POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
ZEVACHIM 2-4 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) "KORBANOS" THAT WERE OFFERED "SHE'LO LISHMAN"
(a) (Mishnah): Any Zevach (animal Korban) that was
slaughtered Lo Lishmah (to be a different Korban, e.g. an
Olah was slaughtered to be a Shelamim; Tosfos - or with
intention Lizrok (to throw on the Altar) the blood of
Reuven's Zevach for Shimon) is Kosher, but the owner did
not fulfill his obligation;
1. The only exceptions are Pesach or Chatas - a Pesach
(Lo Lishmah) is Pasul (disqualified) if slaughtered
at the proper time to slaughter the Pesach (on Erev
Pesach), a Chatas (Lo Lishmah) is always Pasul;
(b) R. Eliezer says, also Asham is Pasul if slaughtered Lo
1. Pesach is Pasul (Lo Lishmah) at its proper time,
Chatas and Asham at any time.
(c) Yosi ben Choni says, any Zevach that was slaughtered
l'Shem (to be a) Pesach or Chatas is Pasul;
2. Asham (usually) comes to atone for transgression,
just like Chatas; just as Chatas is Pasul Lo
Lishmah, also Asham.
(d) Shimon Achi Azaryah says, any Zevach that was slaughtered
l'Shem a Korban of higher Kedushah is Kosher, a Zevach
slaughtered l'Shem a Korban of lower Kedushah is Pasul:
1. For example, if Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered
l'Shem Kodshim Kalim, they are Pasul; if Kodshim
Kalim were slaughtered l'Shem Kodshei Kodoshim, they
(e) (Gemara) Question: Why did the Tana say *but* the owner
did not fulfill his obligation? (He could have omitted
2. If a Bechor or Ma'aser was slaughtered l'Shem
Shelamim, it is Kosher; if a Shelamim was
slaughtered l'Shem Bechor or Ma'aser, it is Pasul.
(f) Answer: He teaches that even though the owner did not
fulfill his obligation, the Zevach is still Kodesh, it is
forbidden to do another Avodah (Kabalah (receiving the
blood), Holachah (bringing it to the Altar) or Zerikah)
1. (Rava): If an Olah was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is
forbidden to throw the blood Lo Lishmah.
2. We can learn from reasoning or a verse.
i. Reasoning - because it was (improperly)
slaughtered Lo Lishmah, should we do another
Avodah Lo Lishmah?!
ii. A verse - "...V'Asisa Ka'asher
iii. Question: Why does the Torah call a Neder (a
vow to bring a Korban with Acharayos (if the
animal becomes lost, stolen or blemished, he
must bring another)) 'Nedavah' (a Korban
2) SLAUGHTER WITHOUT SPECIFYING AN INTENT
iv. Answer: If you did as you Nadar (vowed, i.e.
the Zevach was offered Lishmah), it is a Neder
(you fulfilled your obligation); if not, it is
a Nedavah (you did not fulfill your vow).
v. The Torah calls a Zevach slaughtered Lo Lishmah
a Nedavah - a Nedavah may not be offered Lo
(a) Ravina: Rava asked contradictions, and answered them:
3) A "GET" WITHOUT A SPECIFIED INTENT
(b) (Rava): Our Mishnah teaches, any Zevach slaughtered Lo
Lishmah is Kosher, but the owner did not fulfill his
1. Inference: If it was slaughtered Stam (without
specifying), he fulfilled his obligation - this
teaches that Stam is like Lishmah.
(c) Answer (Rava): We expect Zevachim to be offered Lishmah
(so if it was slaughtered Stam, we consider this
2. Contradiction (Mishnah): A Get written Lo Lishmah
(i.e. it was written for Leah and given to Rachel)
3. A Get written Stam (without intention for any
particular woman) is also Pasul (we will explain the
source of this law later), i.e. it is like Lo
1. There is no reason why a particular woman should be
divorced (in any case, with a Get not written
Pratally for her), therefore it is Lo Lishmah.
(d) Question: What is the Rava's source that we expect
Zevachim to be offered Lishmah?
1. Suggestion: Our Mishnah teaches, any Zevach
slaughtered Lo Lishmah (i.e. with improper
intention)... - it did not say, it was not
slaughtered Lishmah (i.e. Stam, because then he
fulfills his obligation)!
(e) Answer #1 (Mishnah): What is the case of intention
Lishmah followed by Lo Lishmah (Rashi - during slaughter;
Tosfos - in different Avodos), which is Pasul? (Regarding
a Pesach), first he intended for Pesach, then for
2. Rejection: Also regarding Get, the Mishnah says 'A
Get written Lo Lishmah...', it does not say 'A Get
not written for a woman!
1. Inference: Had he first intended for Pesach, and
then Stam, it would be Kosher - this says that Stam
is like Lishmah!
(f) Rejection: Perhaps Stam is not (normally) like Lishmah;
here it is Kosher, because we assume that he finished the
Avodah with the same intention he started with.
(g) Answer #2 (end of that Mishnah): Lo Lishmah followed by
Lishmah (which is Pasul): first he intended for Shelamim,
then for Pesach.
1. Inference: Had he started Stam, and then intended
for Pesach, it would be Kosher - this says that Stam
is like Lishmah!
(h) Rejection #1: Stam is not like Lishmah; here it is
Kosher, because his final intention reveals what his
initial intention was.
(i) Rejection #2: The inference is wrong, had he started
Stam, and then intended for Pesach, it is also Pasul;
1. This clause was only taught for parallel structure
to the first clause.
(j) Answer #3 (Mishnah): There are six intentions in offering
a Zevach - which Korban it is (e.g. Olah), for whom it
atones, it is offered to Hash-m, the Chelev (if an Olah,
also the limbs) will be burned (and consumed, not just
roasted) on the Altar, it should be a pleasant aroma (the
meat should not be roasted before it is put on the
Altar), it should be pleasing to Hash-m;
1. Additionally, a Chatas or Asham is offered for a
2. R. Yosi says, even if it was offered without any of
these intentions, it is Kosher; Beis Din enacted to
offer Zevachim Stam, in order that it not be offered
3. We cannot say that Stam (Tosfos - without verbal or
mental intention) is Pasul - Beis Din would not make
an enactment that will Posel Zevachim (Tosfos - they
would not enact to offer it silently, lest one
forget to have mental intention)!
(a) Question: What is the Rava's source that a Get written
Stam is Pasul?
1. Suggestion (Mishnah): Reuven overheard a scribe
reciting the text of a Get (as he wrote it), the
names corresponded to him and his wife - he cannot
divorce his wife with it.
2. Rejection: Perhaps the case is as Rav Papa
i. (Rav Papa): The case is, the scribe was writing
it to practice, he did not intend that it
should be used to divorce.