ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 17
ZEVACHIM 17-18 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk "Kedoshim Yih'yu l'Elokeihem" (written in
connection with the Kohanim) is written with reference to bringing Kodshim
be'Tum'ah we learn from there - that a Kohen T'vul-Yom who performs the
Avodah desecrates it.
(b) We do not learn Tum'ah itself from there - because we already know
Tum'ah from "vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael", as we learned earlier.
(c) We suggest that the Pasuk is referring to a Kohen who makes a bald patch
for dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor - on the grounds that
that is what the previous Pesukim are talking about.
(a) And we refute this by citing the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul"
from Terumah. Because our current Pasuk is vague, the Torah relies on the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" (written here) "Chilul" by Terumah, which teaches
us that it is only something that is subject to Miysah (bi'Yedei Shamayim)
by Terumah that invalidates the Korban a Kohen who makes a bald patch for a
dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor...
(b) ... including a Kohen T'vul-Yom (precluding a Kohen who makes a bald
patch for a dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor) who performs
(c) Which three cases of Tum'ah does the Torah specifically include who
desecrate the Avodah.
(d) Rabah explains why we need all three. We cannot learn ...
1. ... the other two from Tamei - which renders whatever touches it Tamei
(whereas they do not affect whatever touches them).
2. ... Mechusar Kipurim from T'vul-Yom - because whereas the latter is
prohibited to eat Terumah as well, the former former is not.
3. ... T'vul-Yom from Mechusar Kipurim - because whereas the latter is
lacking an act (bringing his Korban, the former is not (since all he is
lacking is sunset, which comes automatically).
(a) We also refute the attempt to learn one from two. We cannot learn ...
1. ... Mechusar Kipurim from Tamei and T'vul-Yom - because whereas they are
Pasul by Terumah, a Mechusar Kipurim is not.
(b) Rabah makes no attempt to explain why we cannot learn Tamei from the
others - because if we did not know Tamei from "Veyinazru", we would not
know T'vul-Yom either ('T'vul-Yom' since we only it because of 'Im Eino
Inyan' [because we already know Tamei], and 'Mechusar Kipurim'), which we
only include because it is called 'Tamei'.
2. ... T'vul-Yom from Tamei and Mechusar Kipurim - because whereas they are
lacking an act, a T'vul-Yom is not.
(c) If we did include Tamei in the deliberations, we would not decline to
learn Tamei from Mechusar Kipurim because there it is lacking an act (like
we said with regard to T'vul-Yom) - because it requires Tevilah.
(a) We ask that, when all's said and done, the Tum'ah of a Mechusar Kipurim
has become weaker (after nightfall) - in which case we can no longer ask
'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Kein Mechusatim Ma'aseh' (since it makes no
difference whether it lacks an act or not).
(b) We answer - that in fact, Rabah holds that a Mechusar Ma'aseh of a Zav
is a Zav (and the same applies to that of a Metzora), in which case, the
Tum'ah remains in full force, and the Pircha on the 'Mah Matzinu' is
(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa rules that if an Onan or a Mechusar Kipurim
burn it, it is nevertheless Kasher. The Beraisa is referring to - the Parah
(b) What does Yosef ha'Bavli - validates a Parah Adumah that an Onan burns,
but not one that is burned by a Mechusar Kipurim.
(c) We initially establish the basis of their Machlokes as being - whether
'T'vul-Yom de'Zav ke'Zav Dami' (Yosef ha'Bavli) or not (the Tana Kama),
since everyone agrees that a Tamei may not burn the Parah Adumah.
(d) Both Tana'im agree - that a T'vul-Yom (who is not Chayav a Korban) may
burn it (as we shall see shortly).
(a) We reject this interpretation (of their Machlokes) however, by referring
to the Pasuk in Chukas "Ve'hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei" (when the Torah could
have written "Ve'hizah al ha'Tamei") - from which we Darshen that he is
still 'slightly Tamei', permitting a T'vul-Yom to sprinkle and (to burn the
ashes of) the Parah Adumah.
(b) And the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Yosef ha'Bavli
is - whether the T'vul-Yom under discussion is specifically a T'vul-Yom of a
Tamei Meis (about which the Torah is currently speaking [Yosef ha'Bavli]),
or whether it extends to all Teme'ei Meis (even those who are Chayav to
bring a Korban too [the Tana Kama]).
(c) Both Tana'im will agree that, on principle - 'Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav
(a) Despite the fact that, whether we say 'Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav ke'Zav
Dami' or not, makes no difference with regard to the Parah Adumah - it does
make a difference with regard to other areas of Halachah (such as eating
Terumah), where a T'vul Yom is permitted, yet a Mechusar Kipurim of Zav will
be forbidden (since he is still considered Tamei).
(b) The basis of the Chumra of a Mechusar Kipurim over a T'vul-Yom who is
not a Mechusar Kipurim is - the fact that all those who require a Korban are
those whose Tumah come from their own bodies (whereas in the case of those
who do not, it is only the result of contact with an external source of
(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan (or in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon) learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chagarta Osam Avnet Aharon u'Vanav ...
Ve'haysah Lahem Kehunah le'Chukas Olam" - that as long as a Kohen is not
wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah he does not have the status of a Kohen
(vis-a-vis the Avodah), in which case he desecrates the Avodah.
(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al
Teisht ... u'le'Havdil Beis ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol" - that a Kohen who has
drunk wine and serves in the Beis-Hamikdash, desecrates the Avodah.
(c) The Torah writes "Chukas Olam" three times; twice (in Shemini, in
connection with the two Mitzvos of Kehunah currently under discussion and
once (in Ki Sisa), in connection with Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim.
(a) By Shesuyei Yayin, the Torah adds "be'Vo'achem el Ohel Mo'ed ve'Lo
Samusu". Given that this refers specifically to those Avodos for which a Zar
is Chayav Misah, it incorporates - Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim and
(b) We learn from the double 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chukah" "Chukah" - that a
Kohen who serves without wearing the Bigdei Kehunah or without washing his
hands and feet desecrates the Avodah, too.
(c) In spite of the fact that the Tana learns Mechusar Begadim from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah', Rebbi Avahu needs to learn it from "Ve'chagarta Osam
Avnet ... Ve'haysah Lahem Kehunas Olam" - to include those Avodos for which
a Zar is not Chayav Misah in the Din (of Chilul Avodah).