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 115 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
1) THE RULING OF RAV CHILKIYAH
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when a Metzora who is "Mechusar Zeman"
slaughters his Korban Asham (see RASHI, DH Rav Chilkiyah, and see previous
Insight) outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, he is not Chayav for transgressing
the prohibition of Shechutei Chutz. Rav Chilkiyah bar Tovi (114b) says that
the exemption of a Mechusar Zeman from the prohibition of Shechutei Chutz
applies only when he offers his Korban with proper intention (Lishmah). If,
however, he offers his Korban outside the Beis ha'Mikdash with intention
that it should be a different Korban (she'Lo Lishmah), then he does
transgress the prohibition. Rav Huna challenges Rav Chilkiyah's statement,
and he asserts that a Mechusar Zeman who slaughters a Korban with improper
intention outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is *not* Chayav. Rav Huna argues
that we do not find Korbanos that are Pasul when offered Lishmah, but are
valid when offered she'Lo Lishmah. The Gemara here (115a) discusses the
argument but comes to no clear conclusion.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 18:10) rules that when one
slaughters the Asham of a Metzora outside the Beis ha'Mikdash with intent
that it is a different Korban, he is Chayav, since the Korban would be valid
if offered inside the Beis ha'Mikdash. Does the Rambam learn that this is
the conclusion of our Gemara?
(a) The KESEF MISHNEH writes that the Rambam's ruling comes directly from
the statement of Rav Chilkiyah.
The KEREN ORAH is uncertain that this is the Rambam's source. First, the
Rambam omits the most important fact in the case of our Gemara -- that the
Metzora's Korban is brought when the Metzora cannot bring his Asham since he
is a Mechusar Zeman. Second, there is no indication at all in the words of
the Rambam that a Korban brought by a Metzora when he is Mechusar Zeman is
valid. The Rambam elsewhere (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 15:20) rules that
an ordinary Asham Metzora that is offered she'Lo Lishmah does not fulfill
the owner's obligation, but it is a valid Korban and may be eaten. It is
possible that the Rambam would hold that if we add the factor of Mechusar
Zeman to the case, then the Korban Asham of the Metzora indeed would be
Pasul, making it not subject to the Isur of Shechutei Chutz. This question
is also asked by the SEFAS EMES in Temurah (19b).
(b) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 18:10) concludes that the
Rambam's ruling is clearly *not* following the view of Rav Chilkiyah. Among
other proofs, he cites the omission of Mechusar Zeman (as the Keren Orah and
Sefas Emes also point out). He says that the Rambam purposely left out any
mention of Mechusar Zeman, because he held that the Halachah might follow
the view of Rav Huna, who rules that a Korban cannot be more valid when it
is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah than when it is slaughtered Lishmah.
The CHAZON ISH (Likutim 5) writes additional proofs that the Rambam does not
rule like Rav Chilkiyah. One of these proofs is that in the preceding
Halachah (18:9), the Rambam rules that a Chatas or Asham of a Metzora that
is slaughtered outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is not subject to the Isur of
Shechutei Chutz, and the Rambam makes no mention of Rav Chilkiyah's
qualifying statement that this is true only when the Korban is slaughtered
Lishmah. If the Rambam rules like Rav Chilkiyah, then he certainly should
have mentioned this condition. The Chazon Ish concludes that the Kesef
Mishneh is "Tzarich Iyun." (Y. Montrose)
2) THE KORBANOS OFFERED BY THE "NA'AREI BENEI YISRAEL"
OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that Rav Chisda was once reading the verse,
"va'Yishlach Es Na'arei Benei Yisrael" -- "and he sent young men of the
people of Yisrael" (Shemos 24:5). Rav Huna interrupted him and told him that
Rav Asi had said, "And [then] they stopped." RASHI (DH Amar Lei) says that
Rav Asi was referring to the fact that the Bechorim, the firstborn sons,
stopped doing the Avodah of the Korbanos, and the responsibility of the
Avodah was transferred to the Kohanim. Rashi presents another explanation
(DH Hachi Amar) that says that Rav Asi said, "And stop," meaning that the
verse should be read with a pause before the next words, "va'Ya'alu Olos" --
"and they offered Olos." If one were to read the verse continuously, without
pausing, then the verse would sound like it was saying that the Bechorim
were the ones who offered the Korbanos, when it was actually the Kohanim who
brought the Korbanos. According to this explanation, Rav Asi told Rav Chisda
that to read the sentence correctly, he should stop at the word "Yisrael,"
pause, and then continue with the words "va'Ya'alu Olos," which would then
imply that the Kohanim (and not the Bechorim) offered the Korbanos.
When did this incident take place, before or after Matan Torah?
(a) RASHI (DH Olah she'Hikrivu) says that these Korbanos were brought before
Matan Torah. Rashi on the verse (Shemos 24:4, DH va'Yashkem ba'Boker) says,
more specifically, that this occurred on the fifth of Sivan. This seems odd,
however. The Torah never explicitly mentions any transfer of responsibility
from the Bechorim to the Kohanim before Matan Torah. According to Rashi's
understanding of the Gemara (especially according to this first explanation,
in DH Amar Lei), this Parshah implies that the transfer occurred even before
(b) The RAMBAN (Shemos 24:3) writes that these Korbanos were brought only
after Matan Torah.
The wording of the Gemara seems to be more consistent with the explanation
of Rashi. The Gemara later quotes a Beraisa that cites two opinions
regarding the meaning of the verse "v'Gam ha'Kohanim ha'Nigashim El Hashem
Yiskadashu" -- "and also the Kohanim who approach Hashem shall separate
themselves" (Shemos 19:22). This verse is discussing the preparation for
Matan Torah. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah maintains that this refers to the
separation of the Bechorim. Rebbi maintains that it refers to the separation
of Nadav and Avihu. According to Rashi, we can understand the verse
according to Rebbi; Rebbi is referring to the fact that Nadav and Avihu
already served in the capacity of Kohanim and brought Korbanos before Matan
Torah, and therefore they should prepare themselves further for Matan Torah.
This is why the verse addresses them as "Kohanim." However, according to the
Ramban, who says that the incident of bringing Korbanos did not take place
yet, we do not find that any Kohanim ever performed an Avodah such that this
verse should call them "Kohanim!" According to the Ramban, how can Rebbi say
that the verse is referring to Nadav and Avihu as Kohanim? (See also CHAZON
ISH, Bava Kama 41:11.)
The HA'EMEK DAVAR has additional difficulty with the Ramban's opinion. The
Gemara in Shabbos (88a) says that the Mizbe'ach that was used for these
Korbanos was built on the fifth of Sivan, before Matan Torah, as Rashi says.
This implies that the Korbanos were brought then as well.
The YAD BINYAMIN concludes that according to the Ramban there is an argument
about whether or not these Korbanos were brought before or after Matan
Torah. According to the Rambam, only Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah holds like
the opinion stated by the Ramban, that this Mizbe'ach was built after Matan
Torah. The Ramban himself mentions (in Shemos 24:1) that there is an
argument in the Mechilta about when this took place. The Ramban maintains
that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's opinion is the correct one, and therefore
he uses it in his commentary on Chumash. (Y. Montrose)