ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 104
ZEVACHIM 104 (24 Elul 5763) - Today's Daf has been dedicated by Nachi Brown
in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of his son Shachar.
(a) We just discussed Rebbi Elazar bi'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi. According to
Rebbi in a Beraisa, Zerikas ha'Dam permits the skin when it has been
detached, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it does not. In a case
where it is still attached, Rebbi rules - that it is forbidden like the
(b) Even then, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon forbids the skin - unless the
P'sul occurred after the Zerikas ha'Dam, in which case it becomes permitted,
even if the skin is still attached.
(c) We try to connect this Machlokes with an earlier Machlokes Tana'im,
where Rebbi ...
1. ... Yehoshua, in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'asisa
Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam' (once the Basar
becomes Pasul, the blood cannot be sprinkled).
(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that
just as the blood is sprinkled, so too, is the Basar thrown (which entails
leaving a small space between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach, as we already
learned in Perek Kodshei Kodshim).
2. ... Eliezer extrapolate from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" -
'Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar' (that it can).
(a) Initially we attempt to link the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon and Rebbi with that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua - by equating
Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon with Rebbi Yehoshua (since both hold that Dam
alone is not Meratzeh.
(b) We conclude that they do not argue according to Rebbi Eliezer - by which
we mean that everyone agrees that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, Dam alone is
Meratzeh, and that consequently, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon cannot concur
with his opinion.
(c) They do however, argue according to Rebbi Yehoshua - which means that on
the one hand, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obviously holds him like him, but
on the other, Rebbi claims Rebbi Yehoshua agrees with him - because even if
there is no Dam without Basar, there is Dam, if it is to permit the skin to
the Kohanim (to spare them from a loss).
(a) And we compare it to the Mishnah in Pesachim, where he also concedes to
Rebbi Eliezer in a case of Bedi'eved. Where the Basar became Tamei, Pasul,
or left the Azarah, Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yizrok'. Rebbi Yehoshua says - 'Lo
(b) The Tana concludes 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua, she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'.
However, if the Basar became Tamei, it does not require the Zerikas ha'Dam
to render the owner Yotze - since the Tzitz already atones for Tum'ah.
(c) Even though Rebbi Yehoshua holds that Bedieved, the Zerikah is Meratzeh
(Basar that became Pasul or that was Yotze), we still need the reason of
'P'seida le'Kohanim' to permit the skin - in a case where the Basar was lost
(a) When Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim attested that he never saw the skin
of Kodshei Kodshim having to be burned, he was not referring to ...
1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin - which are meant to be
(b) And finally, we ask what Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim will do with
'Nimtzeis T'reifah bi'Venei Me'ayim' - which we assume is burned, because
the P'sul preceded both the Hefshet and the Zerikah.
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim before both Hefshet (according to Rebbi) and Zerikah
(according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) - because he was referring
specifically to detached skins.
3. ... after Hefshet but before Zerikah, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon (which is speaking about a skin that is detached), apart from
establishing Rebbi S'gan ha'Kohanim like Rebbi - because if, as Abaye said
earlier, according to Rebbi (who holds that the blood permits the skin) it
never happened that the skin was flayed before the Zerikas ha'Dam, how much
more so, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.
(c) We answer that the Zerikah is indeed Meratzeh in such a case - because
they only discovered the P'sul after the Zerikas ha'Dam, like Rebbi Akiva in
our Mishnah (who extrapolates it from Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim) ...
(d) ... Rebbi Akiva's Chidush is that we apply the same S'vara to a Bechor
(which was Shechted outside the Beis-Hamikdash with a blemish and) which
turned out to be a T'reifah - in that we consider the fact that the T'reifus
was only discovered after the Hefshet (even though there was no Zerikas
Dam), like we do with regard to Kodshei Kodshim in the Beis-Hamikdash where
the Hefshet took place after the Zerikah.
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Akiva, whom he
also qualifies - by confining his ruling to a Bechor whose blemish was
examined and subsequently permitted by an expert.
(b) We conclude however, 've'Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Chachamim'. According to the
text 'Basar bi'Kevurah', it is ...
1. ... forbidden to feed to one's dogs - like all Kodshim are (even if they
(c) The problem we have with the final words of this version 've'ha'Or
bi'Sereifah' is - why the skin needs to be burned any more than the Basar
2. ... not burned - because it is only Kodshei Mikdash (Kodshim that became
Pasul after entering the Azarah), that require Sereifah, and not Kodshei
(d) It seems however, that this version was introduced by Talmidim who
misunderstood 'Yeitzei le'Beis ha'Sereifah' (in the words of the Chachamim)
in our Mishnah. In fact, they were referring (not to Rebbi Akiva) but to the
Tana Kama, who was talking about Kodshei Mikdash.
(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim
ha'Nisrafin that are burned 'ke'Mitzvasan' and those that burned 'she'Lo
ke'Mitzvasan - meaning which did not become Pasul and which did,
(b) The double distinction the Tana is referring to is - that a. the former
are burned outside Yerushalayim in the Beis ha'Deshen, whereas the latter
are burned somewhere in the Beis Hamikdash, in a place called 'Birah' (which
will be explained in the Sugya); and b. the former render both those dealing
with it and the clothes they are wearing, Tamei, whereas the latter do not.
(c) Assuming they are carrying Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ke'Mitzvasan, on poles,
it is possible for some of the carriers together with their clothes to
become Tamei, whilst the others do not - when those in front have already
left the walls of the Azarah, whilst those at the back have not.
