|(Permission is granted to redistribute this material as long as the Kollel
header and the subscription info at the end are included.)
CHARTS FOR LEARNING THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
Zevachim Chart #8
Zevachim Daf 15b-24b
THOSE WHO DISQUALIFY THE AVODAH
THEY PERFORM IN THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH
THE SOURCE THAT HE DISQUALIFIES THE AVODAH
THE NATURE OF HIS PROHIBITION
IS HE PUNISHED WITH MISAH?(1)
2. Kal v'Chomer(3)
|| 1. "Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei..."(6)
2. "Hen ha'Yom Hikrivu..."(7)
3. Kal v'Chomer(3)
|| "Kedoshim Yiheyu... v'Lo Yechalelu"(10)
|| "v'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah"(12)
||1. "v'Hayesah Lahem Kehunah..."(16)
2. "v'Nasnu Benei Aharon ha'Kohen"
3. "v'Archu Benei Aharon ha'Kohanim"
||LO RACHUTZ YADAYIM V'RAGLAYIM
||"Chukah - Chukah"(19)
||1. Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai
2. "v'Erel Basar Lo Yavo"(23)
|| "la'Amod l'Shares"(28)
(between the Kohen's feet & the floor, or between his hands & the Avodah)
| "v'Lakach ha'Kohen"(31)
(use of the left hand)
| "v'Lakach ha'Kohen... b'Etzba'o"(34)
|- - - - - - - -
||BA'AL MUM (36)
||"Ki Mum Bo v'Lo Yechalel"
||"Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht... ul'Havdil"(39)
(1) This refers to Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim. It is important to note that a
Pasul who performs the Avodah is Chayav Misah only if he performs one of the
four Avodos which are classified as "Avodah Tamah" (which means that this
Avodah is the last Avodah in the procedure). These are Zerikah, Haktarah,
Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin (RASHI 18a, DH Iy me'Hasam, and Gemara
(2) The inference is from the end of the verse which says, "...Benei
Yisrael, v'Lo Yechalelu." (Zevachim 15b)
(3) The Kal v'Chomer is learned from Ba'al Mum or from Yoshev: Ba'al Mum and
Yoshev are permitted to eat Kodshei Kodashim, and nevertheless their Avodah
is disqualified, so certainly the Avodah of a Zar, who cannot eat Kodshei
Kodashim, is disqualified. (Zevachim 16a; see Insights there.)
(4) The Torah says, "v'Zar Lo Yikrav Aleichem" (Bamidbar 18:4). (Zevachim
(5) The Torah says, "v'ha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas" (Bamidbar 18:7). (Sanhedrin
(6) The verse continues, "v'Lo Yechalel," teaching that the Avodah of a
Kohen Hedyot who remains in the Mikdash despite the fact that he is an Onen,
*is* disqualified. (Zevachim 16a)
(7) The verse implies that if the children of Aharon would have performed
the Avodah in a state of Aninus, their Aovdah would have been disqualified.
(8) We do not find an explicit Lo Sa'aseh in the Torah for an Onen who does
the Avodah. The Isur is derived through an inference in the verse and a Kal
v'Chomer. Consequently, it should not have the severity of a Lo Sa'aseh, and
one would not receive Malkus for transgressing it. (This, in fact, seems to
be the view of the RAMBAM in Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:4, who does not mention an
Onen who serves in the Beis ha'Mikdash in his list of those who are punished
with Malkus.) According to this, when the Gemara in Sanhedrin (83a) and
Zevachim (23b) says that an Arel, Onen, and Yoshev "are not punished with
Misah but rather are prohibited only by an Azharah," the reference to an
Azharah does not apply to Onen, and the inclusion of Onen in the statement
is Lav Davka. It is the Arel who is prohibited by an Azharah (see footnotes
#25 and #30), while the Onen is prohibited only with an Aseh.
(9) Sanhedrin 83a.
