ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 90
ZEVACHIM 89-90 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y. Mazel Tov
on the Bar Mitzvah of his son; may he grow to be a true Ben Torah and Yerei
Shamayim and bring his parents -- and all of Yisrael -- much Nachas!
(a) The Mishnah in Me'ilah discusses Kodshim Kalim which are taken out of
the Azarah before the Zerikah. Rebbi Eliezer rules 'Ein Mo'alin Bahen,
ve'Ein Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'; Rebbi Akiva rules
'Mo'alin Bahen, ve'Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'.
(b) Initially, we establish Ravina bar Shilo (who rules 'Pasul') - like
Rebbi Akiva ('Mifseli be'Yotzei').
(c) Rav Papa rejects this explanation - by establishing the Beraisa when the
Kodshim are still outside whilst the Zerikah is being performed.
(d) According to Rav Papa ...
1. ... the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im is - whether 'Zerikah Mo'eles
le'Yotze' (Rebbi Akiva ) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).
2. ... Ravina bar Shilo will hold - like neither Tana (since both hold that
if the Korban is returned, it is Kasher).
(a) With regard to the same Machlokes regarding the Sh'tei ha'Lechem that
were taken out of the Azarah, Rav Papa - established the Machlokes when they
were returned to the Azarah.
(b) Even Rebbi Akiva will agree that 'Ein Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotze' in a
case where the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are still outside whilst the Zerikah is
being performed ...
(c) ... because unlike the Eimurin, which are an intrinsic part of the
Korban, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are not.
(d) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Ofos Kodmos li'Menachos' because they
are Miynei Damim, and that 'Minchas Chotei Kodem le'Minchas Nedavah' because
it atones for a sin. We might have thought that ...
1. ... Menachos should take precedence over Ofos - because we find Minchos
Tzibur (the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem), but not Korbenos Of shel Tzibur.
2. ... a Minchas Nedavah should take precedence over a Minchas Chotei -
because (unlike a Minchas Chotei) it requires oil and Levonah.
(a) We ask which takes precedence, a Minchas Sotah - because it comes to
clarify sin, or a Minchas Nedavah - because it requires oil and frankincense
(which a Minchas Sotah does not).
(b) We ...
1. ... initially extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Minchas Chotei Kodemes
le'Minchas Nedavah', 'Ha Minchas Sotah, Lo' - because a Minchas Chotei
atones, which a Minchas Sotah does not
(c) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Zu Kodemes le'Zu,
she'Zu Ba'ah min ha'Chitin, ve'Zu Ba'ah min ha'Se'orin' - assuming that the
Tana is referring to our case (a Minchas Nedavah and a Minchas Sotah
2. ... refute that - because the Tana gives the reason for the precedence of
the Minchas Chotei in that it comes (not, to atone, but) for a sin, which a
Minchas Sotah does, too.
(a) Initially, we object to the suggestion that the Tana is referring to the
precedence of a Minchas Chotei over a Minchas Sotah - because then, the
reason the Tana ought to have given is that the former atones, whereas the
latter does not
(b) We counter with the argument - that in that case, even if the Tana
refers to a Minchas Nedavah and a Minchas Sotah - he ought to have stated
the reason as the fact that the former requires oil and Levonah, whereas the
latter does not.
(c) We resolve both problems with one stroke - by applying the principle
'Chad mi'T'rei Ta'ami Nakat' (the Tana mentions one of two possibilities).
(a) The Torah writes (in connection with the Korban for 'Shemi'as Kol')
"Ve'hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah". The problem with this Pasuk is -
that having already written "ve'es ha'Sheini Ya'aseh Olah", why is it
necessary to repeat the fact that the Chatas comes first?
(b) The Torah in fact, writes "Rishonah" - to teach us a 'Binyan-Av' (that a
Chatas always comes before an Olah, as we shall now see).
(c) This will apply even to ...
