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 114
1) LIABILITY FOR "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ"
(a) (Mishnah): (One is exempt for...) Rove'a or Nirva...(we
learn from "Lifne Mishkan Hash-m").
2) LIABILITY FOR "MECHUSAR ZEMAN"
(b) Question: These are not fitting for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed,
why don't we learn from "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed..."?
(c) Answer - part 1: Regarding Rove'a and Nirva, another
verse is needed to teach about when the Aveirah was done
after it was Hukdash;
1. This answer does not suffice for Ne'evad and Muktzeh
- since an action was not done to the animal itself,
only the owner can forbid it (and once it is
Hekdesh, he ceases to own it!)
(d) Answer - part 2: Also regarding Ne'evad and Muktzeh,
another verse is needed to teach about when the Aveirah
was done after it was Hukdash;
1. The case is, the Korban is Kodshim Kalim, the
Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that
Kodshim Kalim are considered to be the property of
(e) The prohibitions of Rove'a and Nirva take effect on
Kodshim, for it is Ervah; (we learn from "Mashchasam
(Arayos or idolatry) Bam Mum Bam");
2. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "U'Ma'alah Ma'al
ba'Sh-m" - this includes Kodshim Kalim, which are
the property of the owner.
(f) The prohibitions of Ne'evad and Muktzeh take effect on
Kodshim Kalim, for it is idolatry;
(g) The prohibitions of Mechir, Esnan, Kilayim, and Yotzei
Dofen take effect on the child of a Korban;
1. The Tana holds that the child of a Korban does not
become Kodesh until it is born (the prohibition of
Mechir or Esnan cannot take effect unless the owner
can sell or give it.)
(h) (Mishnah): (One is exempt for) a Ba'al Mum...for Oso v'Es
(i) We must teach all these cases:
1. If we only taught Ba'al Mum, one might have thought
that Chachamim exempt for it because it is repulsive
- but Torim (that are too young) are not repulsive,
they would admit to R. Shimon that one is liable for
2. If we only taught Torim, one might have thought that
R. Shimon obligates for them because they were never
fit to be offered - but a Ba'al Mum was fit and
Nidcheh, he would admit to Chachamim that one is
exempt for it!
3. If we only taught these two, one might have thought
that Chachamim exempt for them because they are
intrinsically forbidden - but Oso v'Es Beno is
forbidden on account of something else (the
slaughter of its mother or son), they would admit to
R. Shimon that one is liable for it!
(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): (Anything fitting to be offered
later, one transgresses a Lav, there is no Kares.
(b) Question: What is his reason?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Ilai): "Lo Sa'asun k'Chol Asher Anachnu
Osim Po ha'Yom" - Moshe told Yisrael that when they enter
Eretz Yisrael (and set up the Mishkan in Giglal), one may
offer "Kol ha'Yashar b'Einav" (voluntary offerings, i.e.
Nedarim and Nedavos), but not obligatory offerings;
1. Obligatory offerings will be Mechusar Zeman they may
not be offered until a Mikdash will be built in
Shilo, and they are forbidden by a Lav "Lo Sa'asun"!
(d) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If so, one should be lashed for
3) "MECHUSAR ZEMAN" OF THE OWNER
1. But R. Zeira taught, the Torah reduced the severity
(of Mechusar Zeman from a Lav) to an Ase!
(e) Answer #1: R. Zeira's teaching is according to Chachamim,
R. Shimon holds that he is lashed.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): (Even R. Shimon
exempts for Mechusar Zeman of obligatory offerings
offered in Gilgal) - since they may be offered only (in
"Menuchah", i.e. the Mikdash) in Shilo, it is as if they
were offered outside the Mikdash;
1. He is Mechayev for Shechutei Chutz at the time the
Mishkan was in Gilgal.
(g) Answer #2 (to Question (k) - Rabah): R. Shimon learns as
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach Es
ha'Posach" - this is a Lav against slaughtering
Pesach on a private Bamah when Bamos are forbidden;
(h) Rejection (and defense of Answer #1): Really, it
discusses the afternoon, and at a time when Bamos are
2. Suggestion: Perhaps this applies to even when Bamos
3. Rejection: "B'Echad Sh'arecha" - the Lav is only
when all of Yisrael enter one gate, i.e. there is a
Mikdash and Bamos are forbidden. (End of Beraisa)
4. Question: What time is discussed?
5. Answer #1: It discusses the afternoon (of Erev
6. Rejection: Pesach is fully fitting inside the
Mikdash, one who slaughters it outside is Chayav
7. Answer #2: Rather, it discusses the morning (of Erev
Pesach - even though it is Mechusar Zeman, a Lav
(i) Question: But the Beraisa expounds that the verse
discusses when Bamos are forbidden!
(j) Answer: It means, the Pesach is forbidden on this (i.e. a
private) Bamah and permitted on another one (of the
(a) (Mishnah): Mechusar Zeman (of the owner - if a Zav, Zavah
or Yoledes offered his (or her) Chatas or Asham, he is
(b) Question: These people do not offer an Asham!
(c) Answer (Ze'iri): The Mishnah should also include a
Metzora (who brings an Asham.)
(d) (Mishnah): If he offered his Olah or Shelamim (he is
(e) Question: These people do not offer Olah or Shelamim!
(f) Answer (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah should also include a
(g) Ze'iri's correction was adopted by people (they would
include Metzora when reciting the Mishnah), Rav Sheshes'
correction was not. (Tosfos - because Nazir is less
similar to the others, he is not Tamei.)
(h) (Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi): (The Mishnah exempts for an
Asham Mechusar Zeman, e.g. of a Metzora -) this is only
if it was offered Lishmah;
1. If it was offered Lo Lishmah, he is liable, since if
offered Lo Lishmah inside, it would be Kosher.
(i) Question: If so, also if it was offered Lishmah, he
should be liable, since it was fitting to be offered
inside Lo Lishmah!
(j) Answer: Until one is Oker it (changes it to a different
Korban), we consider it like the original Korban, it is
unfit to be offered inside.