THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ZEVACHIM 11-15 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
1) THE "HEKESH" COMPARING "ASHAM" TO "CHATAS"
QUESTION: The Rabanan and Rebbi Eliezer argue in the Mishnah (2a) regarding
whether a Korban Asham is valid when it is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah. The
Gemara teaches that Rebbi Eliezer derives that an Asham is Pasul when it is
slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah from a Hekesh to Chatas. The verse says,
"ka'Chatas ka'Asham" (Vayikra 7:7), comparing an Asham to a Chatas. We know
that a Chatas that is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul (Zevachim 5b), and
thus so, too, is an Asham.
The Gemara explains that the Rabanan do not agree that the Hekesh is
teaching this Halachah. Their reasoning is that the Hekesh is used to teach
a different law -- that an Asham requires Semichah, just as a Chatas
There is a rule cited often in the Gemara that "Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah."
This means that when a Hekesh exists between two categories of Halachah, the
Hekesh is used in full to teach that all of the Halachos of one apply to the
other, unless the Torah specifies otherwise. Why, then, according to the
Rabanan, does the fact that the Hekesh teaches that an Asham requires
Semichah preclude deriving from the Hekesh the law that an Asham slaughtered
she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul?
(a) The Gemara in Menachos (4a) asks a similar question. After attempting to
derive that a Minchas Sotah that is offered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul from a
Gezeirah Shavah of "Avon, Avon," the Gemara asks that if we use such a
Gezeirah Shavah, then why do we not apply the same Gezeirah Shavah to teach
that an Asham that is offered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul. The Gemara answers
that we cannot apply the Gezeirah Shavah to teach that an Asham -- or a
Minchas Sotah -- that was offered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul. Instead, we
derive from the Gezeirah Shavah that money set aside for an Asham or a
Minchas Sotah that was not used to purchase the Asham or Minchas Sotah is
used to purchase an Olas Nedavah. The Torah states that money left over from
a Chatas is used to purchase an Olas Nedavah, and we derive from the
Gezeirah Shavah that the same law applies to an Asham. Since *this* law is
derived from the Gezeirah Shavah, the Gezeirah Shavah cannot also be
teaching that an Asham that is offered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul. The Gemara
asks that we should derive *both* laws from the Gezeirah Shavah, because
"Ein Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah!"
The Gemara there answers that the verse, "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" (Vayikra
4:33), teaches that a Chatas that is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul.
The word "Osah" in that verse is a Mi'ut which teaches that only the Chatas,
and no other Korban, is Pasul when slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah. This verse
overrides the Gezeirah Shavah.
The TOSFOS CHADASHIM (on the first Mishnah in Zevachim) explains that our
Gemara is relying on the same form of logic. When the Gemara says that the
Hekesh teaches that Semichah is performed on a Korban Asham, it is saying
that the Hekesh will be left unused if it does not teach that an Asham
brought she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul. Since the Hekesh is teaching the law of
Semichah for an Asham, it is not necessarily teaching the law of she'Lo
Lishmah. Consequently, we rely on the verse of "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" and
we learn that that only a Chatas is Pasul when offered she'Lo Lishmah, while
no other Korban is Pasul when offered she'Lo Lishmah, and we do not apply
the Hekesh to invalidate an Asham that is offered she'Lo Lishmah. (Had there
been no other Halachah to learn from the Hekesh, we would have no choice but
to learn from the Hekesh that an Asham is an exception to the verse of
"v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas." However, now that we can learn the law of
Semichah from the Hekesh, there is no need to make an exception from the
rule of "Osah" which validates other Korbanos, besides Chatas, that are
slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah.)
What, then, is the logic of Rebbi Eliezer, who does apply the Hekesh to
teach that an Asham offered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul? The answer is that in
the Gemara earlier (10b), Rebbi Eliezer points out that there is already one
exception to the rule of "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" (which teaches that all
Korbanos she'Lo Lishmah are valid); that exception is the Korban Pesach.