(10) From this verse we also learn that a Tevul Yom who performs the Avodah
transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh (Zevachim 17a).
(11) Sanhedrin 83a. This is derived from the fact that the verse (Vayikra
21:6) equates a Tevul Yom with a Tamei, and a Tamei is punished with Misah
(see footnote #27).
(12) The verse implies that until a Yoledes brings her Korban for atonement,
she is considered to be Tamei (Zevachim 19b).
(13) This is derived from the fact that the verse equates one who is
Mechusar Kipurim with a Tamei, who is prohibited from performing the Avodah
by a Lo Sa'aseh (see footnote #26). This is clearly implied by the Gemara
and Rashi (19b, DH Michlal). This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos
Sanhedrin 19:2; see following footnote).
(14) This is the ruling of the Beraisa in Sanhedrin 83a. The source for this
punishment can be found in the verse which equates a Mechusar Kipurim with a
Tamei, who is punished with Misah. This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM in
Hilchos Sanhedrin (19:2).
(However, the Rambam elsewhere (in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 4:4) exempts
Mechusar Kipurim from Misah, as the RA'AVAD there point out. The Ra'avad
alludes to the fact that the punishment of a Mechusar Kipurim depends on the
Machlokes Tana'im (see Zevachim 17b) whether a Mechusar Kipurim of Zav has
the status of a Zav himself. Accordingly, perhaps the Rambam in Hilchos
Bi'as Mikdash maintains that a Mechusar Kipurim is *not* considered like a
Zav. However, this contradicts the ruling of the Rambam himself in Hilchos
Sanhedrin, where he writes that the Mechusar Kipurim *is* Chayav Misah! For
this reason, the MAHARI KURKUS (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikash 9:11) and the RADBAZ
(Leshonos ha'Rambam #106) emend the text of the Rambam in Hilchos Sanhedrin
and omit the words "Mechusar Kipurim" from the Rambam's list of those who
are punished with Misah.)
(15) The same applies to a Kohen who serves with *extra* garments, "Meyutar
Begadim" (Zevachim 18a). However, there are some who understand from the
words of the Rambam (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Mitzvos Aseh #33) that one who serves
while wearing extra garments is not Chayav Misah.
(16) The Gemara explains that all of the verses are necessary; One is
necessary for the actual Isur and the fact that the Avodah is Mechulal, and
one verse is necessary to prohibit a Mechusar Begadim even from performing
an Avodah on which the Kaparah does not depend (such as bringing the fire to
the Mizbe'ach). The third verse is necessary to prohibit one who is
*Meyutar* Begadim from performing the Avodah.
(17) This is the implication of the Gemara (17b), which says that a Kohen
who performs Avodah while Mechusar Begadim is like a Zar who performs
Avodah, and thus the Lo Sa'aseh which prohibits a Zar from performing Avodah
(see above, footnote #4) also prohibits a Mechusar Begadim. This is also the
way the RAMBAM rules (in Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:2).
(When the Rambam in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 10:4, and in Sefer ha'Mitzvos
(ibid.) writes that it is a "Mitzvas Aseh" that a Kohen serve while wearing
the Bigdei Kehunah, he means that the Torah commands the Kohen to wear the
Bigdei Kehunah only with an Aseh and not with a Lo Sa'aseh. Nevertheless,
since a Kohen who is not wearing all of the Bigdei Kehunah is compared to a
Zar, he transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh of a Zar who performs Avodah as well.)
(18) Sanhedrin 83a. The Gemara there (83b) learns this from the fact that
the verse equates a Mechusar Begadim with a Zar. (Tosfos there, and Tosfos
in Zevachim 17b, DH Ein, and 23b, DH Eima, points out that even had the
verse not compared the Mechusar Kipurim to a Zar, the verse explicitly
states that he is Chayav Misah, in Shemos 28:43.)
