THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ZEVACHIM 24-25 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
1) THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF BLOOD FOR "KABALAS HA'DAM"
OPINIONS: The Beraisa states that when the Kohen performs the Avodah of
Kabalas ha'Dam, he must receive the blood directly from the animal. This is
derived from the verse, "v'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach mi'Dam ha'Par" --
"and the Kohen ha'Mashi'ach shall take from the blood of the animal"
(Vayikra 4:5), which must be read as "Dam me'ha'Par" -- "[the Kohen
ha'Mashi'ach shall take] the blood *from* the animal," and not from any
other surface onto which it might fall. It is necessary to read the words
"mi'Dam ha'Par" as "Dam me'ha'Par," because the words "mi'Dam ha'Par" imply
that the Kohen may take a portion of the blood and does not need to take all
of the blood, but the Halachah is, as Rav states, that he must take all of
the blood. Hence, the words "mi'Dam ha'Par" must mean that he is to take the
blood directly from the animal, "Dam me'ha'Par."
Rav's teaching -- that the Kohen must receive all of the blood during
Kabalas ha'Dam -- is derived from the verse, "v'Es Kol Damo Yishpoch" --
"and all of the blood he will pour" (Vayikra 4:18). The word "Kol" ("all")
is unnecessary, since the verse is discussing the pouring of the *remainder*
of the blood, *after* the Zerikah was performed. It must be that the word
"Kol" is referring to another stage in the Avodah which must be done with
all of the blood, and that must be the Kabalas ha'Dam.
The CHAFETZ CHAIM in LIKUTEI HALACHOS explains that the Halachah that one
must receive all of the blood of the animal when performing Kabalas ha'Dam
is only l'Chatchilah. If the Kohen received less than all of the blood, the
Korban is still valid b'Di'eved. This is apparent from the Gemara in
Menachos (7b), which explicitly discusses accepting a minimal amount of
blood during Kabalas ha'Dam. What is the minimum amount of blood required in
order for the Kabalas ha'Dam to be valid?
(a) RASHI in Menachos (7b, DH b'Dam Mai) and TOSFOS there (DH v'Im Isa)
imply that the minimum amount of blood necessary for Kabalas ha'Dam is the
amount which is supposed to be sprinkled during the Zerikah for that
particular Korban. The Gemara there asks whether or not the Kabalah is valid
when the minimum amount of blood of Parim ha'Nisrafim was received in two
different vessels. Rashi explains that three sprinkles of blood fell into
one vessel, and four fell into the other vessel. Tosfos also mentions that
the minimum amount of blood necessary for Kabalas ha'Dam is seven sprinkles
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 4:8) states that in order for
the Kabalah to be valid, the Kohen must receive only a single sprinkle of
blood in the vessel. He does not differentiate between the different types
This seems difficult to understand. If the Kohen receives only one sprinkle
for a Korban that needs more than one sprinkle of Zerikah, then the Korban
will be Pasul because the Zerikah was not done properly! The BIRKAS
HA'ZEVACH explains that the Rambam's ruling is relevant in a case in which
the Kohen received a single sprinkle of blood, performed Zerikah, and then
received another sprinkle of blood and performed Zerikah, and so on until he
completed a proper Zerikah.
The MISHNEH L'MELECH understands the Machlokes between Rashi (and Tosfos)
and the Rambam in the way we have explained. However, the Birkas ha'Zevach
learns that this does not properly represent the opinion of Rashi. Rashi
requires the amount of seven sprinkles only in a case of Parim ha'Nisrafim,
because all seven are necessary for the Korban to be valid even b'Di'eved.
With regard to other Korbanos -- which require multiple sprinkles but are
valid b'Di'eved even if only one is done -- Rashi would agree that the
minimum amount for Kabalah is the same as the minimum amount for Zerikah
(see Rashi in Zevachim 38b, DH Shirayim). According to the Birkas ha'Zevach,
the only argument between Rashi and the Rambam is in a case such as Parim
ha'Nisrafim in which the minimum amount of blood needed for Zerikah is more
than one sprinkle. (See KEREN ORAH to Menachos 7b for additional commentary
on the opinion of Rashi there.)
