בענין לא ירצה ולא יחשב

One of the topics of the Mishnah, one of the topics of the Sugya of piggul is that there's a Halacha of Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso. That the only time something becomes piggul to the point where it's going to be Chayav an Olah Korban is if it was Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso. But if it was Lo Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso, so then the Halacha is it's going to be possul of course, but it's not going to be a situation where you're going to be Chayav an Olah Korban. And the Mishnah gave a whole bunch of examples of when it's Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso and when it's Lo Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso. Additionally, we mentioned in the introduction to the daf that this Mishnah we hear in Menachos has a an equivalent thereof, a mirror image Mishnah, which is in Maseches Zevachim, where the Mishnah there too goes through the same exact Cheshbon of needing Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso regarding Zevachim. And the Mishnah gives examples of Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso, and the Mishnah gives examples of of Lo Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso. What is the part to this Halacha of Korban Matzah Kemitzvoso? So it's a Braisa in Maseches Zevachim daf Chof Hes Alef Amud Beis. It's the middle of a very, very long Braisa where the Gemara is darshening all the different words in the parsha of piggul. One of the things it says regarding piggul is Lo Yeiratzeh. Then he Ochel Yeiyachel Mitzvas Hashlamah Bayom Hashlishi Lo Yeiratzeh. Nach Vai Say Lo Yichshev Lo Piggul Yiyeh V'nefesh Chalas Mimenu Avoinu Tisa. But it says the word Lo Yeiratzeh. Says the Braisa, we learn from the words Lo Yeiratzeh Karzas Kasher, Kein Karzas Possul. U'Ma Karzas Kasher, Achshei Yakrivuhu K'matirahu. Af Karzas Possul, Achshei Yakrivuhu K'matirahu. So Zog the Braisa that it says the word Lo Yeiratzeh, we're talking about Ritzui. How do you get Ritzui? You get Ritzui by doing four good Avodos. So too, when it comes to piggul, you also have to do four good Avodos. What do you mean? By definition, I didn't do four good Avodos. That's true. Lo Vad of the Machshavah of Chotzas Mano, you would have to have a situation where you went ahead and you did four good avoidos. But, the point is is that as long as you have the hartzah lulei the machshava of chutz l'zman, that's when you're going to have a pigul of a chayav on all of karos. If, however, you don't even have hartzah posul, because even down in the machshava of chutz l'zman, there's other issues, there's other problems with this avoida, b'chai gavna d'alochis, it's not going to be okay. The braysa continues. I'm skipping four lines. posul. It says also in the posuk the words lo yichash, right? Again, then mayoch yochid b'tzas b'yam ashlishi lo yeirotzeh. Am I correct by saying lo yichash? What does it mean lo yichash? Zoch teegamara. It's all part of the braysa. Lo ye'arev b'machshavos acheiros. You can't be me'arev any other machshavos. So, krashi, mikon demachshavos shemaytzia zumizu. This is the makor to the idea that machshavos are maytzia zumizu. Shemachshavos posul maytzia meeday pigul. That if while the kohen is doing the avoida, he would have another machshava posul that other machshava posul would be maytzia meeday pigul, it would knock out the entire pigul, it wouldn't be karis for chayav on all of karos. Frank the Brisker Rav, I don't understand. I'm learning this gemara over here. I have two drashos that seem to be saying the same thing. Lo yeirotzeh, karis kasha kein tzas posul. May tzas kasha at your kuvak matirav, afer tzas posul at your kuvak matirav. I have to have without the machshavos chutz l'zman four kosher avoidos. That's the only way this korban of a chayav on all of karos. Then we have another another drasha, lo ye'arev. Lo ye'arev b'machshavos acheiros. What does it mean? Zoch krashi, mikon demachshavos shemaytzia zumizu. Shemachshavos posul, if you would have a bad machshava, maytzia meeday pigul. What does it mean you have a bad machshava? In addition to the machshava of chutz l'zman, you would think chutz l'zman, you would think sh'lo lishmo, by minchas chotim u'minchas kanaos, or by achatos or pesach. But, the point is if you would have another a machshava that WOULD KNOCK IT OUT. FRANK THE BRISKOVER, once I know this halacha of lo ye rotzeh, kartos kalcha kein artzos posul, why