POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 48
ZEVACHIM 47-50 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) THE "OLAH" IS SLAUGHTERED IN "TZAFON"
(a) (Mishnah): The Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur (are
slaughtered in Tzafon...)
2) "ASHAM TALUY" IS LEARNED FROM THE FOLLOWING SECTION
(b) Question: The Torah explicitly says that slaughter of an
Olah must be in north - the Tana should have taught Olah
(c) Answer: Since we need to expound to learn the law of
Chata'os, the Tana treasures this law more, therefore he
taught it first.
(d) Question: Why did he teach inner Chata'os before outer
(e) Answer: Because their blood is brought into the Kodesh
ha'Kodoshim, it is more dear to him.
(f) Question: Where does the Torah teach that slaughter of an
Olah must be in north?
(g) Answer: "V'Shachat Oso...Tzafonah".
(h) Question: That discusses a Seh - what is the source for a
(i) Answer: The Torah teaches about a bull, then it says
"*V*'Im Min ha'Tzon" to connect the Parshiyos, we learn
the former from the latter.
(a) Question: This is according to the opinion that we can
learn the former from the latter when a 'Vov' connects
3) "CHATAS" IS SLAUGHTERED IN "TZAFON"
1. But according to the opinion that we can only learn
the latter from the former, how can we answer?
(b) Answer (Rav Papa): No, all agree that we can learn;
2. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "V'Im Nefesh..." - this
teaches that one brings an Asham Taluy for doubtful
3. Chachamim say, he is exempt.
4. Suggestion: R. Akiva holds that we can learn the
former (Asham Taluy) from the latter (Asham
Me'ilah), Chachamim say that we cannot.
1. Chachamim exempt because of a Gezerah Shavah
"Mitzvos-Mitzvos" between Asham Taluy and a regular
Chatas, e.g. for eating Chelev;
(c) Question: R. Akiva should agree that we learn all
possible laws from a Gezerah Shavah!
i. Just as there it refers to a transgression
punishable by Kares (if Mezid) and Chatas (if
Shogeg), also Asham Taluy is only brought for
such transgressions (there is no Kares for
2. R. Akiva says, there it refers to a Chatas Kavu'ah
(even a poor person must bring a Behemah) - also
Asham Taluy is only brought for such transgressions.
i. This excludes a Tamei who entered the Mikdash
or ate Kodshim, the Korban for this is Oleh
3. Chachamim disagree, for we do not learn a Gezerah
Shavah only half-way (rather, we learn all possible
(d) Answer: Indeed, he does; R. Akiva exempts because 'Vov'
connects to the next Parshah.
(e) Question: Why do Chachamim argue?
1. Suggestion: R. Akiva holds that a Hekesh (to the
next Parshah) overrides a Gezerah Shavah (to a
regular Chatas, which would exclude Me'ilah),
Chachamim hold that a Gezerah Shavah overrides a
(f) Answer: No, all agree that a Hekesh is stronger -
Chachamim say that the former Parshah teaches to the
latter, that one must pay at least two Shekalim for it;
1. One might have thought, Asham Taluy (for a doubtful
transgression) should not be more stringent than a
Chatas for a definite Aveirah, which can be bought
for a sixth of a Dinar (or even less) - the Hekesh
teaches that this is not so.
(g) Question: What is R. Akiva's source for this law?
(h) Answer: He learns from "Zos Toras ha'Asham" - the same
applies to all Ashamos.
(i) Question: There is an opinion that does not expound this
Hekesh - what is his source (according to R. Akiva)?
(j) Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah
"B'Erkecha-B'Erkecha" from Asham Me'ilah.
(k) Question: This teaches about Asham Taluy and Asham
Gezeilah, but not Asham Shifchah Charufah (regarding
which it does not say 'B'Erkecha')!
(l) Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah "B'Ayil-B''Ayil"
from Asham Me'ilah.
(a) Question: What is the source that Chatas must be
slaughtered in Tzafon?
(b) Answer: "V'Shochat Es ha'Chatas bi'Mkom ha'Olah'".
(c) Question: This teaches about slaughter - what is the
source for Kabalah?
(d) Answer: "V'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas" (presumably,
in the same place it was slaughtered).
(e) Question: What is the source that the Kohen who is
Mekabel must be in Tzafon?
(f) Answer: "V'Lakach" - we rearrange the letters to spell
'Lo (Yi)Kach' (he will bring himself there).
(g) Question: This teaches that these Avodos should be done
in Tzafon - what is the source that this is Me'akev?
(h) Answer: We learn from "V'Shochat Oso bi'Mkom Asher
Yishchat Es ha'Olah":(regarding a Sa'ir Chatas of a
1. (Beraisa): (This verse teaches that) Chatas is
slaughtered in Tzafon just like Olah.
4) THE "MI'UT" OF "OSO"
2. Question: We already learned this from "(Zos Toras
ha'Chatas) bi'Mkom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet
(i) Question: We learned that Tzafon is Me'akev regarding the
Chatas of a Nasi, and that all Chata'os require Tzafon
l'Chatchilah - what is the source that this is Me'akev
regarding all Chata'os?
3. Answer: "Oso" teaches that this is Me'akev (if it
was not slaughtered in Tzafon it is Pasul).
4. Suggestion: Perhaps it does not teach this, but
rather, that other Se'irim (Chata'os) require
(slaughter in) Tzafon!
