ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 22
ZEVACHIM 21-23 - 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) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'asisa Kiyor *Nechoshes* ve'Chano *Nechoshes*
(from the fact that the Torah writes "Nechoshes" both by the Kiyor and by
its stand) ... " - that the Torah's comparison of the stand to the Kiyor is
restricted to the fact that they are both made of copper, and no more
(precluding the suggestion that the stand should be eligible for Kidush).
(b) We initially extrapolate from there that "Yirchatzu" does not include
even K'lei Chol (for Kidush) - because now that the Torah precludes the
stand which is a K'li Shareis, how muh more so vessels that are not even
(c) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina however - how we can possibly
learn receptacles from the stand of the Kiyor, which was not made as a
(d) So we learn from "Mimenu" - to preclude receptacles that are K'lei Chol
(e) We know to include K'lei Shareis from "Yirchatzu" and to exclude K'lei
Chol from "Mimenu", and not vice-versa - because K'lei Shareis have been
anointed like the Kiyor, whereas K'lei Chol have not.
(a) Resh Lakish rules - that any substance that is Kasher to complement the
forty Sa'ah of a Mikvah, is Kasher to complement the Shiur of 'sufficient
for four Kohanim to wash simultaneously' of the Mei Kiyor.
(b) This comparison does not include - the water for Netilas Yadayim (for
(c) We refute the suggestion that ...
1. ... thin mud is the case that complements a Mikvah and the Mei Kiyor, but
not water for Netilas Yadayim - because if it is thin enough for a cow to
bend down and drink, then it will complement the latter too, whereas if it
is not, then it will not complement the former either.
(d) This latter ruling is based on the principle of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel
in a Beraisa - which permits Toveling in anything which is formed from water
2. ... red, wingless gnats are the case - because these are eligible for
Tevilah Lechatchilah, even if there is no water at all.
(e) ... which is why - Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi permitted Toveling even in
the eye of a (big) fish that melted.
(a) Rav Papa concludes that, based on a Mishnah in Mikva'os, the item
referred to by the Mishnah is 'Nasan Sa'ah ve'Natal Sa'ah' - in connection
with substances such as fruit-juice and other liquids that are not
(b) 'Nasan Sa'ah ve'Natal Sa'ah will ...
1. ... not render the Mikvah Kasher - in a case where it initially makes up
the forty Sa'ah.
(c) One can one do this, according to Rav Yehudah ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan -
up to (but not including) the majority of the Mikvah (i.e. twenty Sa'ah).
2. ... render the Mikvah Kasher - in a case where it is added to a Kasher
Mikvah of forty Sa'ah.
(d) Even though it is effective to render a Mikvah Kasher, 'Nasan Sa'ah
ve'Natal Sa'ah' will not have the same effect with regard to water for
Netilas Yadayim - because the Revi'is ha'Log of water is not sufficiently
Chashuv to be Mevatel the fruit-juice which is added.
(a) Rav Papa rules that - if one makes a cavity in the wall of the Mikvah
large enough to hold a Revi'is of water that enters from the Mikvah - it is
permitted to Tovel needles and forks there, even though the water is no
longer joined to the forty Sa'ah in the Mikvah ...
(b) ... because that Revi'is comes from a Kasher Mikvah.
(c) When Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish says 'Mei Mikvah Kesheirim le'Mei
Kiyor' - he means that any water that is eligible for Tevilah, is also
eligible for Kidush (in the Kiyor), including water that is not Mayim Chayim
(a) The Torah writes "ve'ha'Kerev ve'ha'Kera'ayim Yirchatz ba'Mayim". From
the word "ba'Mayim" the Beraisa precludes undiluted wine - and diluted
wine (even though it comprises two thirds water).
(b) The Tana adds 'Le'rabos Sha'ar Mayim, ve'Kal va'Chomer le'Mei Kiyor',
which we initially interpret to mean - that if ordinary water is Kasher to
wash the innards of Kodshim, then how much more so water that is eligible
for the Kiyor (which has the advantage of being Mayim Chayim, a Kashya on
Resh Lakish, who validates *any water* that is fit for a Mikvah, fit for the
(c) We try to answer that in fact, the Tana is referring to the actual Mei
Kiyor - meaning that the water of the Kiyor is Kasher for washing the
innards of Kodshim, since they have the advantage of being sanctified.
(d) We refute this however, based on a Tana de'Bei Shmuel, who says - that
water that has a secondary name (such as 'Mei Kiyor') cannot be used for
anything which requires S'tam Mayim.
(a) Left with our original interpretation of the Beraisa, where the
'Kal-va'Chomer' indicates that the Mei Kiyor needs to be Mayim Chayim, we
reconcile Resh Lakish with the Beraisa - by citing Rebbi Yochanan, who
quotes a Machlokes Tana'in in this regard.
(b) In the Beraisa that he quotes 'Rebbi Yishmael Omer Mei Ma'ayan' - the
Chachamim permit any water.
(a) There is no Pasuk in the Chumash to disqualify an Areil. The source to
disqualify him Lechatchilah is - the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kol Ben Neichar
Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar Lo Yavo el Mikdashi".