do I need a second drasha of lo ye choshev to go ahead and teach me lo airev b'machshavos acheiros? At first glance, it would seem to be two drashos that are teaching me the same thing. Now, to be clear, the first drasha of lo ye rotzeh is way more encompassing than the second drasha of lo ye choshev. Lo ye rotzeh says that there can't be anything wrong with this korban. A, you have to do the avodah this, and B, there can't be anything wrong. to be a perfect dalet avodah this with the exception of the machshava of chutz l'zmanah. So, a vadai the lo ye rotzeh is very, very encompassing. Lo ye choshev is not so encompassing. What does lo ye choshev say? If there's another machshava of pisul, machshava is a lo ye see o ye zum ye zum. Right? That's the concept. Lo ye airev b'machshavos acheiros. Cuz if you have another bad machshava, it's going to undermine the entire pickle. So, the kasha is not why do I need lo ye rotzeh if I have lo ye choshev. The kasha is why do I need lo ye choshev if I really have lo ye rotzeh. So, in shuir they say over that the Briskover said two mahalachim to answer this kasha. The first mahalacha that the Briskover said was that we know Rava has a memra in kodshim, we just saw it a few days ago on daf heyom beis, that the only time a machshava is considered a machshava of pisul is if it was b'mishah ro'eh l'avodah, b'davar ha'ro'eh l'avodah, u'v'makom ha'ro'eh l'avodah. Said Maran HaGriz, that in the event that a kohen would have machshavos chutz l'zmanah b'sha'as shchitah, and then by the kabalah he would go, he would have a machshava of sh'lo lishmah. That machshava of sh'lo lishmah b'etzem would not make the kabalah posul. Because once you had a machshava already of chutz l'zmanah, so comes out that now the kabalah is not a davar ro'eh l'avodah. Because the kabalah is a posul kabalah. If that's the case, the machshava that you have is not a real machshava. If it's not a real machshava, said the Brisker Rav, "I think that it would be no problem of KOSHER OR POSSIBLE." WHAT does it mean kosher or possible? What it means is that there's another thing that I did wrong. What did you do wrong? You had a machshava sh'lo lishmah by the kabbalah. That was not a machshava that has any impact on the carbon. You know why? Cuz you already had a machshava of chutz z'manei. And once you had a machshava of chutz z'manei, that machshava sh'lo lishmah has kabbalah is a machshava of davar ha'ro'ui l'avodah. And a machshava of davar ha'ro'ui l'avodah is not a machshava. And it's for that reason it's not going to be okay. Now, it's a little mechudashdik what the Rav is saying, because usually you would say, "If I didn't have the machshava of chutz z'manei, what would be there?" Then it would have been a davar ha'ro'ui l'avodah. And then it would be a machshava of sh'lo lishmah. But the Brisker Rav said it's mefurash for me that's not the way you look at it. The way you look at it is, "Is there ANOTHER PSUL?" THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE A MACHSHAVA OF SH'LO lishmah on a kabbalah after the sh'chitah was done with a machshava of chutz z'manei is actually not a machshava of psul. CUZ THERE'S A MACHSHAVA of sh'lo lishmah that says it has to be ha'ro'ui l'avodah. K'mas l'an od drasha Lo yachshiv. Says Lo ya'arvei machshavos acheres. At the end of the day, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER MACHSHAVA, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A MACHSHAVA THAT REALLY even has the ability to make THE CARBON PSUL, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT it's coming chutz z'manei, it's not a davar ha'ro'ui l'avodah. Afilu hachi, afilu hachi, that's the second drasha of Lo yachshiv. This is what the Brisker Rav said in his first mahalacha. Second mahalacha they say in shiur is that the Brisker Rav said that it would happen after mincha regarding a machshava of chutz l'makom. He said, "Why?" He said, "Because there's makom to say, being that you find that machshava of chutz z'manei and machshava of chutz l'makom are considered hishtayim, right? They're mitztaref with regards to the shiur, right? You find a lot of things that they have in common with regards to the different sugius. So, you could have said, you could have said that being that it's mavore that although karitsos kosher, kachatsos posel. But avada it's down minay the machshavah of chotzos mano. So just like it's down minay the machshavah of chotzos mano, maybe if you would have a machshavah of chotzos koymo, it