ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 36
ZEVACHIM 36-40 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) In spite of the Torah having already written (in connection with the
Korban Pesach) "Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker", Rebbi Yehudah learns from the
Pasuk "Lo Yani'ach Mimenu ad Boker" - via 'Im Eino Inyan', that Machsheves
Hinu'ach she'Lo bi'Zemano is effective too (as we saw in our Mishnah).
(b) The Torah writes next to it "u'Vesar Zevach *Todas* Shelamav". We learn
1. ... the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim - that the time limit of a
Korban Todah is one day.
(c) A Chalipei Todah is - the replacement of Korban Todah that got lost,
after the original animal has been found.
2. ... the word "u'Vesar" - that Chalipin, V'lados and Temuros of a Todah
must also be eaten by the end of the first day.
(d) the original animal is brought to cover his initial Neder, and the
Chalipei Todah is brought as a Nedavah.
(a) The Pasuk comes to include (in the list of Korbanos that can be eaten
for one day) with the word ...
1. ... "Zevach" - a Chatas and an Asham.
(b) The three types of loaves that "Korbano" incorporates are - Lachmei
Todah and the Chalos and the Rekikin (the wafers) of a Nazir.
2. ... "Shelamav" - Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach (i.e. the Chagigah of
the fourteenth of Nisan).
(c) Even though "Lo Yani'ach" comes to teach us the time limit of all the
above, Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless learns 'Machsheves Hinu'ach - from the
fact that the Torah uses the word "Lo Yani'ach" (rather than "Lo Sosiru").
(a) The problem with the current source of Rebbi Yehudah ("Lo Yani'ach"),
from our Mishnah Shachtan al-M'nas ... O Le'hotzi'an la'Chutz" is - what is
then his source for the Machsheves Hotza'ah Chutz li'Mekomo?
(b) In addition, the reason Rebbi Yehudah himself gave to explain why
Machsheves Hinu'ach is Pasul is - the S'vara that just as 'Hinu'ach Dam
le'Machar' invalidates the Korban (see Shitah Mekubetzes), so does
Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar (and the same S'vara will apply to Machsheves
Hotza'ah Chutz li'Mekomo).
(c) Hinu'ach renders the Korban, Pasul - from nightfall (Sof Sheki'ah).
(d) If Rebbi Yehudah's reason is based on a S'vara, the problem we have with
his opinion is - why he does not then argue with the Tana Kama in all the
cases in our Mishnah (by Shover Atzmos ha'Pesach or she'Yochlu Mimenu Na, by
al-M'nas she'Yochlu Teme'im or she'Yakrivuhu Teme'im, and by she'Yochluhu
Areilim or she'Yakrivuhu Areilim)?
(a) The general answer we give to explain why Rebbi Yehudah does not argue
in all the cases is - because the Korban itself would not be Pasul even if
one were to break a bone of the Pesach or eat from the cooked Basar, if
Teme'im were to eat from the Basar or bring the Eimurin, or if Areilim were
to eat from it or bring it.
(b) We know that the Tana is speaking about the Teme'im bringing the
Eimurin' and not the blood (which would invalidate the Korban) - because it
is similar to the 'al-Menas she'Yochluhu Teme'im', which refers to Temei'im
eating the Basar, and not the blood.
(c) When we say in the second Lashon 'Kol ke'Mineih' - we mean that in the
cases which we just mentioned, the Shochet cannot invalidate the Korban,
because which Tamei or Areil Kohen would listen to him to eat or to bring
the Korban anyway (and any Machshavah that depends upon the actions of
others is therefore not effective). Note, that this S'vara does not apply to
regular Pigul, which is a Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv'.
(d) Neither does he argue with the Tana Kama by ...
1. ... 'Le'areiv Damo be'Dam Pesulim' - because he holds 'Ein Dam Mevateil
Dam', as we explained earlier.
2. ... 'es ha'Nitnin le'Ma'alah, le'Matah' or vice-versa - because he holds
'she'Lo bi'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami'.
(a) When we say that Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with the Tana Kama over
'ha'Nitnim bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz' and vice-versa, because it is not a
place that is 'Meshulash', we mean - that one is only Chayav (for Chutz
li'Mekomo) for taking the Korban or the Dam to a place which is Kasher to
place Dam, Basar and Eimurim.
(b) This refers - to the case of 'Nitnin ba'Chutz she'Nasnan bi'Fenim'
(because 'ha'Nitnin bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz' did have a Heter for all
three in the time of the Bamos, as we explained earlier).
(c) We query Rebbi Yehudah however, from another Beraisa, where he learns
from the Pasuk "Lo Sizbach ... Kol Davar Ra" that a Chatas which is Shechted
in the south - and one whose blood is taken inside the Heichal, is Pasul ...
(d) ... even though the latter is not a Makom Meshulash, a proof that Rebbi
Yehudah does not concur with the D'rashah of 'Shelishi'.
(a) When Rebbi Yehudah says in a Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Zevachim', 'Hichnis
be'Shogeg Kasher', he means - that if the Kohen actually took the blood of a
Chatas Chitzonah into the Heichal (even if he placed it on the Mizbe'ach
ha'Ketores, as we shall now see), the Korban remains Kasher.
(b) We infer from there 'Ha be'Meizid Pasul' - but only, if he actually
placed the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores, otherwise not.
