(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 16

PESACHIM 16 - has been dedicated by Mr. Eli Rosengarten in memory of his parents, Sarah bas Menashe and Avrohom Dovid bas Rav Chaim Yitzchak Ozer.


QUESTION: The Gemara says that when the Kohen Gadol wears the Tzitz upon his forehead, it is Meratzeh (appeases) for a certain Pesul that would normally invalidate a Korban from being offered; as long as the Kohen Gadol is wearing the Tzitz, that Pesul does not invalidate the Korban.

The Beraisa asks what is that Pesul for which the Tzitz serves to compensate. It cannot be the Pesul of thinking about eating or offering the Korban in an improper time or improper place ("Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo"), because the Torah says that a Korban is *never* accepted with such a Pesul and even the Tzitz cannot permit it. The Beraisa explains that it must be that that Tzitz is Meratzeh for a Korban that becomes Pasul by becoming Tamei. The Beraisa adds that the Tzitz should be able to be Meratzeh for a Korban which is Tamei because there are other cases in which a Korban Tamei is acceptable; that is, "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur" -- in a public Korban, the Pesul of Tum'ah does not invalidate the Korban.

Why does the Beraisa find it necessary to give an additional *reason*, or proof, for why the Tzitz compensates for the Pesul of Tum'ah? The Beraisa here (and in more detail, the Gemara in Menachos 25b) already has proven by the process of elimination that it can be learned from the *verse* that the Tzitz compensates for the Pesul of Tum'ah. Why, then, is it necessary to further prove that Tum'ah can be compensated for by citing the law of "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur?"

ANSWER: RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos here and in Yoma 7a) says that the verse itself that teaches that the Tzitz is Meratzeh says that through the Tzitz, the Pesul will come "le'Ratzon Lifnei Hashem," acceptable unto Hashem. Apparently, those words imply that the Korban will become acceptable to Hashem *just like elsewhere* the same Pesul can become acceptable. Therefore, the Pesul for which the Tzitz is Meratzeh must be one which is "Hutrah mi'Klalo," that is, it does not disqualify the Korban under certain circumstances even *without* the Tzitz. For that reason, the Beraisa adds that the Pesul of Tum'ah is indeed permitted elsewhere ("Hutrah b'Tzibur"), in order to show that it fits the description of the verse.

QUESTION: However, if that is true, then why did the Gemara even consider that the Pesul was "Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo?" Those Pesulim are *never* permitted under any cicumstances!


(a) TOSFOS (DH Ha) says that it may be said that there *is* a situation in which the Pesul of "Chutz li'Mekomo" does not apply -- in the case of a "Bamah." At a time when it is permitted to build a private Mizbe'ach and offer Korbanos upon it, there is no limit to where the Korban must be eaten. That allowance, then, is an exception to the Pesul of "Chutz li'Mekomo" and it is indeed "Hutrah mi'Kelalo." Even though there is no exception to the Pesul of "Chutz li'Zemano," the Beraisa mentioned it merely because it is always mentioned as partner with "Chutz li'Mekomo."

(b) TOSFOS suugests another answer. Perhaps it may be said that "Chutz li'Zemano" and "Chutz li'Mekomo" also have exceptions, since they do not apply to the Minchas Kohanim, (the Minchah brought by a Kohen) and Minchas Nesachim (the Minchah offered with the Korban Tamid) offerings. Those offerings are entirely burned upon the Mizbe'ach, and they have no Pesul of "Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo."

(c) The SEFAS EMES (Yoma 7a) answers that there is no Pesul of "Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo" for Korbanos offered by gentiles, and that is why they are considered to be "Hutrah mi'Klalo." (Note, however, that this point is argued by Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yosi in Temurah 2b.)

(d) RABEINU PERETZ here answers as follows. We know that a Korban Chatas may be eaten only within the confines of the Azarah, and only for one day. A Korban Shelamim, though, may be eaten throughout all of Yerushalayim, and may be eaten for two days. Therefore, although a Korban Chatas is invalidated if one thinks to it outside of its proper time (after the first day) and proper place (the Azarah), such thoughts are "Hutrah mi'Kelalo" and permitted for a Shelamim!

(e) TOSFOS in Yoma (7a) says that indeed, Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo are not "Hutrah mi'Klalo;" there are no exceptions where they are permitted. Nevertheless, the Gemara thought that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for them even though they are not "Hutrah mi'Kelalo" because of a Gezeirah Shaveh. The word "Avon" is used with regard to the Tzitz, and also with regard to Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,