(19) The Torah says "Chukah" with regard to a Mechusar Begadim (Shemos
29:8), and it says "Chukah" with regard to the Kohen's obligation to wash
his hands and feet (Shemos 30:21). We learn from this that just as a
Mechusar Begadim is Mechalel the Avodah, so, too, a Kohen who did not wash
his hands and feet.
(20) This is the way the Rambam rules (in Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:3, Hilchos
Bi'as ha'Mikdash 5:1, and Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Mitzvos Aseh #24).
(Even though we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah that "she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim
v'Raglayim" is Mechalel the Avodah like Mechusar Begadim, we do not learn an
*Azharah* from the Gezeirah Shavah, since there is no Azharah written
explicitly with regard to Mechusar Begadim; see above, footnote #17. When
the Rambam mentions (in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:10-11) "she'Lo Rachutz
Yadayim v'Raglayim" among those that are forbidden with an "Azharah," he
does not mean that it is literally prohibited with a Lo Sa'aseh. Rather, he
mentions it only tangentially along with the rest of the disqualified Avodos
in his list there ("Agav Gerara"), as the MINCHAS CHINUCH (end of Mitzvah
#106) writes. The MAHARI KURKUS (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:11) comes to a
(21) The verse says, "v'Rachatzu Aharon u'Vanav Mimenu... v'Lo Yamusu"
(22) Rashi, throughout the Gemara, explains "Arel" in this context to refer
to a man whose older brothers died as a result of Milah, and therefore he
was not allowed to receive a Milah. It cannot be referring to a person who
willfully chose not to have a Milah, because such a person is considered a
Mumar and is Pasul from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash aside from being an
Arel. See also Tosfos 22b, DH Arel.
(23) Even though a Navi is not permitted to create a new Halachah, this Isur
existed even before the times of Yechezkel; it was a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai, and Yechezkel merely recorded it explicitly in his Sefer (18b).
(24) The Gemara in Sanhedrin (83a) states clearly that an Arel is prohibited
with an Azharah. This is also the ruling of the Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin
19:4). Even though we find no Lav for this in the Torah, nevertheless we
learn from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that an Arel is considered like a Zar
(as the Rambam implies in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 6:8, and as the MAHARI
KURKUS writes there; see also the following footnote). However, Rashi in
Sanhedrin (84a, DH Lo Yavo) writes that an Arel is prohibited only with an
Azharah from *Divrei Kabalah*, and not from the Torah, and thus he does not
(25) Sanhedrin 83a. Even though we wrote above that an Arel is considered to
be like a Zar, nevertheless he is excluded from Misah because the two verses
which give a Chiyuv Misah to a Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim
v'Raglayim are "Shenei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad" which exclude everything
else from that Halachah. (We find a similar logic applied by the Gemara on
23b with regard to Yoshev, who is like a Zar only with regard to the Azharah
but not with regard to the Chiyuv Misah). (M. Kornfeld)
(26) The verse says, "v'Yinazru... v'Lo Yechalelu" (Vayikra 22:2), as
(27) Sanhedrin 83a. The Gemara there says that we learn this from a Gezeirah
Shavah from Terumah ("Chilul - Chilul"), which a Zar is Chayav Misah for
(28) We infer from here that a Kohen who is not standing when he performs
the Avodah is considered like a Zar and is Mechalel the Avodah (Gemara and
(29) As the Rambam writes (in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 5:17), "his Azharah
is implied by an Aseh." (When the Gemara on 23b, and in Sanhedrin 83a,
states that an Arel and Yoshev are prohibited from serving by an *Azharah*,
it is not teaching that there is a *Lav* per se for Yoshev, but rather it
mentions Yoshev only "Agav Gerara". Alternatively, it is saying that there
is an "Azharas *Aseh* for Yoshev." See Birkas ha'Zevach 23b, and see above,
However, there seems to be a difficulty here: What is the difference between
a Yoshev and a Mechusar Begadim? There is no explicit Lo Sa'aseh written
with regard to a Mechusar Begadim, and nevertheless a Mechusar Begadim
receives Malkus because the Torah equates him with a Zar (see above,
footnote #18). A Yoshev, too, is compared to a Zar, as the Gemara (23b)
says, and thus a Yoshev should be punished with Malkus like a Zar! It must
be that the Rambam maintains that since the Torah excludes a Yoshev from the
Chiyuv Misah of a Zar (see following footnote), it also excludes him from
the punishment of Malkus. The Torah is teaching that a Yoshev is compared to
a Zar only with regard to Chilul Avodah. (Perhaps this reasoning is the
subject of dispute between Rashi and Tosfos, see Tosfos 23b, DH Eima.)