(c) And if Rebbi Yehudah holds of 'Meshulash' as regards bringing the blood
inside the Heichal, 'Kal va'Chomer' as regards a mere Machshavah (clashing
with what we just said, that Rebbi Yehudah does not concur with the D'rashah
of 'Meshulash' at all.
(d) We resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Yehudah - by turning the two
Beraisos into a Machlokes Tana'im in the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) We also query Rebbi Yehudah with regard to his previous D'rashah from
"Kol Davar Ra" (that one is Chayav for Shechting a Chatas on the south side
of the Azarah). In another Beraisa, he Darshens the same phrase "Kol Davar
Ra" - to preclude someone who Shechts a Chatas on the south side of the
(b) And we resolve this discrepancy - in the same way as we resolved the
previous one, by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Rebbi
Yehudah actually said.
(a) When Rava says 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehudah, she'Chozer ve'Kov'o le'Pigul' -
he means that even though the Korban is already Pasul, it will become Pigul
should the Kohen have a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano during a later Avodah.
(b) Rava tries to prove this from 'Pigul Lifnei Zerikah' - which does not
actually become Pigul until the Kohen performs the Zerikah be'Kashrus.
(c) Similarly, says Rava - according to Rebbi Yehudah, the original
Machshavah of Hinu'ach Chutz li'Zemano will come into effect retroactively
when he makes the Zerikah with a Machsheves Pigul.
(d) We refute Rava's proof however - on the grounds that whereas in the
latter case, there is only one Machshavah, in Rebbi Yehudah's case there are
two (one of them a Machsheves P'sul and not Pigul, in which case it ought to
be considered 'Lo Kareiv Kol Matirav').
(a) Rav Huna queries Rava (strange, since Rav Huna lived long before Rava)
from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier. The Tana rules, in a case where
1. ... the one who Shechted the Korban had in mind to place the blood of a
Korban that is normally placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, below it, or
vice-versa - the Korban is Kasher.
(b) And the Tana rules, in a case where, following a Machsheves Hinu'ach,
but on the next day (according to Rebbi Yehudah), the Kohen subsequently had
a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - that the Korban is Pasul
but not Pigul.
2. ... the Kohen, by one of the subsequent Avodos, had a Machsheves Chutz
li'Mekomo - is Pasul ...
3. ... Chutz li'Zemano - is Pigul.
(c) This proves that even Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar, according to Rebbi
Yehudah, prevents any subsequent Pigul from taking effect, because it is
considered 'Lo Karvu Kol Matirav' (finally proving Rava wrong).
(a) Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Sala rules that someone who had a Machshavah
that Teme'im should eat the Korban Chatas tomorrow - renders the Korban
(b) ... even though Achilas Teme'im is an Achilah Pesulah.
(c) We refute Rava's proof from every case of Pigul, where the Shochet or
the Kohen's thoughts occur before Zerikah, when the Korban is also not yet
fit to eat - because there at least, it will automatically become fit to eat
after Zerikah, whereas here, an Achilah Pesulah remains Pasul.
(a) Rav Chisda speaks about the Basar of the Korban Pesach or the Chalos
Todah that one ate before they were ready to be eaten - meaning a Korban
Pesach that has not yet been roasted and Chalos Todah from which the four
required loaves (one from each of the four kinds that accompanied the Todah)
have not yet been separated to give to the Kohen.
(b) Rav Dimi bar Chin'na used to say - that someone who eats them be Tum'as
ha'Guf, is nevertheless Chayav ...
(c) ... despite the principle that whatever is not permitted to Tehorim is
not subject to Chiyuv if eaten by Teme'im.
(a) The Beraisa comments on the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal mi'Besar
Zevach Shelamim Asher la'Hashem". The Tana learns from "Asher la'Hashem" -
that even if someone eats Eimurei Kodshim Kalim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, he is
Chayav Kareis (even though they are not fit to eat) ...
***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Pesulin' *****
(b) ... a proof, says Rava, for Rav Dimi bar Chin'na's ruling.
(c) We refute the proof in one of two ways. One of them, in that Eimurin are
at least fit for Hashem, whereas the Pesach and the Lachmei Todah under
discussion are not. Alternatively - Eimurim are fit to serve their function,
whereas an unroasted Pesach and Lachmei Todah that have not had the four
loaves separated from them are not.
***** Perek Beis Shamai *****
(a) Most Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon,
require two Matanos on the two diagonally opposite corners (that have a
Yesod). If the Kohen performed only one - the Korban is nevertheless
(b) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree on this. They argue however, by a
Chatas, which requires - four Matanos, one on each corner.
(c) Beis Shamai holds - that in order to atone, the blood of the Chatas
requires at least two Matanos Bedieved; whereas, according to Beis Hillel,
one will suffice.
(d) Consequently, according to Beis Hillel, if the Kohen places the first
1. ... correctly, and the second Matanah with a Machsheves Chutz
li'Zemanah - the Korban is Kasher.
2. ... with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah, and the second with a Machsheves
Chutz li'Mekomah - the Korban is Pigul.
(a) The basic difference between the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon
(which we just discussed) and those of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi is - that the
latter requires all four Matanos, even Bedieved.
(b) Consequently, if the Kohen placed any one of the Matanos on the
Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi with a Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano - the Korban is
(c) It is not Pigul - because the Tana holds 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'
(in which case the Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano must incorporate all four