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 106
ZEVACHIM 106 - dedicated by Lee and Marcia Weinblatt in honor of the birth
of their grandson, Binyomin Yitzchok (Benjamin Isaac), to Aliza and Kenny
Weinblatt of Teaneck, NJ.
1) BURNING THE "PARIM"
(a) (Continuation of Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): They are
burned in Beis ha'Deshen ("Al Shefech ha'Deshen" teaches
that there are already ashes there from before.)
***** PEREK HA"SHOCHET VEHA'MA'ALAH ****
(b) (Rava): R. Eliezer ben Yakov argues with R. Yosi
1. (Beraisa): "Al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref" - there
are already ashes there from before;
(c) Objection (Abaye): Perhaps R. Eliezer ben Yakov agrees
that there must be ashes there from before, and he *also*
requires that it is sloped!
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, the place must be sloped
(so the ashes pour.)
(d) (Beraisa): The one who burns is Metamei Begadim, not the
one who lit the fire or arranged the Ma'arachah.
1. Question: What is considered one who burns?
(e) R. Shimon says, one who burns "Osam" is Metamei Begadim,
not after the meat melted.
2. Answer: This is anyone who helps while it is
3. Suggestion: Perhaps even one who helps after it
became ashes is Metamei Begadim!
4. Rejection: "Osam" - while they are Parim and
Se'irim, one who burns is Metamei Begadim, not after
they are ashes;
(f) Question: What is the difference between these opinions?
(g) Answer: They argue about when the meat was charred (R.
Shimon is Metaher, Chachamim are Metamei.)
2) "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ" AND "HA'ALAS CHUTZ"
(a) (Mishnah): If one slaughters (a Korban) and is Ma'aleh
(offers on a Bamah) b'Chutz (outside the Mikdash), he is
liable for both of these;
3) THE "AZHARAH" FOR "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ"
(b) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if he slaughtered inside (the
Mikdash) and Ha'alah b'Chutz, he is liable for both;
1. If he slaughtered and Ha'alah b'Chutz, he is exempt
for Ha'alah, for the Korban was Nifsal (on account
of Shechutei Chutz.)
(c) Chachamim: Even if he slaughtered inside and Ha'alah
outside, it was Nifsal once it left the Azarah (yet you
agree that he is liable for both in this case!)
(d) If a Tamei (person) ate Kodesh, whether the Kodesh was
Tahor or Tamei, he is liable;
(e) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if he ate Tahor Kodesh, he is
1. If he ate Tamei Kodesh he is exempt, for he ate
(f) Chachamim: Even a Tamei who ate Tahor Kodesh (in a normal
way) was Metamei it by touching it (yet you agree that he
is liable in this case!)
(g) If a Tahor ate Tamei Kodesh he is exempt, Kares is only
for a Tamei who ate.
(a) (Gemara) Question: We understand why one is liable (Rashi
- a Korban; Tosfos - lashes, as another Mishnah teaches)
for Ha'alas Chutz - the Torah wrote the Onesh
(punishment, i.e. Kares, if Mezid) and an Azharah (Lav);
1. "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)"
teaches the Onesh, "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh
Olasecha (b'Chol Makom)" is the Azharah;
(b) Answer #1 "V'Lo Yizbechu Od" (other answers will be given
2. (R. Avin): Wherever it says 'Hishamer', 'Pen' or
'Al', this is a Lav.
3. The Onesh for Shechutei Chutz is explicit - "V'El
Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)";
4. What is the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz?
(c) Question: This verse is needed for R. Elazar's law!
1. Question (R. Elazar): What is the source that one
who slaughters an animal to Markulis is Chayav
(d) Answer (Rabah): We read the verse as if it said 'V'Lo
Yizbechu *v'Lo* Od', to teach both of these.
2. Answer (R. Elazar): "V'Lo Yizbechu Od Es Zivcheihem
i. Since we do not need it to teach about the
normal Avodah of Markulis (throwing rocks at
it), which we learn from "Eichah Ya'avdu...Es
Eloheihem", we use it to teach about Avodas
Panim that is not its normal Avodah.
(e) Question: But we use the verse for a third law!
