to explain the inyan of a machshava shleima lishma pasuling a korban. We were learning up in the top Rashi of Menachos base on the base. Rashi saying davar mishum shnei avos u shnei zevachim shlamim korbanos sheteizei lishlam shlamim. The Rashi is not bringing lo yichshev into the sugia because lo yichshev maybe has no makom, at least in the second mahalach, has no makom bechlal when it comes to when it comes to a machshava shleima lishma. Well, Rashi be emes ha'yom clearly brought in lo yichshev not for the lav, but al be it for the pasul. In fact, the Brisker Rav in his piece, when he brings rayos to his yesod that machshava shleima lishma is a machshava pasul is one of his marei mekomos that he quotes is this Rashi on the bottom of Menachos base on the base. So the Brisker Rav brought a raya from Menachos base on the base, not the top Rashi because I think the top Rashi sounds like a kasha on the Brisker Rav. He brought a raya from the bottom Rashi, which would then mean we would have to try to reconcile these Rashis again. The Indian over here is just to be mefaul for a little bit in two Rashis that we have it oh you saw it and that is sh'lo lishma is not only a psul, it's not only a question is it kosher is it possul, is it ol l'bayis l'shem chova is it not ol l'bayis l'shem chova, but the sugiyah of sh'lo lishma is a question of issur v'hechsher as well. What is the makor to this issur? First glance is the stei'a of Rashi. Rashi in Zevachim beis amud beis says lo yachshiv. Rashi in Menachos brings the whole the whole sugiyah of the first perek of meseches Zevachim in Zevachim sh'lo lishma karbani, it sounds like Rashi didn't want lo yachshiv, which is the more obvious makor. Of course lo yachshiv, but first Gemara in Zevachim kaf daled amud beis you get malkus al libi d'Rebbi Yehuda. That's of course what Rashi should have said. Why did Rashi not say it? We're being matzia again poshit for conversation purposes l'pulpal b'alma to machlokes. One based on the issur from the Meiri Simcha and the issur from the Shiltei Giborim on Levi and that is it could be the only time there's a psul machshava of sh'loi, the only time there's a issur a lav of lo yachshiv is when the korban is going to be possul or be here with the discussing kashrus of the olah l'bayis l'shem chova is but it's still ossur l'shnoei. We have like something that sh'lo lishma is kosher. So over here it doesn't pass to say lo yachshiv. Inami like the some soif is big issur that he says about the korban of peh and he says in T'rumos in Cheshbon ha'Nefesh siman daled that it could be there is no din lo yachshiv b'chlal. There's no din lo yachshiv b'chlal when it comes to a psul of sh'lo lishma. What would that be? Tali and the chover of Tali in the Brisker Rav's chiddush. The issue is there's a Rashi in the bottom of beis amud beis that seems to shteit lo yachshiv m'furash. M'furash to sh'lo lishma. And by the way, this Rashi on the bottom of Menachos beis amud beis and also the Rashi in Zevachim daf beis amud beis are both on the issur of the some soif. Because the some soif is saying that lo yachshiv is not related b'chlal to sh'lo lishma. What do you mean? I have a Rashi on the first daf of the first two meseches of kashrus that seem to say not that way. This Rashi maybe can be mechalek between the psul and the lav. Rashi in Zevachim beis amud beis is TALKING ABOUT THE LAV AND HE SAYS M'FURASH IS LO yachshiv when it comes to sh'lo lishma. Again, teiku d'Rabbanan Yakov might. Psulei meisi.