5. Rejection: "V'Shochat Es ha'Chatas bi'Mkom ha'Olah"
- this is a Binyan Av, it teaches that all Chata'os
(j) Answer: A verse requires Tzafon when a commoner brings a
goat, another verse requires it when he brings a lamb (we
could have learned one from the other) - the extra verse
teaches that this is Me'akev.
(a) Question: Since this teaches about all Chata'os, why do
we need "V'Shochat Oso..."?
(b) Answer #1: It teaches like the following Beraisa.
1. Beraisa: "Oso" - an obligatory Chatas requires
Tzafon, the Chatas of Nachshon (or any other Nasi
during Chanukas ha'Mishkan) did not require Tzafon;
(c) Objection #1 (Ravina): This answers for R. Yehudah, who
says that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah - according to
R. Shimon, how can we answer?
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Samach Yado Al Rosh
ha'Sa'ir" - this includes the Se'ir Chatas of
Nachshon (that it required Semichah).
2. Summation of answer: Since Se'ir Nachshon required
Semichah, one might have thought that it also
required Tzafon - "Oso" teaches that this is not so.
ii. R. Shimon says, it includes Se'irim (for
He'elam Davar) of idolatry.
(d) Objection #2 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Tavi): This does not
even answer for R. Yehudah - we only learned that Se'ir
Nachshon required Semichah, this does not suggest that it
1. Suggestion: If "Oso" did not exclude this, we would
learn it from a Binyan Av (from permanent Chata'os).
(e) (Sefas Emes suggests that (b:1) is not a Beraisa, for the
Gemara refutes it (Oso is not needed to teach about Se'ir
Nachshon); our Sugya is repeated in Menachos, it is not
called a Beraisa there. Alternatively, it is a Beraisa,
it is like R. Shimon, who indeed learns Semichah
regarding Se'ir Nachshon from permanent Korbanos, and
needs "Oso" to exclude Tzafon - this is unlike Ravina.)
2. Rejection: If so, we would not need a verse to teach
about Semichah, we would learn it from the Binyan
i. We must say, we do not learn (Semichah
regarding Korbanos of Chanukas ha'Mishkan) from
permanent Korbanos (i.e. that apply to all
generations) - the same applies to Tzafon!
(f) Answer #2: "Oso" teaches that the slaughter (i.e. the
animal) must be in Tzafon, the slaughterer need not be in
(g) Objection: We learn that from R. Achya!
1. (Beraisa - R. Achya) Question: What do we learn from
"V'Shachat Oso Al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah"?
(h) Answer #3: "Oso" teaches that (an Olah must be
slaughtered in Tzafon, but) Melikah need not be in
2. Answer: We know that Kabalah (of Kodshei Kodoshim)
and the Mekabel must be in Tzafon, if the Mekabel
was in the south it is Pasul - one might have
thought, the same applies to slaughter;
i. "V'Shachat Oso..." - the slaughter must be in
Tzafon, the slaughterer need not be in Tzafon.
1. (Beraisa) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach
that Melikah requires Tzafon!
(i) Objection: We do not need a verse for this, the Kal
va'Chomer can be refuted!
i. The Torah (allows a Zar, it) does not require a
Kohen to slaughter a Seh (Olah), yet it
requires Tzafon - the Torah requires a Kohen
for Melikah, all the more so it should require
2. Rejection: "Oso" (Melikah need not be in Tzafon).
1. We cannot learn from an Olah, for this requires a
vessel (for the Kabalah and slaughter; Tosfos - both
need a Kli Shares), Melikah does not! (Sefas Emes -
the 'rejections' of this and the coming Beraisa are
according to the Tana R. Achya.)
(j) Answer #4: "Oso" teaches that Olah must be slaughtered in
Tzafon, but not Korban Pesach.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov) Suggestion: A Kal
va'Chomer should teach that Pesach requires Tzafon!
(k) Defense of Answer #2 (to Question (k)): Indeed, "Oso"
teaches that the animal must be slaughtered in Tzafon.
i. The Torah did not fix a time to slaughter an
Olas (Nedavah), yet it requires Tzafon - the
Torah fixed a time for Korban Pesach (the
afternoon of Erev Pesach), all the more so it
should require Tzafon!
2. Rejection: "Oso" (Pesach does not require Tzafon).
3. Question: We do not need a verse for this, the Kal
va'Chomer can be refuted!
i. We cannot learn from an Olah, for it is
entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach!
4. Answer #1: We would have learned a Kal va'Chomer
5. Objection: We cannot learn from Chatas, for it
atones for Chayavei Kerisus!
6. Answer #2: We would have learned a Kal va'Chomer
7. Objection: We cannot learn from Asham, for it is
i. Olah and Chatas are also Kodshei Kodoshim, so
we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of all
(l) Question: We learn that from R. Achya's teaching!
(m) Answer: Indeed, we expound like R. Achya; "Oso" in
Parshas Olah, teaches that the slaughterer need not be in
1. The Chidush of "Oso" (written regarding Se'ir Nasi)
is the inference - the slaughterer need not be in
Tzafon, but the Mekabel must be.
(n) Question: We already know this from "V'Lakach" (which we
rearrange to spell 'Lo (Yi) Kach')!
(o) Answer: This Tana does not expound "V'Lakach" thusly.