ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
ZEVACHIM 2-4 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of
Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any
bearing on the practical Halachah.
(a) Our Mishnah informs us that all Korbanos that are Shechted 'she'Lo
li'Sheman' are Kasher. The snag is - that the owner is not Yotze, and is
therefore obligated to bring another one (though this will not apply to a
Nedavah [where he undertook to bring a specific animal as an Olah or a
Shelamim], for which he is not responsible).
(b) The ramifications of 'Kasher' are - that a. the Kohen may go ahead and
sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the animal and b. the animal may be eaten
in the prescribed manner.
(c) 'she'Lo Lisheman' means - that he Shechts it as a different Korban that
what it really is (e.g. an Olah having in mind a Shelamim [see Tosfos DH
(d) The two exceptions are - a Pesach in its time and a Chatas any time.
(e) A Pesach she'Lo bi'Zemano (either before midday of the fourteenth of
Nisan or after sunset, when it may no longer be Shechted) - has the status
of a regular Shelamim.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer - adds an Asham to the list of exceptions ...
(b) ... because he learns it from a 'Mah Matzinu', seeing as both come to
atone for a sin.
(c) Yossi ben Choni renders Pasul even an Olah and a Shelamim which are
brought she'Lo li'Sheman during the year is - in the event that they are
brought as a Pesach or a Chatas.
(a) Shimon Achi Azaryah presents a different principle. He was called by
that name - because it was thanks to his brother Azaryah, who supported him
fully (under contract), that he was able to learn full-time.
(b) When he refers to ...
1. ... 'Namuch le'Shem Gavohah', he means - Kodshim Kalim as Kodshei
(c) In a case where they Shechted ...
2. ... 'Gavohah le'Shem Namuch', he means - Kodshei Kodshim as Kodshim
1. ... 'Namuch le'Shem Gavohah', he rules - that the Korban is Kasher.
(d) And he adds that if one Shechted a Bechor or Ma'aser Beheimah as a
Shelamim it is Kasher, but not vice-versa - because a Shelamim, which
requires the blood to be placed on all four corners of the Mizbei'ach,
Nesachim (wine and flour) and the waving of the chest and the right fore-leg
(all of which the other two do not).
2. ... 'Gavohah le'Shem Namuch' - that it is completely Pasul.
(a) We ask why the Tana adds the word 'Ela'; why he did not simply say
've'Lo Alu le'Ba'alim le'Shem Chovah'. The basis of this Kashya is - the
principle that 'a Rebbe should always teach his Talmidim as briefly as
(b) We answer with a statement of Rava, who says - that if an Olah is
Shechted she'Lo Lishmah - the Zerikah must still be performed li'Shemah,
because the Korban has not lost its Kedushah.
(c) Consequently our Mishnah uses the word 'Ela' - to stress that the
Halachic irregularity is restricted to the owner not being Yotze, but does
not effect the Kedushah of the animal.
(a) We ascribe Rava's statement to both a S'vara and a Pasuk. The S'vara is
the principle - that two wrongs don't make a right.
(b) And he derives it from the Pasuk "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa
Ka'asher Nadarta ... Nedavah". Seeing as the Pasuk is talking about a Neder
(to bring a non-specified animal [for which one bears responsibility]) - why
does the Torah refer to it as a 'Nedavah' (which refers to a specific
animal, and which one does not)?
(c) Rava therefore explains - that as long as one treats is as a Neder (i.e.
by bringing it Lishemah), it remains a Neder. However, once one brings it
she'Lo li'Shemah, it becomes a Nedavah (which is perfectly Kasher, but which
leaves the owner with his original obligation to fulfill his Neder).
(d) Despite the fact that one is not responsible to replace a Nedavah, one
is forbidden to bring it she'Lo li'Shemah - from the Pasuk in Tzav
"Lo'Yechashev" (which constitutes an intrinsic prohibition to have wrong
thoughts when bringing a Korban).
(a) Ravina thought it a pity that Rav Papa was not present in Bei Charmach,
when Rava asked a good Kashya one Shabbos and answered it. The reason that
he was he not there was - because he was outside the T'chum when Shabbos
(b) When Rava interprets the Mishnah in Gitin 'Kol ha'Get she'Nichtav she'Lo
le'Shem Ishah Pasul' to incorporate 'Stam', by which he means - that if the
Sofer wrote a Get for Le'ah (with nobody specific in mind), so that when a
woman by the name of Le'ah came for a Get, he would have the Get ready.
(c) That Mishnah appears to clash with our Mishnah - in that it holds
'S'tama ke'she'Lo li'Shemah, whereas our Mishnah holds that S'tam is
considered like li'Shemah (as we shall see).
(d) To explain the difference between Get and Kodshim - he points out that
whereas Kodshim are meant to be brought li'Sheman, a woman is not meant to
(a) Initially, we try to infer from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Kol
ha'Zevachim she'Nizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman ... ' - that 'S'tama
ke'li'Sheman'; otherwise. the Tana ought to have said - 'Kol ha'Zevachim
she'Lo Nizbechu li'Sheman ... '.
(b) We reject this suggestion however - seeing as the Mishnah in Gitin uses
the same Lashon, yet the Tana holds 'S'tama ke'she'Lo li'She'mah Dami' (as
we shall see).
(c) So we cite the Mishnah later 'Keitzad li'Sheman ve'she'Lo li'Sheman;
le'Shem Pesach u'le'Shem Shelamim', from which we initially deduce that
'S'taman ke'li'Sheman Dami' - since otherwise, there would be no difference
between 'le'Shem Pesach u'le'Shem Shelamim' and le'Shem Pesach u'S'tam'.
(d) We reject ...
1. ... this proof however - on the basis of the S'vara that a person usually
persists with the same thought with which he began (so S'tama follows
'le'Shem Pesach'), but S'tama on its own might well be ke'she'Lo li'Shemah.
2. ... a similar proof from the Seifa of that Mishnah, where we infer the
same from 'Keitzad she'Lo li'Sheman ve'Lisheman; le'Shem Shelamim u'le'Shem
Pesach' as we did from the Reisha ('Ha S'tama u'she'Shem Pesach Kasher') -
on the basis of the S'vara that one's final words generally reflect one's
initial intentions. Alternatively, the Tana only inserted this case to
balance the Reisha (and not for its implication), since really S'tama
ve'she'Lo li'Shemo is also Pasul.
(a) We finally prove our point from a Mishnah later (in Beis Shamai). The
Tana Kama lists six things that the Kohen must have in mind when bringing a
Korban ('le'Shem Zevach, le'Shem Zove'ach, le'Shem Hashem ... '). According
to Rebbi Yossi however - even if the Kohen did not have any oyf these
specifically in mind, the Korban is nevertheless Kasher.
(b) In fact, he says, based on a T'nai Beis-Din, one should actually not
have in mind Lishmah, in case one comes to think she'Lo li'Shemah.
(c) We prove from here that 'S'tama ke'Lishmah Dami' - because if S'tama was
Pasul, how could Beis-Din initiate a condition that renders the Korban