1. (Beraisa): The Parshah of Shechutei Chutz first
discusses Korbanos Hukdeshu *and* slaughtered
(outside) when it is forbidden to offer on a Bamah
(e.g. after the Mishkan was built);
4) CAN A "KAL VA'CHOMER" TEACH THE "AZHARAH"?
i. The Onesh is "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o
(...v'Nichras)", the Azharah is "Hishamer Lecha
Pen Ta'aleh Olasecha."
2. "Lema'an Asher Yavi'u...Zivcheihem Asher Hem
Zovchim" - now it discusses Korbanos that once were
permitted (when they were Hukdeshu) to be offered on
a Bamah, but now Bamos are forbidden (they must be
brought to the Mishkan);
3. "Al Penei ha'Sadeh" - slaughtering on a Bamah (when
this is forbidden) is like slaughtering Lo l'Shem
4. "Ve'Hevi'um la'Shem" - this is an Ase.
5. Question: What is the Lav?
6. Answer: "V'Lo Yizbechu Od".
i. Suggestion: Perhaps one is Chayav Kares!
ii. Rejection: "Chukas Olam Tihyeh *Zos* Lahem" -
this (a Lav and Ase) is the Onesh, not Kares.
(a) Answer #2 (to Question (2:a) - Abaye): We learn the
Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer:
1. The Torah Hizhir (forbade with a Lav) even where
there is no Kares (Korbanos Hukdeshu when Bamos were
permitted) - all the more so it is Mazhir where
there is Kares (Korbanos Hukdeshu when Bamos were
(b) Question (Ravina): According to this, the Torah did not
need to write a Lav forbidding Chelev, we could have
learned from a Kal va'Chomer from Neveilah:
1. A Lav forbids Neveilah, even though there is no
Kares - all the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which
has (is punishable by) Kares!
(c) Answer #1 (Rava): No, that Kal va'Chomer can be refuted -
Neveilah is Metamei, Chelev is not.
(d) Question: We could have learned (a Lav for Chelev from a
Kal va'Chomer) from Tamei Sheratzim - a Lav forbids them,
even though there is no Kares - all the more so a Lav
forbids Chelev, which has Kares!
(e) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Tamei Sheratzim, they are
Metamei, Chelev is not. (This is the text of Rashi (in
Chulin), it does not say 'b'Mashehu'; the comment in the
margin suggests that Rashi here which explains
'b'Mashehu' is an addition of errant scribes.)
(f) Question: We could have learned from Tahor Sheratzim,
they are Chayavei Lavin without Kares - all the more so a
Lav forbids Chelev, which has Kares!
(g) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Tahor Sheratzim, one is
liable for any amount (Tosfos - a full creation of any
size, such as an ant; Rashi - even for a small amount,
i.e. a lentil's worth) (but one is not liable for less
than a k'Zayis of Chelev.)
(h) Question: We could have learned (like above) from Orlah
or Kilai ha'Kerem!
(i) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem,
it is forbidden to benefit from them (but one may benefit
(j) Question: We could have learned from Shemitah produce!
(k) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Shemitah, for it forbids
anything exchanged for it.
(l) Question: We could have learned from Terumah!
(m) Answer: We cannot learn from Terumah, for it is never
wholly permitted (but Chelev of Chayos is totally
(n) Answer #2 (to Questions (b), (d), (f), (h) and (j)): We
cannot learn from those sources, for they are never
(o) Question (Rava - Mishnah): There is no Korban for
(failure to fulfill) Pesach or circumcision, for they are
1. We should learn a Kal va'Chomer from Mosir (not
eating Korbanos within the allotted time) - a Lav
forbids Mosir, even though there is no Kares, all
the more so a Lav forbids (neglect of) Pesach and
(p) Answer (Rav Kahana): We cannot learn from Mosir, for the
transgression cannot be fixed, but one who did not
fulfill Pesach can fix this by bringing Pesach Sheni!
(Tzon Kodoshim - likewise, one who delayed Milah can
circumcise himself later.)
(q) Objection (to answer (a)) Can we really derive an Azharah
from a Kal va'Chomer?!
1. Even according to the opinion that we punish on
account of a Kal va'Chomer, we cannot derive an
Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer!