ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 15
ZEVACHIM 11-15 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Lo Sh'mah
Holachah', on which we ask - 'Efshar Litekonah O Lo ... '?
(b) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa that we just
discussed 'Kibel ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul, Yachzir le'Kasher' -
suggesting that 'Efshar Litekonah (see Rashash)?
(c) We refute the proof however - by establishing the Beraisa - when the
Pasul was standing further from the Mizbe'ach than the Kasher Kohen, in
which case it is as if nothing at all had been done.
(d) In the second Lashon, Ula quotes Rebbi Yochanan in such a way that the
She'eilah is automatically resolved, when he says - 'Holachah she'Lo
be'Regel, Pesulah' (implying that it cannot be rectified).
(a) Rav Nachman queried Ula from a Mishnah in the third Perek 'Nishpach min
ha'Keli al ha'Ritzpah, ve'Asfo, Kasher' - despite the fact that some of the
blood presumably splashed in the direction of the Mizbe'ach (a Kashya on
(b) Ula refuted ...
1. ... Rav Nachman's Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah in a case when all
the blood splashed in one direction (away from the Mizbe'ach).
(c) Alternatively, he established the case when the blood fell into a hole -
or when the blood was thick and did not splash at all.
2. ... Rav Nachman's contention that the blood is unlikely to do that - by
establishing the Mishnah further when the blood spilled on a slope (that led
away from the Mizbe'ach).
(a) Rav Nachman rejected Ula's answers - on the grounds that the Tana was
unlikely to be speaking in any of these cases, because he would then not be
teaching us anything.
(b) He finally proved him wrong from the Mishnah in Perek Sheini 'Nishpach
al ha'Ritzpah Ve'asfo, Pasul. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana ought to
have said (to balance the Mishnah in the third Perek) 'Bameh Devarim Amurim,
ke'she'Yatza le'Chutz, Aval Nichnas Li'fenim, Pasul'.
(c) In fact, we have no answer to these Kashyos on Ula, and conclude with
'Tiyuvta'(though the Kashyos pertain to his interpretation of the Mishnah,
not necessarily to his ruling, as we shall now see).
(a) With regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in
our Mishnah (whether Hiluch is an Avodah or not), when initially, we confine
it to Holachah Zutresi - we mean Holachah she'Lo be'Regel.
(b) Rebbi Shimon will then concede - that Holachah Rabsi is considered an
(c) The reaction of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael to this statement was - to burst
(a) We initially think that they laughed at the statement, because it
creates a problem with the Chatas ha'Of with regard to P'sul Machshavah.
P'sul Machshavah is not applicable during the sprinkling ...
1. ... before the blood emerges - because since the Avodah (which takes
place right beside the Mizbe'ach) is a form of Holachah she'Lo be'Regel,
P'sul Machshavah does not apply to it (according to our current
understanding of Rebbi Shimon).
(b) The problem is - that according to Rebbi Shimon, how will Holachah of a
Chatas ha'Of be subject to P'sul Machshavah (which we know there is, as we
will prove in Perek Kodshei Kodashim).
2. ... after the blood emerges - because the Mitzvah is already finished.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan however, who ruled earlier that 'Holachah be'Regel Lo
Sh'mah Holachah' will have no problem with this Sugya - because he concedes
that even by a Korban Beheimah, if the Kohen is already standing beside the
Mizbe'ach, or by a Chatas ha'Of, which Lechatchilah is 'pinched' (Melikah,
which is the equivalent of Shechitah by a Korban Beheimah) next to the
Mizbe'ach, the Holachah she'Lo be'Regel is considered an Avodah.
(a) We resolve the B'nei Eretz Yisrael's problem - by establishing the P'sul
of Holachah between the time that the blood emerges and the time that it
hits the Mizbe'ach (which is when the Avodah of Haza'ah ends, not as soon as
the blood emerges, like the B'nei Ma'arva thought).
(b) And we derive this from a She'eilah of Rebbi Yirmiyah, who asked Rebbi
Zeira whether if a Kohen's hand became severed after he had sprinkled the
blood of a Chatas ha'Of, but before the blood had reached the Mizbe'ach -
the Zerikah is valid or not.
(c) To which Rebbi Zeira replied - that it is not ...
(d) ... because we need "Ve'hizah ve'nasan" (the sprinkling and the blood
reaching the Mizbe'ach) be'Kashrus, a proof that the Avodah does not end
until the blood hits the Mizbe'ach.
(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua ascribe the B'nei Ma'arva's
laughter to the statement that Rebbi and the Rabbanan do not argue by
Holachah Rabsi, when that is precisely what they are arguing about - seeing
as Rebbi Shimon gives his reason as the fact that Holachah is dispensable
(which Holachah Zutresi is not).
(b) Regarding a Machshavah Pesulah by Holachah Zutresi, Rebbi Shimon and the
Rabbanan both agree, though there are two versions as to what they say.
The reason of those who say that it is ...
1. ... Pasul is -the fact that it is indispensable.
2. ... Kasher is - because it is not an Avodah.
(a) The B'nei Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yanai argue over whether, if a Zar
performed Holachah, and a Kohen took the blood back, the Korban is Kasher -
because 'Efshar li'Tekonah', or not - (because 'Lo Efshar li'Tekonah').
(b) They only argue over Holachah, and not over ...
1. ... Shechitah and Zerikah - neither of which can be withdrawn factually.
(c) Rav Shimi bar Ashi says that in the reverse case (where a Kohen
performed the Holachah, and a Yisrael took it back) - they simply reverse
their opinions (the one who goes after the first one and is Machshir, goes
after the first one here too, and declares the Korban Pasul, and
2. ... Kabalas ha'Dam - because 'Mah Nafshach', if there is no blood left in
the neck, then it cannot be withdrawn either, whereas if there is, then it
is obvious that the Kohen sprinkles it and the Korban is Kasher (as we will
learn in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin).
(d) Rava holds that even the one who holds Pasul in the previous case, will
hold Pasul here too - since the Kohen has to return the blood ('Tzarich
le'Amtuyei'), and it is therefore necessary (and considered an Avodah).
(a) Ravina quoting Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, told Rav Ashi that 'Tzarich
le'Amtuyei' is a Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Rabbanan.
(b) Rebbi Elazar makes a distinction between 'Holachah be'Makom she'Hu
Tzarich Le'halech' and a 'Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech'.
According to Rava, everyone holds that ...
1. ... 'Kiblo ba'Chutz ve'Ve'hichniso bi'Fenim' - is considered 'Makom
she'Hu Tzarich Le'halech' and is therefore subject to P'sul Machshavah.
(c) 'ba'Chutz' means - at a distance from the Mizbe'ach, and bi'Fenim' -
close to it.
2. ... 'Kiblo bi'Fenim ve'Hotzi'o la'Chutz' - is considered 'Makom she'Eino
Tzarich Le'halech', and is therefore not.
(a) And they argue, he says, in a case - where the Kohen took the blood 'in'
and then took it 'out' again.
(b) Rebbi Elazar says Chayav - because of the 'S'vara' Tzarich le'Amtuyi.
(c) The Rabbanan say Patur - because they hold that this is not a regular
Hiluch that comes as part of the Avodah, but in order to rectify the fault.
(a) Abaye queried Rava's statement from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar
himself explained ...
***** Hadran Alach Kol ha'Zevachim *****
1. ... 'Holachah be'Makom she'Tzarich Le'halech' to mean - 'Kiblo ba'Chutz
(b) According to this, Rebbi Elazar is coming to argue (not with the
Chachamim, but) with - Rebbi Shimon [his father, in which case Rebbi Elazar
throughout the Sugya must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, see Hagahos
ha'Bach on the Mishnah 13a), who holds that Holachah is not subject to P'sul
Machshavah at all.
2. ... 'Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech' - 'Kiblo bi'Fenim
(c) Rava reacted with the words -'I Tanya, Tanya' (retracting from his
***** Perek ha'Zevachim *****
(a) Among the Pesulim with regards to Kabalas ha'Dam, our Mishnah lists -
Zar, Onan, T'vul-Yom Mechusar Kaparah and Mechusar Begadim.
1. An Onan is - an Aveil, before his deceased relative has been buried.
(b) And it also includes 'Areil, Tamei and Yoshev. An Areil is - a Kohen who
is uncircumcised (even if it is on account of two brothers died on account
2. A Mechusar Kipurim - is either a Zav or a Metzora who after Toveling on
the seventh day, waited for nightfall but has yet to bring his Korban on the
(c) The three cases of Omed that close the Tana's list are - standing on
vessels, on an animal or on another Kohen's foot, and they invalidate the
Avodah - because they comprise a Chatzitzah (an interruption between the
Kohen's foot and the floor of the Azarah).
(d) The Tana Kama also disqualifies Kabalah with the left hand. Rebbi
Shimon - validates it.
(a) Levi in a Beraisa discusses the Pasuk (in connection with bringing
Korbanos be'Tum'ah) "Daber el Aharon ve'el Banav Leimor Ve'yinazru
mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael, ve'Lo Yechalelu", from which we extrapolate - 'Ha
Im Avdu, Yechalelu' (that if they serve be'Tum'ah, they will desecrate the
(b) "B'nei Yisrael" cannot come to preclude the Korban of ...
1. ... women - because why would we even think that a Kohen should be
permitted to bring a woman's Korban be'Tum'ah, any more than a man's?
(c) We therefore conclude that the Pasuk is teaching us a dual Limud: 1.
"Ve'yinazru mi'Kodshei" (that the Kohanim should separate from Tum'ah
regarding everybody'll Korban), and 2. "B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechalelu" (that
a Yisrael who brings Korbanos desecrates the Korban).
2. ... Nochrim - because, based on Mar, who said that the Tzitz (which
appeases for Korbanos that are brought be'Tum'ah) does not atone for Nochrim
whose Korban is brought be'Tum'ah (i.e. the blood or the Cheilev that is
Tamei), it is inconceivable that the Kohanim should be permitted to bring it
(a) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns Zar from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ba'al Mum.
He asks on the Limud from Ba'al Mum however - 'she'Kein Asah Bo Karen
ke'Makriv' (that the P'sul pertains to the Korban as much as it does to the
Kohen who brings it), a Chumra which does not pertain to a Zar.
(b) We answer 'Tamei Yochi'ach'. And we answer the Pircha 'Mah le'Tamei
she'Kein Metamei' - with 'Ba'al Mum Yochi'ach'.
(c) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' - that if a Zar
performs the Avodah, he renders it Pasul.
(d) We learn the prohibition of a Tamei from "vi'Yenazaru" and of a Ba'al
Mum from "Lo Yigash" and that of a Zar - from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Zar Lo
(e) We cannot however, learn it from "B'nei Yisrael Vi'yenazru" - because
then we would also 'Chilul' from there too.