ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 35
ZEVACHIM 35 (14 Tamuz) Dedicated by Shabsi and Celine Ledereich in honor of
the marriage of Serena Morsel to Shimy Berenholtz; may theirs be a "Binyan
(a) When Rebbi Yehudah asked the Rabbanan why, seeing as they disagree with
him regarding the cupful of blood, the Kohanim would block up the exit of
the Amah to prevent the blood from flowing out of the Azarah, they replied -
that it was considered praiseworthy for the Kohanim to wade through the
Azarah up to their knees in blood.
(b) According to the Chachamim, the blood on the Kohanim's feet did not
constitute a Chatzitzah - because it was still wet.
(c) The Beraisa rules - that once blood, ink honey and milk are dry, they
constitute a Chatzitzah, whereas as long as they are still wet, they do not.
(d) The other problem with the fact that, according to the Chachamim, the
Kohanim had to wade through the blood is - that it would stain the Bigdei
Kehunah, and as we learned in the previous Perek, stained clothes invalidate
(a) The Kohanim could not have simply raised the hem of their shirts (to
dispense with the previous Kashya) - because as we already learned (from the
word "Mido"), shortened clothes too, would invalidate the Avodah.
(b) We refute the suggestion that they were only required to wade through
the blood whilst carrying the limbs on to the ramp, because it is not an
Avodah - since as we already learned in the first Perek (from the Pasuk
"Ve'hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol"), carrying the limbs on to the ramp is
considered an Avodah.
(c) In fact, the Kohanim waded through the blood, hems raised - when
carrying wood on to the Mizbe'ach (which is definitely not an Avodah).
(d) And to avoid getting their clothes blood-stained, they carried the limbs
and the blood on to the Mizbe'ach - by walking along the Itzteba'os (stone
colonnades built in the floor of the Azarah).
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if someone Shechts a Korban
having in mind to eat ...
1. ... part of the animal that is not normally eaten or to burn part of it
that is not normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban
is not Pasul.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer disagrees - with the first of these rulings, because,
according to him, a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, even on
part of the animal that is not normally eaten or burned, invalidates (as we
2. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten *or*
to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or
Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban is not Pasul, either.
3. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten
*and* to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo
or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban is not Pasul (because Achilah and Haktarah
do not combine).
(c) The Tana also rules that if someone Shechts a Korban with the intention
of eating a k'Zayis of the skin or the gravy Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chutz
li'Mekomo - the Korban is not Pasul. Neither are they (nor the remainder of
items on the list, that we are about to discuss) subject to the Din of Pigul
(if the Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano on a k'Zayis Basar or
Eimurin), Nosar or Tum'ah.
(d) The Tana includes the Kifah and the Elel in the list. 'Kifah'
constitutes the spices and the fragments of meat at the bottom of the pot,
'Elel' is - the nerve in the neck (which is hard).
(a) The other four parts of the animal listed by the Tana are - the bones,
the nerves, the horns and the hooves.
(b) All the items in the Tana's list - are not edible.
(c) If someone ...
1. ... Shechts an animal as a Korban, the unborn fetus and the placenta -
are not subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo (because
they are not considered part of the Korban [though according to Rebbi
Elazar, the reason would appear to be a different one, as we shall see]).
(d) The milk of Mukdashin and eggs of a Kodshim pigeon - are not subject to
Nosar and Tum'ah either.
2. ... (a Kohen) performs Melikah on a bird as a Korban - its egg is not
subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, either, for the
(a) Rebbi Elazar holds 'Pigeil be'Zevach, Nispagel ha'Sh'lil' - because,
based on the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu', he holds that the fetus is part
of the mother.
(b) Nevertheless he continues 'Pigeil ba'Shelil, Lo Nispagel ha'Zevach' -
because a Sh'lil is inedible (and as we learned in our Mishnah, a Machsheves
Achilah on part of the animal which is inedible does not render the Korban
(c) In the latter case - the Sh'lil itself is certainly not subject to
Pigul, as we learned in the Mishnah.
(a) He continues 'Pigeil be'Elel, Nispagel ha'Mura'ah' (its crop), but not
vice-versa, because the Mura'ah is not edible. The reason for the first
ruling is - because the Elel of a bird which is soft, is edible (and when in
our Mishnah, we described Elel as inedible, that was referring to the Elel
of an animal, which is hard).
