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 108
1) "CHIBUREI OLIM"
(a) (R. Yochanan): If one is Ma'aleh a k'Zayis of meat
*including* a bone (there is less than a k'Zayis of
meat), he is liable;
2) WHY R. YOSI EXEMPTS FOR SOMETHING "PASUL"
1. This is because Chiburei Olim (things connected to
something offered on the Mizbe'ach) are considered
(b) (Reish Lakish): He is exempt;
1. Chiburei Olim are not like Olim.
(c) Question (Rava): If one is Ma'aleh a salted dove's head
that is (in all) a k'Zayis (without the salt it is less
than a k'Zayis), what is the law?
(d) Suggestion (Rava of Parzikiya): R. Yochanan and Reish
Lakish argue about this!
(e) Rejection (Rav Ashi): No, it is not clear how either of
them would hold in Rava's case:
1. R. Yochanan only said that a bone can complete the
Shi'ur, for it is the same Min (class) as meat,
perhaps salt (which is a different Min) does not
complete the Shi'ur!
(f) This question is not resolved.
2. Reish Lakish only said that a bone cannot complete
the Shi'ur, for if it separated from the meat, there
is no Mitzvah to offer it - but perhaps salt (which
must be offered in any case) can complete the
3. Or, perhaps we do not distinguish, the law of salt
is like the law of meat!
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Galili): (If he slaughtered and
Ha'alah b'Chutz, he is exempt for Ha'alah, for the Korban
was Nifsal on account of Shechutei Chutz. Chachamim
objected, even if he slaughtered inside and Ha'alah
outside, it was Nifsal once it left the Azarah, yet R.
Yosi agrees that he is liable for both in this case!)
3) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SLAUGHTER AND "HA'ALAH"
(b) Answer #1 (for R. Yosi ha'Galili - Rebbi): The case of
slaughter inside and Ha'alah outside is different, for it
had Sha'as ha'Kosher (to do Zerikah inside), but
Shechutei Chutz did not!
(c) Answer #2 (for R. Yosi ha'Galili - R. Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon): The case of slaughter inside and Ha'alah outside
is different, for even after it left the Azarah, Im Alah
Lo Yered (if it was brought up the ramp, we would offer
it), this does not apply to Shechutei Chutz!
(d) Question: What is the difference between these answers?
(e) Answer #1 (Ze'iri): They argue about (Ha'alas Chutz of)
Kodshim slaughtered at night (Rebbi exempts for this, for
it never had Sha'as ha'Kosher, R. Elazar is Mechayev, for
(he holds like R. Shimon, who says that) Lo Yered).
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue about (Ha'alas Chutz) when
the Kabalah was in a Chulin vessel (Rebbi exempts, R.
Elazar is Mechayev, as above.)
(g) (Mishnah): If a Tamei ate Kodesh, (whether it was Tahor
or Tamei, he is liable; R. Yosi ha'Galili exempt if he
ate Tamei Kodesh, for he ate something Pasul. Chachamim
objected, even a Tamei who ate Tahor Kodesh (normally)
was Metamei it by touching it!)
(h) Question: The question against is strong, how can he
(i) Answer (Rava): All agree that if the person became Tamei
(Tum'as ha'Guf) before the Kodesh, he is Chayav Kares;
1. Chachamim Mechayev even when the Kodesh became Tamei
first - even though it was already forbidden to him
(without Kares), when he later becomes Tamei, Migo
(by way of) that Tahor Kodesh becomes forbidden to
him (with Kares), all Kodesh becomes forbidden to
him with Kares;
(j) Question: Even if R. Yosi argues with this application of
Migo, he should agree that the prohibition of Tum'as
ha'Guf takes effect on top of (in addition to) the
prohibition of Tum'as Basar, for Tum'as ha'Guf (is Kolel,
i.e. forbids other things as well) and is more severe
2. R. Yosi ha'Galili exempts in this case, he argues
with this application of Migo.
(k) Answer (Rav Ashi): Even though Tum'as ha'Guf has Kares,
perhaps Tum'as Basar is more severe, for it has no
Taharah (through a Mikvah or Haza'as Mei Chatas.)
(a) (Mishnah): In some ways Shechutei Chutz is more stringent
than Ha'alas Chutz, in some ways Ha'alah is more
1. Slaughter is more stringent - one who slaughters
(Kodshim b'Chutz) for the sake of a person (to eat)
is liable, whereas one who offers to a person is
exempt (Rashi - for Ha'alas Chutz, but he is liable
(b) R. Shimon says, if someone was Ma'aleh several times, he
is liable for each;
2. Ha'alah is more stringent - if two people held a
knife and slaughtered (Kodshim b'Chutz) together,
they are exempt, but if two were Ma'aleh together,
they are liable.
(c) R. Yosi says, he is liable only once;
1. He is liable only for offering on a Mizbe'ach;
(d) R. Shimon says, even if he offered on a rock, he is
(e) (Gemara) Question: Presumably, Ha'alah for a person is
exempt, because it says "la'Sh-m";
1. It also says "la'Sh-m" regarding slaughter!
(f) Answer #1: We obligate slaughter for a person, for it
says "Ish Ish".
(g) Question: Also regarding Ha'alah it says "Ish Ish"!
(h) Answer: That teaches that if two were Ma'aleh together,
they are liable.
(i) We should similarly expound this regarding slaughter, to
teach that if two people held a knife and slaughtered
together, they are liable!