Since there already is one exception, it would not be unreasonable to
suggest that the Korban Asham is an exception to the rule as well.
Therefore, the Hekesh overrides the Mi'ut of "Osah" and teaches that the
Asham is another exception to that verse.
REBBI AKIVA EIGER (on the Mishnah) points out that Tosfos does not seem to
agree with this analysis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the
Rabanan. TOSFOS (10b, DH Harei) writes that Rebbi Eliezer does not derive
that an Asham she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul from the Gezeirah Shavah of "Avon,
Avon" that is recorded in Menachos (4a), because of the Mi'ut of "Osah
l'Chatas," as the Gemara in Menachos concludes. If Rebbi Eliezer agrees that
the Mi'ut of "Osah" overrides the Gezeirah Shavah, then why should "Osah
l'Chatas" not override the Hekesh of "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" as well? We should
apply the Hekesh to teach the law of Semichah and *not* to teach the law
that an Asham she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul, as we explained according to the
Perhaps the answer to this question is that Tosfos understands that an Asham
does *not* require Semichah according to Rebbi Eliezer, since we find that
an Asham Metzora does not require Semichah (see 33a). Since the Hekesh does
not compare Chatas to Asham for Semichah, the verse must be comparing them
with regard to she'Lo Lishmah. Support for this may be found in Tosfos in
Kidushin (55b, DH v'Dilma Asham Hu), who implies that an Asham does not
require Semichah. The PNEI YEHOSHUA and SEFER HA'MIKNAH point out that this
seems to contradict our Gemara. Perhaps Tosfos there means that there is one
opinion among the Tana'im that maintains that an Asham does not require
Alternatively, Tosfos may mean that a Hekesh is a stronger type of
comparison than a Gezeirah Shavah (see Zevachim 48a, Gitin 41b), and,
therefore, the Hekesh can override the Mi'ut of "Osah l'Chatas," even though
the Gezeirah Shavah cannot.
(b) RASHI (10b, DH Harei Hu Omer) seems to take another approach to explain
why we do not apply the rule of "Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah" according to the
Rabanan. Rashi writes that the Rabanan maintain that there is another Hekesh
that overrides the Hekesh of "ka'Chatas ka'Asham." Apparently, Rashi is
referring to the verse of "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" in the preceding Perek
(Vayikra 6:10), which is stated with regard to a Minchah offering and which
compares a Minchah to both a Chatas and an Asham to show that some types of
Minchah offerings are valid when offered she'Lo Lishmah, and others are
Pasul when offered she'Lo Lishmah. This can be learned from the verse,
however, only if an Asham she'Lo Lishmah is valid. Therefore, the Hekesh
comparing a Minchah to an Asham -- which demonstrates that an Asham she'Lo
Lishmah is valid -- overrides the other Hekesh of "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" (in
Vayikra 7:7) which implies that an Asham she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul. This is
why we do not apply the rule of "Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah."
Rebbi Eliezer, who disagrees with the Rabanan, learns like Rebbi Shimon (who
is cited in our Gemara), who does not derive from the Hekesh written with
regard to the Minchah offering that some Minchah offerings are valid she'Lo
Lishmah. Since there is no Hekesh to contradict the Hekesh which teaches
that an Asham she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul, we apply the rule of "Ein Hekesh
l'Mechetzah" to invalidate the Asham that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah.
2) SLAUGHTERING THE KORBAN PESACH IN THE MORNING OF EREV PESEACH
OPINIONS: The Mishnah at the beginning of Zevachim (2a) teaches that a
Korban Pesach that is slaughtered on any day during the year other than Erev
Pesach, with specific intention that it be a different Korban, is valid. If
it is slaughtered on Erev Pesach with such intent, however, then it is
Pasul. We know that the proper time to slaughter the Korban Pesach is Erev
Pesach after Chatzos; the verse says that the Korban Pesach should be
slaughtered "Bein ha'Arbayim" (Shemos 12:6; see also Vayikra 23:6).