(b) Rebbi Elazar continues 'Pigeil be'Eimurim, Nispaglu Parim; be'Parim, Lo
Nispaglu Eimurim'. 'Parim' refers to - Parim ha'Nisrafin, which are
entirely burned outside Yerushalayim.
(c) The reason for the latter ruling is - because the Basar of the Parim is
not fit to eat, in which case it is not considered a Machsheves P'sul.
(d) We can extrapolate from Rebbi Elazar's dual rulings regarding the
Sh'lil, the Mura'ah and the Basar Parim - that even though something cannot
render Pigul, it can nevertheless become Pigul.
(a) Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue in Perek T'vul-Yom whether Parim
ha'Nisrafin are subject to Pigul at all. The Beraisa rules in a case where
the Kohen sprinkled the blood with the intention of eating the Basar or
burning the Eimurim Chutz li'Zemano - that even according to the Rabbanan,
whether the Kohen thinks to eat the Parim after the allotted time or to burn
the Eimurim after their allotted time, the Korban remains Kasher.
(b) What we learned in the previous Perek 'Chishav she'Tochleihu Eish
le'Machar, Pigul' - was only if he thought that the Mizbe'ach will eat the
Eimurim after their time (which is not applicable to Parim ha'Nisrafim,
which are not burned on the Mizbe'ach), as we explained there.
(c) According to the Rabbanan, Pigul will apply to Parim ha'Nisrafin - if
the Kohen has the Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemano during the Sereifas
(d) We try to infer from the Lashon of the Beraisa 've'Shavin she'Im Chishav
ba'Achilas Parim, u'vi'Sereifasan Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum' - Ha Chishav
be'Eimirin, Nispaglu Parim' (even though the Parim cannot not make Pigul, a
proof for Rebbi Elazar).
(e) We refute this proof - by applying the inference as 'Ha Cohesive
be'Eimirin, Nispaglu ha'Eimurim Atzman'.
(a) The Beraisa discusses Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin. They
1. ... subject to Me'ilah - the moment they are sanctified.
(b) We again attempt to prove Rebbi Elazar right from here - because we
assume that 'Linah' refers to the Basar, and just as Linas Basar invalidates
the Basar, so too, will Machsheves Linas Basar (Chutz li'Zemano) invalidate
2. ... Pasul through being touched by a T'vul-Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim and
subject to Linah - from after the Shechitah.
(c) According to the Seifa of the Beraisa, they are subject to Me'ilah - up
until the Basar is completely burned.
(d) The Seifa create a problem with our suggestion that Linah in the Reisha
refers to Linas Eimurim (and not Basar) - because since the Seifa is
speaking about the Basar, so too, we think, is the Seifa.
(e) We repudiate this Kashya however - with 'Ha ke'd'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'd'Iysa'
(the Reisha speaks about the Eimurim, and the Seifa, about the Basar (and we
remain without a proof for Rebbi Elazar).
(a) The Beraisa, discussing the things that are neither Mefagel nor
Mispagel, lists all the items in our Mishnah. The Tana finds it necessary to
add specifically the wool of the head and the hair of the goat's beard -
because we might otherwise have thought that it must be burned on the
Mizbe'ach together with the skin, which is also not normally included in the
Haktarah, but which is in the case of the head (due to a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).
(b) Besides that of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, the Tana also exempts them from
the La'av of 'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz' (sacrificing them outside the
(c) Rabah asks on Rebbi Elazar from 've'Eilu she'Ein Mefaglin ve'Ein
Mispaglin' - which he assumes to mean 'Lo Mefaglin ha'Zevach, ve'Lo
Mispaglin Machmas ha'Zevach'.
(d) And we answer - that the Tana really means 'Lo Mefaglin es ha'Zevach
ve'Lo Mispaglin Machmas Atzman' (but 'Machmas ha'Zevach', they would be
Pigul, like Rebbi Elazar).
(a) Rabah's proof is based on the Seifa 'Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo
Mispaglin' - which (according to our interpretation of the Reisha) seems to
be merely repeating it.