would be down minay of the machshavah of chotzos koymo. And it could be a machshavah of chotzos koymo wouldn't be able to stare karitsos posel in as much as the machshavah of chotzos mano alone doesn't stare. Meaning, say it even a little bit better. If you would have a do it a shkito with a machshavah of chotzos mano and a kabala machshavah of chotzos mano alacha, right? That's not a problem of karitsos kosher kachatsos posel. We just saw it in the mishnah menachos that we learned this morning. Why? Because at the end of the day it's all chotzos mano even if it's A SECOND MACHSHAVAH, BUT IT'S all chotzos mano. And being that chotzos koymo chotzos mano is achash shnayim, so there'd be mokem to say that the machshavah of chotzos mano is one in the same. So I'll say karitsos kosher kachatsos posel, you can't be motzi a chotzos koymo. Kamashma loy choshev, loy areve machshavah acheres. In the end of the day it's an other machshavah. And being that it's an other machshavah, it's for that reason it's going to be posel. These are the two malachim that the Brisker Rav said. And here they say that the Brisker Rav feared eyes and he said that there's nafka minas l'halacha. Why? Because according to the first teretz, what's the malach? The malach is that once you have a machshavah of chotzos mano it's the second machshavah is already bedolishin l'avoyda. If it's bedolishin l'avoyda, it doesn't stare the karitsos posel. That's why you have to come on to a new shiyur of loy choshev. Well, that's only true if first you had the machshavah of chotzos mano and afterwards you had the machshavah of chotzos koymo or the machshavah of shiloy lishma. What would be if it was in the other way around? Then en achana mi you wouldn't have to come on to loy choshev loy areve machshavah acheres. Because being that that machshavah came first, so at the time that you had that bad machshavah was it dover a roy l'avoyda? So you would be taype clay altsa loy ratza. Then nafka mina of the second teretz of the Rav is that that only nigay chotzos koymo. That it's nafka by koymo you have to come on to the areve. master of the but as it is you wouldn't have to come on to the second but it would be hard question possible but in the case like this of Brisk the most of unbelievable I suffer to this Indian and that is that we know Ruby Buddha so in the mission of this morning of course it's also mentioned in the mission of walking he's with the as it relates to the of color of magic in its water according to the only time there's an issue of color of magic in its water is if first you had the other magic and then you had the magic of the speaker so first you had the magic of the first you had the magic of the then you had the magic of the speaker what would be if it was in the reverse order where first you had the magic of the and then you had the magic of the you had the magic of the so we did the magic of the would be different right the way says it in the mission of I don't care what magic you had afterwards the magic of the you had afterwards the magic of the magic of the if however the magic of the came before the magic of the then it's possible the magic of the possible no either way it's like the magic of the how did you do say in the mission of today's stuff I don't know what you do say after the magic of the magic of the magic of the the magic of the magic of the magic of the verbatim it's word for word that is Ruby Ruby says the which magic of the came first did the magic of the come first or did the other magic of the come first if you take a look at the parish on the it's in the parish that's known as the Agra on the Mishnah in the second perek of Maseches Vakken. In the Gemara, it's on daf chof tes amud beis. In the Mishnah, it's Mishnah hei. Says the Gaon, "Omer Rebbi Yehudah, zeh haklal. Dedorash pshat in Rebbi Yehudah is cuz Rebbi Yehudah was doresh lo yei choshev lema'chshev bekorbanos shelo la'ika. For someone that's ma'chshev bekorbanos to teach me that he gets malkus kimavur lekam on daf chof tes amud beis. Well, masnisan koide masnisan veramar vechul." Says the Gaon, "That what pshat in Rebbi Yehudah that says that there's an af kamina if the machshavos has man came first or if the other machshavos came first. It's Rebbi Yehudah leshitasah. You hear this? Dedorash lo yei choshev lema'chshev bekorbanos shelo la'ika." The Gemara said on daf chof tes amud beis, "Omer Rebbi Yanai, minayin lema'chshev bekorbanos shelo la'ika? Tamud lemei lo yei choshev. Omer