(b) And we learn from the Pasuk "Ba'havi'achem B'nei Neichar Arlei Leiv
ve'Arlei Basar Liheyos be'Mikdashi Le'chalel es Beisi" - that he (and an
Areil Leiv) also renders the Avodah Pasul Bedieved.
(c) An Areil Leiv is a Yisrael whose ways are estranged from his Father in
Heaven. We know that it does not mean a Nochri - because the Torah compares
him to an Areil Basar (who is a Yisrael).
(d) Having disqualified an ...
1. ... Areil Basar, the Torah still needs to disqualify an Areil Leiv -
because he is not physically repulsive, like an Arel Basar.
2. ... Areil Leiv, the Torah nevertheless needs to disqualify an Areil
Basar - whose deeds, unlike those of a ben Neichar, are le'Shem Shamayim.
(a) The Ziknei Darom confine the Tamei (disqualified by our Mishnah from
performing the Avodah) to a Tamei Sheretz, but preclude a Tamei Meis -
because since the latter may perform the Avodah Lechatchilah by a Korban
Tzibur, it ought to atone at least Bedi'eved by a Korban Yachid.
(b) We learn from "be'Mo'ado" (written by the Korban Tamid in Pinchas) - the
principle 'Tum'ah (Tum'as Meis) Hutrah be'Tzibur'.
(c) Nevertheless, a Korban Yachid should be Kasher Bedi'eved, in spite of
the fact that the Ritzuy be'Tzibur is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' which is
confined to a Korban Tzibur - because it is logical that any P'sul that is
permitted Lechatchilah by a Tzibur, should atone Bedieved by a Yachid via
'Ritzuy Tzitz' (the atonement effected by the Tzitz that the Kohen Gadol
wears on his forehead to atone for Tum'ah).
(d) We then ask why the Ziknei Darom take for granted that Tum'as Meis is
permitted be'Tzibur, but not Tum'as Sheretz, since we can learn Tum'as
Sheretz by Korban Tzibur with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if Tum'as Meis,
which requires sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third
and seventh days, is permitted, how much more so Tum'as Sheretz, which does
(a) We answer that the Ziknei Darom compare the Machaprin (the Kohanim) to
the Miskaprin (the Tzibur) - by which we mean that, seeing as both are
included in "be'Mo'ado", we learn Tamei Kohanim from a Tamei Tzibur, where
the Torah permits specifically Tum'as Meis (and not Tum'as Sheretz),
negating the 'Kal-va'Chomer'.
(b) We conclude that the Ziknei Darom must then hold 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin al
Tamei Sheretz' - meaning that one may Shecht a Korban on behalf of a Tamei
Sheretz (or of a Tamei Meis on his seventh day) and sprinkle its blood,
seeing as he will be able to eat it at nightfall.
(c) We extrapolate this from their ruling - because if they held 'Ein
Shochtin ve'Zorkin ... ', they would have to permit Tum'as Sheretz be'Tzibur
as well, based on the principle that whenever a Yachid is rejected, the
Tzibur is permitted Lechatchilah.
(a) Ula cites Resh Lakish, who asks on the Ziknei Darom from the fact that,
according to them, the Ko'ach of Miskaprin is stronger than that of
Mechaprin - as we see from the previous ruling, which permits sending a
Korban on behalf of a Tamei Sheretz, whereas a Kohen who is a Tamei Sheretz
is not permitted to do the Avodah.
(b) In that case, a Kohen Tamei Meis ought not to be Meratzeh (whereas the
Ziknei Darom said that it is), seeing as one cannot send the Korban of a
Yisrael who is a Tamei Meis to the Azarah.
(c) We answer - that the Ziknei Darom in fact, permit even a Tamei Meis to
send his Korban to be brought on his behalf.
(d) And according to them, the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ish Ish Ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh" which prescribes a Pesach Sheini
for someone who is Tamei on Pesach Rishon - speaks 'le'Mitzvah' (ideally,
even though he could have had the Pesach Rishon sent to the Azarah on his
2. ... "Ish Le'fi Ochlo" - by the same token, speaks 'le'Mitzvah', too.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "be'Mishsas Nefashos" - that the Pesach must be Shechted for those
who are designated to eat it.
(b) In spite of the fact that the Torah places Ochlin (eaters) together with
Menuyin (appointees), the Ziknei Darom permit a Tamei Meis (not on his
seventh day) to have his Korban Pesach sent on his behalf - because for some
reason, they do not compare them (see Tosfos DH 'Ziknei Darom').
2. ... "Tachosu" - that the Pesach is Pasul if it is not (because whatever
the Torah repeats in the realm of Kodshim, is Me'akev (crucial to the
(c) We conclude that, in spite of what we just said and in spite of what we
said earlier to answer Resh Lakish's Kashya, equating a Tamei Meis with a
Tamei Sheretz with regard to sending his Korban, Resh Lakish's Ka'l
va'Chomer (Mechaprin from Miskaprin) still stands - due to the fact that
even if a Tamei Meis *can* send his Korban to the Azarah, that is only
Bedi'eved (as we just explained), whereas a Tamei Sheretz may do so
Lechatchilah. Consequently, a Kohen Tamei Meis should not be able to be