ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 4
ZEVACHIM 2-4 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano" - that Korbanos require Shechitah
(b) We then discuss the source for the other three Avodos - Kabalah
(receiving the blood in a K'li Shareis), Holachah (carrying the K'li Shareis
to the Mizbe'ach) and Zerikah (sprinkling the blood on the wall of the
2. ... "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim", and "ha'Zorek es Dam ha'Shelamim" -
that Zevach Shelamim is not the intrinsic name of the Korban (vindicating
the previous D'rashah).
(c) We cannot learn them from Shechitah - because it has the unique Chumra
of rendering the Korban Pesach Pasul if it was Shechted on behalf of a sick
or old person who was unable to eat a k'Zayis.
(d) So we learn from "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim" - that Kabalah must be
(a) On the other hand, we cannot learn the P'sul of Shechitah she'Lo
li'Shemah from Kabalah - because it may not be performed by a Zar (whereas
(b) We learn the P'sul of Zerikah she'Lo li'Shemah from the Pasuk "ha'Zorek
es Dam ha'Shelamim". Besides the fact that Shechitah and Kabalah require
'Tzafon' (the north of the Azarah [in the case of Kodshei Kodshim]), we
cannot derive Zerikah directly from them - because whereas they are
performed even with Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (Chata'os whose blood is sprinkled
inside the Azarah), Zerikah (on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon) is not.
(c) Neither cannot learn *them* from Zerikah - since Zerikah possesses the
Chumra that a Zar who performs it is Chayav Miysah, which is not the case
with Shechitah (which he may perform Lechatchilah) and Kabalah (for which he
is at least not Chayav Miysah).
(a) Nor can we learn Holachah from the other three - because they are not
dispensable in the way that it is (i.e. if he is already standing next to
(b) Even though the Pasuk "Ve'Hikriv es ha'Kol ve'Hiktir ha'Mizbeichah"
refers to Holachas Evarim (carrying the limbs to the Mizbe'ach, as Mar
taught), the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ... "
must nevertheless refer to Kabalas ha'Dam (and not principally to Holachas
ha'Dam) - since it is written immediately after Shechitah (which is when
Kabalah is performed).
(c) Nevertheless, the Torah uses the Lashon "Ve'hikrivu" (which really
refers to Holachah, as we just explained) - to teach us that Kabalah follows
the same pattern as Holachah, so that just as the latter is Pasul she'Lo
li'Shemah, so is the former.
(a) Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami quotes the Pasuk "u'Vesar Zevach Todas
Shelamav" which appears to teach us that one must Shecht the Todah le'Shem
Todah. However, this D'rashah cannot be correct - because we already
learned Shinuy Kodesh above with regard to Shelamim.
(b) He therefore learns from there ('Im Eino Inyan') - the P'sul of Shinuy
Ba'alim (that one is obligated Lechatchilah to Shecht the Korban on behalf
of the owner, and not on behalf of anybody else).
(c) We have a problem with this however, since the Beraisa learns something
else from there. In fact, Aba Chanin in the name of Rebbi Eliezer there
learns from this Pasuk that if one Shechted ...
1. ... a Todah as a Shelamim - it is Kasher.
(d) The reason for this distinction is - because whereas a Todah is called a
Shelamim, a Shelamim is not called a Todah.
2. ... a Shelamim as a Todah - it is Pasul.
(a) So Aba Chanin learns Shinuy Ba'alim 'Im Eino Inyan' from the word
"Zevach". The problem with that is - that the Beraisa learns from "Zevach"
that Chatas and Asham have the same Din as a Todah, in that they must be
eaten within a day and a night.
(b) Aba Chanin Amar Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless learns Shinuy Ba'alim from
there - because had the Pasuk come exclusively for the Din of Chatas and
Asham, it ought to have written "u'Vesar Todas Shelamav Zevach ... Ye'achel"
(to place "Zevach" next to "Ye'achel"). Now that it places it at the
beginning of the phrase, we learn both Limudim from it.