Rebbi Ashi, "Deramarai, lav shein bema'aseh. Vechol lav shein bema'aseh lo yei na'alah." Omer Rebbi Yehudah, "De'omer lav shein bema'aseh LO YEI NA'ALAH." SAYS THE VILNA GAON, "Being that Rebbi Yehudah leshitasah holds that if someone has a machshavah besul bekorbanos, he's going to get malkus. And how do we know he gets malkus? He gets malkus cuz it says lo yei choshev. It's for that reason said the Gaon that Rebbi Yehudah said that if the machshavos makayim or the machshavos shelo makayim first, that's going to be a problem of karmas fosos. If however the machshavos has man came first, then it's not going to be a problem of karmas fosos. And at first glance, the words of the Vilna Gaon are very sossel. It's very tom beer. What's pashut pshat? Meaning, what does it sound like the Gaon is trying to say? It sounds like what the Gaon is trying to say is that how do you know machshavos amitzias umizu? So the Gemara darshined it from lo yei choshev. According to Rebbi Yehudah, lo yei choshev is taken because Rebbi Yehudah holds minayin lema'chshev bekorbanos shelo la'ika? Tamud lemei lo yei choshev. So Rebbi Yehudah leshitasah doesn't HAVE LO YEI CHOSHEV. SO IF HE DOESN'T HAVE LO YEI CHOSHEV, THEN IT'S FOR THAT REASON that you can't hold that if you had a has man first it's going to be a problem of of like but here's the problem at first glance. IF DOESN'T HOLD OF SO MADLY IF THE HAS MAN CAME FIRST MADLY IF THE OTHER CAME FIRST EITHER WAY you don't HAVE THE IS EITHER WAY YOU SHOULD BE OUT. SO, IN MADISON THEY SAY IS THE of is the TERRACE FROM THE WITH BECAUSE THE ASKED HIS GRACE WHAT DO I NEED typically it says what do I need a new thing the is TYPICALLY WHAT THE SAYING IN THE FIRST TERRACE that the only time possible possible would be an issue would be if first you had the bad and then you had the of because then when you had that other the car it was it was and being that it was so now when you had the of there's another if however first you would have the of then already by the time you had the second of it comes out it's not a if it's NOT A THERE'S NO PROBLEM THAT'S WHY I SAID THE WE HAD TO COME ON TO A NEW OF IT DR. RIGHT SOMETIMES WE CATCH INTO THE GUY AND THIS is clear what the guy is saying it's no other way to learn THE GUY DR. HALF OF A FELLOW WHO HOLDS OF BUT HE DOESN'T HOLD OF THE REASON HOLDS OF WHY NOT THE REASON HE DOESN'T HOLD OF BECAUSE IT'S WHO HOLDS BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT IS TAKEN TO TEACH ME ALREADY THE love to teach me the and as a result of THIS KIND OF AS RELATES TO THIS LAW SO THE MAIN where the would knock out the piggle out which is we have to come ON TO THE THAT DOES NOT GOING TO BE INTO. SO IF YOU HAD first the first and then you had we're there at the time that you had the of it was a double OF THIS IS RIGHT NOW THAT IF YOU'RE LATER GOING TO DO THE NEXT WITH A PIGGLE IS KOSHER POSSIBLE IF HOWEVER FIRST YOU WOULD HAVE THE AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE AT THAT POINT IT'S ALREADY NOT IT'S not what it's not a bad of it's a double over there over there outside THERE'S NO PROBLEM. NO THIS IS A NEW THIS IS A NEW THIS IS THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE NEW OF THAT'S WHY HE DOESN'T HAVE THE THAT'S why he's going to hold that as it relates as it relates to a situation with first you had as mine and then you had the other at that point it's not going to be a problem. This is this came first that came second once you hear I'm grandfathered in that's what's going on here. What's going on here is it's the of the the the Brisker was stating going with the bear from Maran Agriz is that he held of the of he didn't hold of the of that's the reason he didn't hold of the of is cuz it's the of but if you in this going for one second we're going to end with this it's an unbelievable what the guy is saying it's unbelievable I think you have to do almost a double take on this Vilna guy because what the Vilna guy is saying is that when the Gamorah says mean I The law says Malkis is a lot of shame and nice I must have my own Yehuda. That whole Gamorah is only a little bit of Yehuda. I mean Pasha the way you learn that Gamorah is is that the love of is true say according to say according to the only reason the Gamorah said Yehudi is because IT SAID LIKE THAT YOU GET LASHES, RIGHT? 