1. ... a Chatas and an Olas Beheimah, and to ...
(d) This latter case applies - to a wealthy Yoledes, who brings both.
2. ... a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Beheimah?
(a) We now learn from ...
1. ... "ve'es ha'Sheini Ya'aseh Olah" - that a Chatas ha'Of takes precedence
over an Olas ha'Of.
(b) When Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa says ...
2. ... "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas" (see beginning of previous
Amud) - that a Chatas Beheimah takes precedence over an Olas Beheimah.
3. ... "Ve'hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah" - that a Chatas ha'Of even
takes precedence over an Olas Beheimah.
1. ... (with regard to the Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid of Tum'as Mikdash) 'Kol
Makom she'Nischalfah Chatas, Chatas Kodemes', he means - that wherever a
Chatas ha'Of replaces a Chatas Beheimah (such as a Chatas ha'Of of Tum'as
Mikdash ve'Kadachav, who cannot afford a Beheimah), the Chatas comes first.
(c) The problem this creates with what we just learned - is from the middle
case, where, according to Rebbi Eliezer, he first brings the Olah, whereas
according to what we just learned, he ought to bring the Chatas first.
2. ... 've'Ka'an she'Nischalfah Olah, Olah Kodemes' - he is referring to a
poor Yoledes, where the birds replace an Olah, and where the Olah bird
therefore takes precedence over the Chatas.
3. ... 'Chol Makom she'Shenayim Ba'in Tachas Echad, Chatas Kodemes', he is
referring to a Tamei Mikdash ve'Kodashav, who cannot afford a Korban
Beheimah, and who brings instead an Olas ha'Of and a Chatas ha'Of.
(d) Rava reconciles the two - by restricting Rebbi Eliezer to the Pasuk,
which places the Olah before the Chatas so that we should read it first (see
Tosfos DH 'le'Mikra'ah'), wheras in fact, the Chatas takes precedence.
(a) The Beraisa lists the order of precedence of goats, lambs, rams and
bulls is - in the reverse 'bulls, rams lambs and goats'.
(b) We initially establish this Beraisa - by the Musaf of Succos, posing a
Kashya on the Beraisa which always gives priority to a Chatas, seeing as the
first three are Olos, and the goats, Chata'os.
(c) So, to answer the Kashya, we establish it by a Korban Nedavah, where
they are all Olos.
(d) The reason for this sequence ...
1. ... Parim precede Eilim and Eilim, Kevasim - because of the larger Nesech
(i.e. larger quantities of wine, flour and oil) involved.
2. ... Kevasim precede Izim (despite the fact that both are Olos) - because
with regard to Shelamim and Chatas, its fat-tail is included in the Eimurim.
(a) A Beraisa gives the Par Kohen Mashi'ach precedence over the Par He'elam
Davar shel Tzibur, and the Par He'elam Davar over the Sa'ir of the Nasi.
Between the Par Avodas-Kochavim and the Sa'ir Avodas-Kochavim - the Tana
gives precedence to the former ...
(b) ... even though it is an Olah, and the latter a Chatas.
(c) We partially parry this Kashya from the Reisha of the Beraisa (the
precedence of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach over the Par He'elam Davar shel
Tzibur, because a Chatas precedes an Olah) - by conceding that the principle
remains intact when both animals are from the same species (e.g. both bulls)
(d) What still remains difficult is - when the animals are different (where
it seems that the Torah gives priority to the larger species, even if it is
an Olah against a Chatas).
(a) In Eretz Yisrael, they cited Rava bar Mari, who points to a missing
'Alef' in 'Chatas Avodas-Kochavim' - a hint that in this case, it does not
take precedence over the Chatas.
(b) Ravina answers with the word "ka'Mishpat" - a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that
the animals must be brought in the order that they are mentioned (i.e. the
(c) This enable us to adjust the answer that we gave in the previous Beraisa
(regarding the Parei ha'Chag) - where the Torah also writes "ke'Mishpatam",
to hint that there too, the Olos precede the Se'ir Chatas.