(c) We cannot learn the other Avodos from Shechitah (regarding the P'sul of
Shinuy Ba'alim, for the same reason as we could not do so by Shinuy Kodesh).
We therefore learn them from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shinuy Kodesh - based on
the fact that the Torah writes "Zevach" in both places. Note, that this is
not a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', since neither "Zevach" is redundant.
(a) We ask four Kashyos on the 'Mah Matzinu' however. We ask that Shinuy
Kodesh is 'Pesulo be'Gufo' (an intrinsic P'sul, which Shinuy Ba'alim is not)
and that it applies to all four Avodos (which Shinuy Ba'alim does not).
Shinuy Ba'alim applies only to Zerikah, but not to - Shechitah, Kabalah and
(b) ... because le'Shem Ba'alim has no relevance other than to the Kaparah,
which is synonymous with the Zerikah.
(c) We reconcile this with what we learned earlier (that the P'sul of Shinuy
Ba'alim applies even to the Shechitah) - by establishing that case when he
Shechted the animal in order to sprinkle its blood on behalf of someone
(a) The third Kashya is that Shinuy Kodesh applies even after the owner's
death, the fourth - that it applies to a Tzibur (neither of which Shinuy
(b) Shinuy Ba'alim is not applicable to a Korban Tzibur - because everyone
is a joint-owner (so how can one Shecht it for someone who is not an
(c) Two of these Kashyos, we conclude, are not sound. The problem with the
Kashya that Shinuy Kodesh is Pesulo be'Gufo, whereas Shinuy Ba'alim is not,
is - that in reality, neither are really a P'sul ha'Guf, but a P'sul
Machshavah which the Torah prohibits.
(d) The Kashya distinguishing between Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim after
the owner's death is not a Kashya either, because of the opinion of Rav
Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Mari, who holds - 'Yesh Shinuy Ba'alim le'Achar Miysah'
(in which case this distinction does not exist either).
(a) In any event, due to the remaining two Kashyos, we cannot learn Shinuy
Ba'alim from Shinuy Kodesh. Rav Ami therefore learns it from the Pasuk
"Ve'nirtzah Lo Lechaper Alav" - which he explains to mean "Alav", 've'Lo al
(b) We query this from a Beraisa however, where Rebbi Shimon learns from
"Ve'nirtzah Lo Lechaper Alav" - 'es she'Alav Chayav be'Achariyuso' (by which
he means that a Neder ('Harei Alai'), which he remains obligated to bring),
he is responsible for, but not a Nedavah ('Harei Zu Alai').
(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi explain - that Rebbi Shimon derives his Din from
the word "Alav", which has connotations of carrying a load on his shoulders.
(d) We reconcile Rav Ami with Rebbi Shimon - by citing his source (not as
"Alav", but) as "Ve'nirtzah Lo", "Lo", ve'Lo al Chavero' (and not from
"Alav", as we thought at first).
(a) We now know the P'sul of Shechitah and of Zerikah By Shinuy Ba'alim. We
cannot learn Kabalah from them - because they are among the Avodos for which
one is Chayav for performing outside the Beis-Hamikdash, which Kabalah is
(b) Rava therefore learns it from the Pasuk "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Zevach
Shelamim"- which is written in connection with the Korbanos of a Nazir.
(c) He learns P'sul Ba'alim from there - by Darshening 'she'Tehei Asiyaso
le'Shem Shelamim'. It cannot be speaking about Shinuy Kodesh (which it
certainly seems to be) - because we already know that (from the sources that
we cited on the previous Amud).
(a) When Rav Acha bar Aba asked Rava why we do not consider "Ya'aseh" a
'K'lal' and "Zevach" a 'P'rat' - he was referring to the principle of 'K'lal
u'P'rat, Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'Perat', in which case Shinuy Ba'alim
should be confined to Shechitah.