(j) Answer: We cannot say this, for it says "V'Nichras ha'Ish
*ha'Hu*" - one person who slaughtered, not two.
(k) Question: Also regarding Ha'alah it says "Ha'Hu"!
(l) Answer: That excludes someone who was Shogeg, Anus or
4) PROHIBITIONS FOR "HA'ALAH BA'CHUTZ"
(m) Question: Also regarding slaughter, we should expound
"Ha'Hu" to exclude Shogeg, Ones or Mut'eh!
(n) Answer: Regarding Ha'alah two verses say "Ha'Hu".
(o) Question: What does "la'Sh-m" exclude?
(p) Answer: It excludes Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (Tosfos - after
the lottery determined that it will not be a "Chatas
la'Sh-m"; Rambam - after confessing on it, there is no
longer a Mitzvah to bring it to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.)
(a) (Mishnah): Ha'alah is more stringent...
5) IS A "MIZBE'ACH" NEEDED FOR "HA'ALAS CHUTZ"?
(b) (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Question: What do we learn from
1. Answer: This includes two people that held a limb
together and offered it (they are liable) - a Kal
va'Chomer would have exempted them!
(c) R. Yosi says, "Ha'Hu" - only one person gets Kares.
i. One who slaughters for a person is liable, yet
two who held a knife and slaughtered are exempt
- one who offers to a person is exempt, all the
more so two who offer together should be
ii. "Ish Ish" teaches that they are liable.
(d) Question: If so, what do we learn from "Ish Ish"?
(e) Answer: Dibrah Torah b'Lashon Benei Adam (the Torah
speaks as people do, they sometimes double the verb,
therefore, we need not expound the extra occurrence.)
(f) R. Shimon expounds that "Ha'Hu" to exclude Shogeg, Anus
(g) R. Yosi learn this additional law from the extra 'Hei' in
(h) R. Shimon does not expound the extra Hei.
(i) Question: If R. Yosi does not expound this "Ish Ish"
(Dibrah Torah...), he should not expound "Ish Ish"
regarding slaughter either - what is his source to
Mechayev for slaughter for a person?
(j) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 3:f): "Dam Yechashev
*la'Ish ha'Hu*" - even if the slaughter was for a person.
(k) (Mishnah): If someone was Ma'aleh several times...(R.
Shimon is Mechayev for each; R. Yosi is Mechayev only
(l) (Reish Lakish): They argue about offering several limbs:
1. All expound "La'asos Oso" - one is liable for a
Shalem, not for a Chaser;
(m) (R. Yochanan): They argue about offering one limb:
i. R. Yosi says, this refers to a complete animal
(Rashi - therefore, offering an animal limb by
limb is all one Ha'alah; Tosfos - he is liable
only when the full animal is here, i.e. for the
first limb), R. Shimon says that it refers to a
2. All agree that he is liable only once for one limb
(offered half at a time, or returned to the fire
after it flew off; this must be the last (Rashi;
Tosfos - first) limb).
1. R. Shimon is Mechayev for (Ha'alas Chutz of) Kodshim
slaughtered inside that became Chaser (we return
such limbs to the fire - this shows that Chaser
limbs are still important, surely "La'asos Oso" only
exempts for a Chaser limb of Shechutei Chutz);
(n) R. Yochanan argues with Ula.
2. R. Yosi exempts for Chaser limb, even if slaughtered
inside (like R. Yishmael above.)
3. All agree that he is liable for every complete limb
("Oso" refers to a limb):
1. Version #1 (Ula): All are Mechayev for (Ha'alas
Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered inside that became
(o) Shmuel's father argues with Ula according to Version #1:
2. They argue about Kodshim slaughtered outside that
became Chaser - R. Shimon is Mechayev ("Oso" only
exempts less than a k'Zayis), R. Yosi exempts.
3. Version #2 (Ula): All exempt for (Ha'alas Chutz of)
Kodshim slaughtered outside that became Chaser;
4. They argue about Kodshim slaughtered inside that
became Chaser - R. Shimon is Mechayev, R. Yosi
1. (Shmuel's father): If limbs fly off the fire, we
return them - this is unlike R. Yosi. (According to
Ula, all agree to this law.)
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): He is liable only for offering on a
(b) (Rav Huna): R. Yosi learns from "Va'Yiven No'ach
Mizbe'ach la'Sh-m" (i.e. even Ha'alas Chutz requires a
(c) (R. Yochanan): R. Shimon (is Mechayev even for offering
on a rock, he) learns from "Va'Yikach Mano'ach...va'Ya'al
1. Question: How does R. Yochanan explain why No'ach
built a Mizbe'ach?
(d) Alternatively, R. Shimon learns as follows:
2. Answer: That was merely to facilitate Ha'alah.
3. Question: How does Rav Huna explain why Mano'ach
offered without a Mizbe'ach?
4. Answer: (He heard from the angel that Hash-m
permits,) it was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a special
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Mizbach Hash-m Pesach Ohel
Mo'ed" - but a Mizbe'ach is not needed on a Bamah;
(e) Question (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Are the following
Me'akev on a Bamah - corners, a ramp, a Yesod, and being
2. Therefore, if one offered on a rock he is liable.
3. Question: It should say, it (a Korban offered on a
rock, when Bamos were permitted) is Kosher!
4. Answer: It means, when Bamos are forbidden, one is
liable for offering a Korban on a rock.
(f) Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): The following are Me'akev
on a Bamas Tzibur, not on a Bamas Yachid - it must have
Keranos, a ramp, a Yesod, and it must be square.