(a) In a case where a Chatas ha'Of, an Olas Beheimah and a Ma'aser Beheimah
are waiting to be brought, the problem with starting with the ...
1. ... Chatas ha'Of is - that it cannot precede the Ma'aser (see Tosfos DH
(b) We conclude 'Hacha Targimu Miyn Zevach Adif'. By ...
2. ... Ma'aser is - that it cannot precede the Olas Beheimah.
3. ... Olas Beheimah is - that it cannot precede the Chatas ha'Of.
1. ... 'Hacha', we mean - in Bavel.
(c) We give it priority over Olas Beheimah - due to the fact that, under no
circumstances, can the Olas Beheimah precede the Chatas ha'Of (because it is
a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', which is more powerful than a S'vara).
2. ... 'Miyn Zevach Adif', we mean - that the Ma'aser Beheimah is brought
(d) In Eretz Yisrael, they answered - that Chatas ha'Of comes first, because
a. it overrides Olas Beheimah (despite the fact that the latter is 'Miyn
Zevach') b. Olas ha'Of overrides Ma'aser. And since Chatas ha'Of overrides
Olas Beheimah, as we just explained, it also overrides Ma'aser, by the same
(a) We already learned that a Chatas generally precedes an Asham. The one
exception is an Asham Metzora - which takes precedence over the accompanying
Chatas, because it comes to permit the Metzora to eat Kodshim and to enter
(b) All Ashamos must be in their second year, except for two - an Asham
Nazir and Metzora.
(c) The other distinction that marks these two is - that they do not carry
the minimum price-tag of two Shekalim that other Ashamos do.
(d) When our Mishnah states that just as they are brought first, so too, are
they eaten first - it is referring to all Korbanos that are eaten (Chatas,
Asham, Todah and Shelamim).
(a) If yesterday's Shelamim on the one hand, and today's Shelamim or today's
Chatas and Asham (according to Rebbi Meir) on the other, are waiting to be
brought on the Mizbe'ach - yesterday's Shelamim come first (because it is
degrading for Korbanos to lie around without being sacrificed).
(b) According to the Chachamim - today's Chatas and Asham take precedence
over yesterday's Shelamim (because the fact that they are Kodshei Kodshim
overrides even that consideration).
(c) The Tana - permits the Kohen to eat Kodshei Kodshim in any manner that
he pleases (roasted, well-cooked or just plain cooked, as we have already
learned before from "le'Mashchah" [Korach], which means for greatness
[implying however they please, like a king]).
(d) He is permitted to add spices of Chulin, and according to Rebbi Shimon,
even spices of Terumah. Based on the fact that if the Kodshim become
Nosar, the Terumah spices will be burned together with the Korban, Rebbi
Meir disputes this - on the basis of the principle 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim
le'Beis ha'Pesul' (which Rebbi does not hold of, as we have already
(a) We ask - which takes precedence, Tadir or Mekudash?
(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from the Mishnah 'Temidin Kodmin
le'Musafin' - on the assumption that the Musaf, which is unique to Shabbos,
has more Kedushah than the Tamid, we try to prove that Tadir takes
precedence over Mekudash.
(c) We refute this however - by pointing out that the Tamid is sanctified by
Shabbos no less than the Musaf.
(d) Similarly, we try to prove from the Mishnah 'Musfei Shabbos Kodmin
le'Musfei Rosh Chodesh', and then from 'Musfei Rosh Chodesh Kodmin le'Musfei
Rosh Hashanah' that Tadir takes precedence over Mekudash. And we refute
these proofs - in the same way as we did the previous one, by pointing out
that Rosh Chodesh even adds Kedushah of the Musfei Shabbos, and so does Rosh
Hashanah to the Kedushah of the Musaf Rosh Chodesh.