(30) Zevachim 23b. He is excluded from Misah because the two verses which
give a Chiyuv Misah to a Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim
v'Raglayim are "Shenei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad" which exclude everything
else from the Chiyuv Misah (see Tosfos there, DH Eima).
(31) This is written with regard to a Chatzitzah between the Kohen's hand
and the Avodah, and we learn from there that it is also prohibited to have
any intervention between the Kohen's feet and the floor, as Rashi writes
(24a, DH Lo Yehei).
(32) This is obvious, since we do not find any explicit Lav. (However, it is
not clear how we learn from here that he is Mechalel the Avodah even
b'Di'eved. Apparently, an Avodah performed with a Chatzitzah is lacking the
entire essence of the Avodah, and is not merely lacking a detail of the
Avodah. Therefore, it is no different from a Kohen who does not perform
Kabalas ha'Dam at all, which obviously is Me'akev. (See SHITAH MEKUBETZES 4b
#10, and Insights there.) Rashi in Pesachim (65b) writes that an Avodah done
with a Chatzitzah is "not Derech Sherus" -- it is not done in the "proper
manner of service.") See below, footnote #35.
(33) According to the Rabanan (24b), performing the Avodah with the left
hand invalidates all of the Avodos which (a) require a Kohen and which (b)
are Me'akev the Kaparah. According to Rebbi Shimon, the only Avodos which
are invalidated when done with the left hand are the Haza'os of the Chatas
(for which the Torah requires "Etzba") and the Kemitzas ha'Minchah (which
the verse compares, with a Hekesh, to Chatas). According to Rebbi Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon, the only Avodah which is invalidated when done with the left
hand is Kabalas ha'Dam.
(34) We learn this from the word "Etzba" written with regard to a Metzora
(Vayikra 14:16), where the Torah says "Etzba ha'Yemanis," the right finger,
must be used. According to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Shimon (see
previous footnote), wherever the Torah says "Kohen" with regard to an
Avodah, it requires that the Avodah be performed with the right hand, as is
learned from Metzora.
(35) This is obvious, since we do not find any explicit Lav (as mentioned
above, in footnote #32). (The source that it is Mechalel the Avodah is
apparently the same as we explained above, footnote #32.)
(36) This refers to a visible Mum that will not heal. This Pesul is not
mentioned in the Mishnah here (15b) nor in Menachos (6a), even though it is
obvious, from many places, that a Ba'al Mum is Mechalel the Avodah. Tosfos
in both places (see there) asks about this.
(37) This is a Machlokes Tana'im in Sanhedrin (83a). The Rambam (Hilchos
Bi'as ha'Mikdash 6:2) rules like the Chachamim who exempt a Ba'al Mum from
(38) This, too, is not mentioned in the Mishnah. See above, footnote #36.
(Tosfos, as cited in the footnote above, writes that Peru'ei Rosh is also
not mentioned in our Mishnah. However, the Gemara in Ta'anis (17b) states
clearly that Kohanim who are Peru'ei Rosh who do the Avodah are *not*
Mechalel the Avodah, even though they are Chayav Misah. See the Acharonim
who discuss this at length.
(39) Zevachim 17b.
(40) Sanhedrin 83a. This is written explicitly in the verse (Vayikra ibid.).
For questions or sponsorship information, write to email@example.com