(d) The moment those at the back leave the walls of the Azarah, they become
Tamei, too. Rebbi Shimon disagrees with this entire Halachah. According to
him - it is only from the moment that the majority of the Parim ha'Nisrafin
... are burning that whoever deals with them becomes Tamei together with his
clothes, and not before.
(e) Whoever helps to burn them and his clothes no longer become Tamei - once
the Basar is completely burned.
(a) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, 'Birah' refers to
the Har ha'Bayis. Based on the Pasuk "ha'Birah Asher Hachinosi" - Resh
Lakish defines 'Birah' as the entire area of the Beis Hamikdash.
According to a Beraisa cited by Levi, Parim ha'Nisrafin ... that became
Pasul were burned in the Beis Hadeshen in the Azarah, even if they became
Pasul after the Zerikah - and the Beis Hadeshen on the Har ha'Bayis was used
to burn Parim ha'Nisrafin that became Pasul after leaving the Azarah.
(b) According to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah - there were three Beis
(c) Besides burning Pesulei B'sar Kodshei Kodshim in the Beis ha'Deshen in
the Azarah, they also burned there ...
1. ... Pasul Eimurin of Kodshim Kalim - because that is where they would
have been burned had they been Kasher.
(d) We have already learned that Kasher Parim ha'Nisrafin ... were burned in
the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim. The third Beis Hadeshen was
situated - on the Har ha'Bayis, to burn Parim ha'Nisrafin which became Pasul
after the Zerikas ha'Dam (when they became due to be taken out of the
2. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin ... which became Pasul before the Zerikas ha'Dam -
because they were not due to be taken out of the Azarah until after the
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are subject to
Linah - to become Pasul if they were left in the Azarah overnight.
(b) They might not be - because they are only fit to be burned on the
ground, and are not eaten (either by Adam or by the Mizbe'ach), like the
Basar of a Chatas or of an Olah.
(c) Abaye posed the same She'eilah, which Rava tried to resolve from a
Beraisa, where the Tana says that a Machshavah to eat the Basar of Parim
ha'Nisrafin ... or to burn it on the following day - is ineffective. Rava
thought that by the same token, they are not subject to Linah either.
(d) We refute Rava's proof from there however, on the grounds - that perhaps
Machsheves Achilah is not applicable to them, but Linah is.
(a) So we cite another Beraisa which declares Parim ha'Nisrafin ... subject
to the Din of Me'ilah (once they have been declared Hekdesh) - and to the
P'sul of T'vul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim and Linah, once they have been
(b) We reject the proof from ...
1. ... there that Linah does apply to the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... -
by establishing it with regard to Linah of the Eimurim (which are obviously
subject to Linah, seeing as they are due to be burned).
2. ... the Seifa 'Kulan, Mo'alin Bahen ad she'Yutach ha'Basar', that just as
the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, is the Reisha - by countering
'Midi Ayri? Seifa Basar, Reisha Eimurin' (who says that they must be
speaking in the same case ... ?).
3. ... the Beraisa cited by Levi (which we cited earlier) ' ... she'Ira
Bahen P'sul bi'Yetzi'asan', by establishing the Tana (not with reference to
the P'sul of Linah, but) to that of Tum'ah and Yotzei.
(a) Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to the P'sul of
Yotzei or not. The She'eilah initially appears strange - since they are
destined to go out anyway (so how can they possibly become Pasul by being
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes it according to those who say 'Adayin Lo
Higi'a Zemano Latzeis' which means that - they invalidate Kodshim Kalim that
are taken out of the Azarah before the Zerikas ha'Dam, even though they
would have been taken out anyway after the Zerikah.
(c) However, the Din here might be different than by Basar Kodshim Kalim -
because Parim ha'Nisrafin *must* later be taken out of the Azarah, whereas
taking the Basar of Kodshim Kalim is not an obligation.
(d) Once again, we try to resolve the She'eilah from Levi's Beraisa 'she'Ira
Bo P'sul bi'Yetzi'aso', which we establish by P'sul Tum'ah and P'sul Linah.
We initially thought that the Tana was talking about P'sul Yetzi'ah - since
it specifically mentions 'bi'Yetzi'aso' (and doing that is a natural
(a) Rebbi Elazar asked a She'eilah 'Parim ha'Nisrafin be'Miy'ut Eiver'. The
case is - where the majority of the animal was taken out of the Azarah,
together with the minority of another limb most of which is still inside..
(b) The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether that minority combines with
the majority of the limb that remains inside, or whether it combines with
the majority of the Basar that was taken outside.
(c) We dismiss the She'eilah - on the grounds that it is obvious that the
bulk of the animal is more prominent than the remainder of the limb.
(d) So we amend it - to where the minority of the limb was taken out, not
(together with the majority of the Basar, but) together with half the Basar,
to make up a majority between them. And the question now is whether we
combine the minority of the limb still inside with the majority that is
outside, or whether we consider it as part of half the body that is still
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna learned the She'eilah with regard to people. His
version of the She'eilah is - if five people are transporting the Parim
ha'Nisrafin, of whom three have already left the Azarah carrying the
minority of the animal, whilst two ae still inside with the majority. And
the question is whether we go after the majority of the carriers or of the
(b) The outcome of both She'eilos is -'Teiku'.