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 92
1) BURNING "NESACHIM" THAT ARE "TAMEI"
(a) (Rav Huna): If Nesachim became Teme'im, we make a
separate Ma'arachah for them and burn them (Rambam - on
the Mizbe'ach; Rashi - on the floor of the Azarah) -
***** PEREK DAM CHATAS ****
(b) Support (Beraisa): If any of the following became Tamei,
we make a separate Ma'arachah for them and burn them:
1. Blood, oil, Menachos or Nesachim.
(c) Shmuel gathered 10 people and taught Rav Huna's law (to
2) WHICH "DAM CHATAS" MUST BE LAUNDERED?
(a) (Mishnah): If Dam Chatas splashed on a garment, it must
be laundered (in the Azarah);
(b) Even though the Parshah (that teaches this) discusses
Chata'os that are eaten - "B'Makom Kadosh Te'achel" - it
applies to those that are eaten (outer Chata'os) and
those that are not eaten (inner Chata'os).
1. We learn from "Toras ha'Chatas" - there is one law
for all Chata'os.
(c) Dam of a Pasul Chatas need not be laundered (i.e. from a
garment it splashed onto), whether or not it had Sha'as
ha'Kosher (was once Kosher for Zerikah):
1. Cases of Sha'as ha'Kosher - (after Kabalah), the
blood became Pasul on account of Linah, Tum'ah or
Yotzei (it left the Azarah);
(d) (Gemara) Question: If "Toras ha'Chatas" teaches that
there is one law for all Chata'os, even Chatas ha'Of
should be included (but it is not!)
2. Cases when there was not Sha'as ha'Kosher - it was
slaughtered (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz
li'Mkomo, or Pesulim received (or threw - Rashi
deletes this from the text, Tosfos defends it) its
1. (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps blood of Chatas ha'Of
must be laundered!
(e) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): In the Parshah it says
"Tishachet" - this shows that it discusses a Behemah.
2. Rejection: "Zos (Toras ha'Chatas)" excludes Chatas
1. Question: In the Parshah it also says "B'Makom
Kadosh Te'achel", this should exclude inner Chata'os
(they are not eaten!)
2. Answer: "Toras" includes them.
3. Question: We should say that it also includes Chatas
4. Answer: "Tishachet" excludes it.
5. Question: (The verse that includes does not specify
what to include -) why do we include inner Chata'os
and heed the verse excluding Chatas ha'Of, and not
6. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn this way, for
inner Chata'os resemble outer Chata'os in the
i. Both are Behemos, they are slaughtered, they
require (slaughter and Kabalah) in the north,
Kabalas Dam must be in a Kli Shares, the blood
must be put on the Keren (according to R.
Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - Rebbi says, it must be
put on the edge of the Mizbe'ach), the blood is
put with the finger, part is Huktar
3) OTHER THINGS THAT ARE INVALIDATE BLOOD
7. Question: Perhaps we should include Chatas ha'Of,
which resembles outer Chata'os in two ways - both
are offered on the outer Mizbe'ach, and both are
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): "Yochlenah (they will eat *it*) -
the Torah excludes another Chatas that is eaten, i.e.
8. Answer: There are more similarities to inner
1. Question: What does "Zos" exclude?
(g) Answer #3 (Rabah): It says "Asher Yazeh" - the verse
discusses a Chatas whose blood is sprinkled, i.e. an
2. Answer: Had it not said "Zos", we would not have
expounded "Yochlenah", for the whole Parshah is
written in the singular.
1. Support (Beraisa): Even though regarding Merikah
u'Shtifah (scouring and rinsing), the Parshah
discusses Chata'os that are eaten, regarding
laundering blood from a garment, it says "Asher
Yazeh" (which refers to inner Chata'os.)
(h) Question: If so, why does the Mishnah say 'it applies to
outer Chata'os and inner Chata'os - rather, it should say
inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os (since we first learn
outer from inner)!
2. ("Toras ha'Chatas" includes outer Chata'os.)
(i) Answer: Indeed, the text should say inner Chata'os and
(j) Question: "Toras ha'Chatas" should include also Chatas
(k) Answer: "Zos" excludes Chatas ha'Of.
(l) Question: It should also exclude outer Chata'os!
(m) Answer: "Toras" includes them.
(n) Question: Why do we include outer Chata'os and exclude
Chatas ha'Of, and not vice-versa?
(o) Answer: We learn this way, for inner and outer Chata'os
have many similarities (listed above) - (both are)
Behemos, slaughter, Tzafon, Kli, Keren or the edge of the
Mizbe'ach, the finger, Haktarah.
(p) Question: We should include Chatas ha'Of, for we are
Mazeh its blood, like inner Chata'os!
(q) Answer: There are more similarities to outer Chata'os.
(a) Question (R. Avin): If blood inside the neck of Chatas
ha'Of entered the Heichal (after Melikah), what is the
1. If its neck is like a Kli Shares (since the Torah
did not require 'another' Kli for Kabalah), this is
like Dam Chatas (Behemah) that entered the Heichal
in a Kli, it is Pasul;
(b) Answer (Beraisa): If Chatas ha'Of quivered after Melikah
and entered the Heichal and came back out, the blood is
Kosher (for Haza'ah).
2. Or, perhaps the Torah only forbids "Mi'Damah" when
Dam enters by itself, not when it enters inside the
1. Inference: Had a person brought it in (in order to
Mechaper), it would be Pasul!
(c) Rejection: Here also, the inference is not true, the
Beraisa merely teaches that Chatas ha'Of is not Nifsal if
it entered the Heichal!
2. Counter-question (Beraisa): If Kodshei Kodoshim
quivered after slaughter and moved to the south and
returned to the north, it is Kosher.
i. Will you infer that had a person brought it to
the south, it would be Pasul?! (Surely not, it
did not cross a Mechitzah - as long as Kabalah
is in the north, it is Kosher!)
3. Answer: You must say, the inference is not true, the
Beraisa merely teaches that a Korban is not Nifsal
if it left;
(d) Question (R. Avin): If blood spilled from the neck of
Chatas ha'Of (after Melikah) to the floor and it was
gathered in a Kli, what is the law?
1. The Torah did not require a Kli for Kabalah (the
neck is in place of a Kli) this is like Dam of a
Zevach that spilled after Kabalah in a Kli (which is
Kosher for Zerikah);
(e) Answer (Rava - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps blood of
Chatas ha'Of must be laundered!
2. Or, perhaps the Torah forbids using a Kli for
Kabalah, the blood must come straight from the neck
to the Mizbe'ach, it is Pasul!
1. Rejection: "Zos" excludes Chatas ha'Of.
(f) Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We need a verse
to teach about when the garment was right next to the
neck (the blood went straight from the neck to the
2. If the blood must come straight from the neck, once
it splashed into the airspace of the garment it
became Pasul, we would not need a verse to exempt
(g) Question (Levi): If blood splashed onto a garment, and
from that garment to another garment, what is the law?
1. From the moment it splashed onto the first garment,
we were obligated to launder it, it was Nidcheh
(permanently disqualified for Zerikah, therefore the
second garment need not be laundered);
(h) Answer (Rebbi): This is a good question - either way you
say, it must be laundered!
2. Or, it is not Nidcheh (the second garment must be
1. If the blood is still Kosher (it could be gathered
and sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach), surely the garment
must be laundered;
2. Even if you will say that the blood is Pasul, I hold
like R. Akiva (Shitah Mekubetzes, based on Tosefta -
R. Yakov), who says (93A) that blood that had Sha'as
ha'Kosher and became Pasul (and splashed on a
garment) must be laundered.