40 MINUS ONE. THAT'S TRUE ACCORDING TO YEHUDA. WHO SHE DOES THIS MARCUS AND THROUGHOUT CHANCE the last thing in my soul you know but I even I believe in the coming which is a lot of obey. You're not going to get Marcus. And the guy in the war that according to Yehuda there's a lot of is thus is taken AND I CAN'T DOUBLE DIP. I CAN'T USE AGAIN TO TEACH ME THE LAW IS THE LAW IS THE LAW IS THE LAW. AND THAT'S WHY YOU THE THE LAW SAYS MY CAME BEFORE MY LAW CAME BEFORE MY THAT LAW IS GOING to be bigger than all of ALL OF GOD. IT'S THAT WE HAVE A COMMON WHO HOLD YOU DON'T get Marcus for you don't get Marcus for the law is the law is the law. Is not only something you don't get Marcus for it's not even something it's not a law there's no law of the law is the law. If there's no law of the law is the law is the law is not taken. It's very much available. If it's available we can use it now to teach me a very critical law. The say the guy in is learning up that the price of the law is the law is the law is predicated on the law is the law is the LAW BEING EXTRA. I FEEL THE LAW IS THE LAW IS THE LAW IS A LAW IT'S NOT EXTRA. THE LAW IS THE LAW IS THE LAW IS the law is the law is the law is the law is the law is the law is the law is the says the guy in this is like one of those guys. Very good smack. He doesn't have the law is the law is the law extra in the price. As opposed to going to the law is the law is the law is going to be extra in the price. But it's coming out and the steam is watching that girl that according to the coming there's no love of law is which is not like the Rambam in it's not like Rashi and that base on the base who is it maybe I like? Who's it maybe I like? Could be it's like Rashi we had to read by in the beginning of the where we motioned a little bit that it's more in the Gamorah right Mincha she makes a little bit that it's kind of nice and the Gamorah asks the question the same question that it asks in why does it say hello what it should have said was like Rashi says in that base So why are you not talking the Derek so the Gamorah says I'm going to tell you why cuz the mission wants to tell us in a very subtle way that even though the both regards to everything else it's a kosher carbon as a matter of fact we treat it like it's just like in a it's a kosher carbon this is a kosher carbon might have come in a also listen if you would want to go and do another now with a bad you would not be allowed to and the reason is because in the are you allowed TO HAVE A BAD BY IN THE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED RASHI SAYS THE TOP RASHI THAT BASE ON THE BASE in the mission how do you know you're not allowed to have a base on the base by in the folks and carbon should take Rashi in the same exact in the same exact Gamorah says in the MISSION IT SAYS IN THAT BASE ON THE BASE AND WE MOTIONED why did Rashi in that base on the base who saying GOOD NOT SAY BETTER WHICH IS WHAT HE HIMSELF SAID IN THAT BASE WHY DID RASHI say that the reason the cuz there's a THERE'S A LOVE IT SAYS AND WE SUGGESTED TO WE SHOWED TO IN THAT BASE on the base who learns up in the the Rambam says that you learn from me that the only time there's a love of said is only if the carbon's going to be possible. But if you would have a where it's said over there you would not be over the you would not be over the as it relates to the over it's maybe is telling us the what the told us the in that's why the Russia didn't we were in the two of them the which the says about a comment of hey based on the over there that it could be there's no the when it comes to forget about could be the there's no is the people not by we said what should that be totally in the era if when a person has a it takes away the so the reason the carbon is possible is not because I had a bad the bad is the at the carbon is missing the is my the bad or here is just THAT IT'S THE MY or if you're going to tell me that is and like the so you can't take away the so what is the IT'S COULD BE THAT'S WHAT IT'S TOTALLY but I'll go this day WAY DIDN'T SAY COULD BE IT'S BASED on the fact is when it comes to but there's no but this guy and you have a third we have another maybe what actually didn't say cuz it could be only but according to the according to the in the in the days and in today's we have a that hold that and if you have first it's and then it's considered And like the they can't be but like the says it's because OF AND THAT'S PREDICATED ON NOT BEING ALLOWED LIKE THE GOING SAYS IN THE ALL OF THAT'S THE CASE THERE'S NO LAWYER WE DON'T HOLD MY WAY TO THE MIDDLE IT'S TOUGH BASE. It's very very maybe that's why Rashi didn't say what he said.