(b) Rava replied that he would have agreed with him had the Torah written
"Ya'aseh Shelamim Zevach". However, the Torah writes "Ya'aseh Shelamim
Zevach" - in which case the word "Zevach" interrupts between the 'K'lal' and
the 'P'rat', rendering it ineffective.
(c) Ravina disagrees with Rava, and to answer Rav Acha bar Aba's Kashya, he
cites "la'Hashem" as the second 'K'lal', turning it into a 'K'lal u'P'rat
u'K'lal' (to include all the Avodos that are similar to the 'P'rat').
Evidently, a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' is not subject to the stringency cited
by Rava in connection with a 'K'lal u'P'rat'.
(d) Rav Acha from Difti pointed out a discrepancy between the two 'K'lalim'.
When he said that ...
1. ... the first K'lal ("Ya'aseh") incorporates 'Asiyos', he meant - the
(e) The difference between the four Avodos and the latter two is - the fact
that the first four are Me'akev (impede) the Korban, whereas the latter two
2. ... the second 'K'lal' incorporates 'whatever is for Hashem', he was
referring (besides to pouring the leftovers of blood on to the 'Yesod' (the
foundation of the Mizbe'ach) - to the Haktaras Eimurim (the burning of the
fat-pieces) on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) Ravina replied that the author of the Beraisa is Tana de'bei Rebbi
Yishmael - who Darshens a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' even when the two K'lalim
have different implications.
(b) We ask that the 'P'rat' might be confined to Avodos for which one is
Chayav for performing outside the Beis-Hamikdash ...
1. ... including - Zerikah.
(c) On the other hand, we add, it might be confined to something that
requires the north side of the Azarah and that applies to Chata'os
2. ... excluding - Kabalah and Holachah (see Hagahos ha'Bach).
1. ... including - Kabalah and Holachah.
(d) We deal with this apparent discrepancy - by applying the principle
'Shekulin Hein, Ve'yavo'u Sheneihen' (since we do not know which way to
learn [whether to preclude Kabalah and Holachah or Zerikah], we include them
2. ... excluding - Zerikah.
(e) When we give as an alternative answer 'Zerikah mi'de'Rav Ami Nafka', we
mean - that we accept the second suggestion (that the 'P'rat' refers to
something that requires the north side of the Azarah and that applies to
Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, including Kabalah and Holachah, but not Zerikah),
only we already include Zerikah from the D'rashah "Ve'nirtzah Lo Le'chaper
Alav" that Rav Ami cited above.
(a) We now have a source for Shinuy Ba'alim by the Eil Nazir. We cannot
however, learn other Shelamim from it - because it is unique in that other
Korbanos are brought together with it.
(b) We learn other Shelamim from the Pasuk "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Zevach
Shelamim" - from the fact that the Torah writes "Shelamim" and not
(c) We cannot learn the other Korbanos from Shelamim, because it possesses
three Chumros that other Korbanos do not - inasmuch as it requires
Semichah, Nesachim and the waving of the Chazeh ve'Shok.
(d) None of the other Korbanos require Chazeh ve'Chok (to be waved and given
to the Kohen). In addition ...
1. ... Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach - require neither Semichah nor Nesachim.
2. ... Chatas and Asham do not require - Nesachim.
(a) The Pasuk "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ve'la'Chatas u'le'Asham
ve'la'Milu'im u'le'Zevach ha'Shelamim" is - our ultimate source that
compares all other Korbanos to Shelamim, with regard to the P'sul of both
Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim.
(b) We nevertheless need the Pasuk "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa
Ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah" - to teach us that the Korban is intrinsically
Kasher (like a Nedavah, as we explained earlier in the Perek).
(c) Even though the Torah has written "Motza Sefasecha ... ", it still needs
to write "Zos ha'Torah ... " - because "Motza Sefasecha" does not indicate
which P'sul it is referring to.