It is important to note that there are various texts in the Gemara in
Menachos, which support both opinions. One text in the Gemara says
specifically that the minimum amount is seven sprinklings, the amount of the
Korbanos discussed in that Gemara. The Mishneh l'Melech points out that the
Rambam had a different text which omits this number (see Mishneh l'Melech at
length for his explanation of the reasoning of the Rambam). (Y. Montrose)
QUESTION: Rebbi Zeira questioned an explanation of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, to
which Rebbi Chiya bar Aba exclaimed, "Tarda!" and refuted his question.
RASHI writes that the word "Tarda" means a "Shoteh Bahul," a baffled fool.
Rashi in Kerisus (18b) writes that another interpretation is "lazy one." The
ARUCH (Erech Tarir) has a different Girsa, according to which the word is
"Terura" and means a fool from whose mouth saliva ("Ror") constantly drips.
What does the Gemara mean when it says that Rebbi Chiya bar Aba referred to
Rebbi Zeira in such a way? Certainly the holy Amora'im would not insult each
other! How can we understand this remark?
(a) The CHAVOS YA'IR (#152) explains that it was customary that when a Torah
teacher noticed his student being lazy in his thinking, he would sometimes
call him a derogatory name as a form of rebuke in order to ensure that the
student would no longer be lazy in his thinking. We know that Rebbi was the
paragon of humility (see Sotah 49b), and, nevertheless, we find that Rebbi
responded to a question posed by his student, Levi, that "it seems to me
that he has no brain in his head." Rebbi said this because he saw that Levi
needed to be rebuked for not fulfilling his potential in Torah study.
Similarly, in our Gemara (and in other places where the term "Tarda" is
used), we find that the Amora who made this remark was talking to a younger
Amora. The younger Amora did not mind receiving this instruction from his
The Chavos Ya'ir adds in an earlier responsum (#65) that the word "Tarda" is
an example of an expression which people in general are not offended by.
(See Insights to Bava Kama 65a.)
The SEFER L'RE'ACHA KAMOCHA (vol. 3, Kuntras ha'Bi'urim ch. 6) adds that it
is common that when two good friends are learning together, they use an
interchange of words that would not be appropriate for strangers. We find
such an instance in Bava Metzia (83b), where the Gemara relates that Rebbi
Yehoshua ben Karcha sent a message to Rebbi Eliezer ben Shimon addressing
him as "Chametz ben Yayin" -- "vinegar, the son of wine." Rebbi Eliezer ben
Shimon was not offended. However, a common launderer said the same thing to
him, he deemed it inappropriate and considered it grounds for punishment.
(b) The Mashgi'ach of the Mirrer Yeshivah, RAV YERUCHAM LEVOVITZ zt'l,
writes in DA'AS CHOCHMAH U'MUSAR (2:10) that everything that the holy
Amora'im did, they did with the utmost purity and holiness. We, who do not
live on such a lofty level of holiness, would be insulting and degrading our
fellow man were we to call him by a derogatory name, and it indeed would be
a severe transgression, for we cannot be confident that no impure motive was
mixed with our words or actions. The holy Amora'im, on the other hand, spoke
only with absolute purity of intention. Hence, even words that might seem to
us to be words of derision were spoken - and understood -- by the Amora'im
with the "fire of Torah" burning in them, with only the purest intentions.
(c) The BEN YEHOYADA in Bava Metzia (20b) gives alternate explanations for
the word "Tarda." He explains that the word is actually made up of two other
words, "Tor" and "Da." "Tor" is an expression of alertness. The Gemara in
Megilah (18b) describes someone in a semi-sleeping state as "Tir v'Lo Tir"
("alert and not alert"). "Da" means "this" or "here." Thus, "Tarda" means
"be alert to this matter."
Alternatively, "Tor" means "carry," as in the expression "Tir Minach
Sha'atach," or "your time should carry you" (see Avodah Zarah 34b; ARUCH,
Erech Tor). Accordingly, "Tarda" means "carry this with you" and is not an
insulting remark. (Y. Montrose)