(b) And we counter this Kashya from the continuation 've'Ein Chayavin
Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei' - where 'Pigul' is also nothing more
than a repetition of the Reisha.
(c) So we conclude - that the Tana must mean to insert 'Pigul' on account of
Nosar and Tamei, and by the same token, he adds 'Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo
Mispaglin' on account of 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Patur'.
(a) Bearing in mind that the Tana has just said 'Hashochet es ha'Mukdashin
Le'echol Sh'lil O ha'Shilya ba'Chutz Lo Pigeil', Rava extrapolates from the
Seifa of our Mishnah 'Chalav ha'Mukdashin u'Beitzei Torim Ein Chayavin
Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei' - 'Ha Sh'lil ve'Shilya, Chayavin'.
(b) And he reconciles the apparent contradiction between the two
statements - by establishing the former ruling by 'Machmas Atzman' (when he
thought to eat the Sh'lil and the Shilya themselves Chutz li'Zemano), and
the latter ruling by 'Machmas ha'Zevach' (when he thought to eat the Basar
Chutz li'Zemano) ...
(c) ... a proof for Rebbi Elazar.
(a) The Tana Kama in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh includes Ba'alei Mumin
among the Pesulin that Im Alu, Yerdu. Rebbi Akiva holds - 'Im Alu, Lo
(b) Rebbi Yochanan restricts Rebbi Akiva's ruling to the Mum of Dukin
she'be'Ayin (eye's web) - because it is Kasher by Korban Of (which is not
subject to the P'sul of Mumin).
(c) He also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the Mum - because Kedushas
Mizbe'ach cannot take effect on a Ba'al Mum, only Kedushas Damim.
(d) Rebbi Akiva will concede that an Olas Nekeivah 'Im Alah Yeired' (because
it is compared to an animal whose blemish preceded its Hekdesh) even though
a Nekeivah is Kasher by an Olas ha'Of (and by Shalmei Beheimah).
(a) We learned in the Beraisa (that we cited earlier) 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen
ba'Chutz, Patur. Rebbi Zeira infers from the Beraisa 'Meihen (from the
Sh'lil and the Shilya), Ha me'Iman, Chayav.' This must be talking about an
Olas Nekeivah, and not for example, a Shelamim - because the Basar of a
Shelamim is not fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and is therefore not
subject to the La'av of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz.
(b) The author must be Rebbi Akiva - who holds 'Im Alsah Lo Teired', which
explains why it is Chayav ba'Chutz.
(c) This poses a Kashya on what we just learned - that Rebbi Akiva concedes
that the Basar of a Nekeivah le'Olah 'Im Alsah, Teired'.
(d) We object to the suggestion that the inference reads (not 'Ha me'Iman,
Chayav', but) 'Ha me'Eimurei Iman, Chayav' - because 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen
Patur' (the source of the inference) is talking about the Basar, and not the
(e) So to accommodate the suggestion, we amend 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz,
Patur', to read 'ha'Ma'aleh me'Emureihen ba'Chutz, Patur'
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, if someone Shechts Kodshim
having in mind to leave its blood or its Eimurin until the next day, the
Korban is Pasul - strange, seeing as this is neither Achilah nor Haktarah.
(b) The Chachamim - declare the Korban, Kasher.
(c) Our Mishnah rules in a case where one Shechted the Korban having in mind
1. ... to place the blood on part of the Mizbe'ach where there is no Yesod,
above the Chut ha'Sikra instead of below it, or vice-versa, or on the outer
Mizbe'ach instead of on the inner one, or vice-versa - that the Korban is
Kasher, and the same applies in a case where he had in mind ...
(d) The other case of Machsheves P'sul mentioned by the Tana with regard to
a Korban Pesach is - if he had in mind to eat it cooked or half roasted.
2. ... that Teme'im or Areilim should eat it or bring it, or ...
3. ... to break its bones (assuming it is a Korban Pesach)?
(a) The Tana finally rules that if one had in mind to mix the blood with the
blood of a Pasul Korban - the Korban is Kasher ...
(b) ... because a Korban only becomes Pasul or Pigul with one of three
Machchovos - Chutz li'Zemano, Chutz li'Mekomo or, in the case of a Pesach or
a Chatas, she'Lo Lish'mo.