The Mishnah here records an argument among the Tana'im regarding a Korban
Pesach that was slaughtered on the *morning* of Erev Pesach, with intent to
be a different Korban. Is the morning of Erev Pesach considered to be the
time for slaughtering the Korban Pesach or not? Rebbi Yehoshua says that
slaughtering the Korban Pesach in the morning of Erev Pesach is considered
like slaughtering it on the day before, the thirteenth of Nisan, which is
*not* a valid time to slaughter the Korban. Therefore, a Korban Pesach
slaughtered "she'Lo Lishmah" at that time remains a valid Korban. Ben
Beseira argues and says that the Korban is Pasul, as if it was slaughter
later, during the afternoon of Erev Pesach.
In the Gemara, Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Oshiya adds that Ben
Beseira also maintains that a Korban Pesach that was slaughtered in the
morning of Erev Pesach with the proper intent for a Korban Pesach is a valid
Korban Pesach. This follows his logic that the morning of Erev Pesach is
also considered the appropriate time of the Korban Pesach. (TOSFOS in
Pesachim (108a, DH Neima) says that Ben Beseira's ruling applies only
b'Di'eved; Ben Beseira agrees that l'Chatchilah the morning is not the
proper time for slaughtering the Korban Pesach. See, however, the MITZPEH
EISAN (12a) and KEREN ORAH here.)
Does the Halachah follow the view of Rebbi Yehoshua or Ben Beseira?
(a) The ME'IRI in Pesachim (108a) says that the Halachah follows the view of
Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that a Pesach that is slaughtered with the intent
of a different Korban in the morning of Erev Pesach is a valid Korban (and
may be offered as a Shelamim). Likewise, if it is slaughtered with intent to
be a Korban Pesach, then it is Pasul, like any Korban Pesach that is
slaughtered in the wrong time. This is also the opinion of the RA'AVAD
(Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 15:11).
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 15:11) disagrees. He says that
if the Korban Pesach was slaughtered on Erev Pesach in its proper time,
"*even in the morning*," with intent to be a different Korban, then it is
Pasul. This implies that the Rambam rules like Ben Beseira and maintains
that the morning of Erev Pesach is a valid time for the Shechitah of the
In the following Halachah, however, the Rambam writes that a Korban Pesach
that was slaughtered in the morning of Erev Pesach with intent to be a
Korban Pesach is *Pasul*! This implies that the Rambam maintains that the
morning of Erev Pesach is *not* a valid time for the Shechitah of the Korban
Pesach. The Rambam clearly contradicts himself. How are we to reconcile the
view of the Rambam?
The KESEF MISHNEH explains that the Rambam rules like Rebbi Yochanan's
understanding of Ben Beseira (12a), because Rebbi Elazar's explanation was
refuted. The Rambam chose not to rule in accordance with the view of Rebbi
Yehoshua (whose opinion normally carries more weight), because the Gemara
itself deals extensively with Ben Beseira's opinion, implying that his
opinion is more relevant in practice.
The text of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES (12a, #5) explains Rebbi Yochanan's
reasoning. The text reads that Rebbi Yochanan explains that a Korban
slaughtered in the morning of Erev Pesach with intent that it should be a
Korban Pesach is Pasul, because the Torah says that the Korban must be
brought "Bein ha'Arbayim," and the morning is not "Bein ha'Arbayim."
However, the Korban is also Pasul if it is slaughtered with intent to be a
different Korban, because *some* of that day is fit to bring the Korban
Pesach. Although the morning itself is not fit, it is as if the morning is
already included in the correct time to bring the Korban Pesach (with regard
to slaughtering it with intent to be a different Korban). This is why Ben
Beseira maintains that in either case, the Korban is Pasul. This also seems
to be the understanding and text of the KESEF MISHNEH. (Y. Montrose)