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
Previous daf Zevachim 5
ZEVACHIM 5 - l'Iluy Nishmas Dina bas Reb Menachem Arye Bodner, dedicated in
loving memory by her son and daughter in law, Naftoli (Tuli) and Alice
Bodner of Queens, NY.
1) THE "KORBAN" IS VALID, BUT IT DOES NOT ATONE
(a) Question (Reish Lakish): Either way you say, this is
1. If a Korban offered Lo Lishmah is Kosher, it should
atone (the owner should fulfill his obligation);
(b) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): Korbanos are brought after the
owner died, and they are Kosher, even though they do not
2. If it does not atone, the Korban should be Pasul!
1. (Mishnah): If a woman (who gave birth) brought her
Chatas and died (before bringing her Olah), her
heirs bring her Olah;
(c) Rejection (Reish Lakish): I agree regarding an Olah,
since it is brought after death;
2. If she brought her Olah and died, her heirs do not
bring her Chatas.
1. An Asham is not brought after death - since it does
not atone (Lo Lishmah), it should be Pasul!
(d) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): "Motza
2. R. Elazar: Indeed, R. Eliezer in our Mishnah holds
like you, he disqualifies an Asham Lo Lishmah!
3. Reish Lakish: I ask why Chachamim say that it is
Kosher, do not answer me from R. Eliezer!
1. Question: Why does the Torah call a Neder 'Nedavah'?
(e) Question (R. Zeira and R. Yitzchak bar Aba): Reish Lakish
was bothered, because an Asham is not brought after
death; he learned from "Motza Sefasecha..." that (Lo
Lishmah) it is Kosher, it does not atone;
2. Answer: If you did as you vowed, it is a Neder; if
not, it is a Nedavah (it is Kosher, but you did not
fulfill your vow).
1. He should learn from the verse only Korbanos on
account of vows (which the verse discusses), Asham
(Lo Lishmah) should be totally Pasul!
(f) Answer (Abaye): Really, Reish Lakish learned that it is
Kosher from "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - only a Chatas is
Pasul if slaughtered Lo Lishmah, other Korbanos are
1. One might have thought, the Asham atones - he
learned from "Motza Sefasecha..." that it does not.
(g) Question: "Motza Sefasecha" discusses Korbanos brought
for vows - it should only teach that such Korbanos (Lo
Lishmah) are Kosher but do not atone, but an Asham is
Kosher and atones!
(h) Answer #1 (Abaye): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that Asham
does not atone:
1. An Olah (even Lishmah) is not brought for atonement
(it is merely a gift), if offered Lo Lishmah one did
not fulfill his obligation;
2. An Asham (Lishmah) atones for a transgression, all
the more so (if Lo Lishmah) one did not fulfill his
3. Question: We cannot learn from Olah, because it is
4. Answer: We learn from Shelamim - it is not brought
for atonement, if offered Lo Lishmah one did not
fulfill his obligation.
5. Question: We cannot learn from Shelamim, because it
requires Nesachim and Tenufah of the chest and
6. Answer: We learn from Olah that these are not
7. Conclusion: Each has its own stringencies; the Tzad
ha'Shavah (common side) of them is that they are
Kodshim, and if offered Lo Lishmah they are Kosher,
one did not fulfill his obligation - we learn the
same about Asham.
8. Objection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah,
because Olah and Shelamim are both brought for
Korbanos Tzibur, but Asham is not!
9. Answer: We learn from Todah that this is not an
2) THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN REISH LAKISH AND REBBI ELAZAR
10. Question: We cannot learn from Todah, because bread
must be brought with it!
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): "Zos ha'Torah...vela'Asham...ul'Zevach
ha'Shelamim" equates Asham to Shelamim - if offered Lo
Lishmah it is Kosher, one did not fulfill his obligation.
11. Answer: We learn from Olah and Shelamim that this is
not an essential criteria;
i. We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of all three -
they are Kodshim, and if offered Lo Lishmah
they are Kosher, one did not fulfill his
obligation - we learn the same about Asham.
12. Objection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah,
because all of them are brought for vows, but Asham
(j) Question: Why equate it to Shelamim, and not to Chatas
(which is also in the verse) to teach that if offered Lo
Lishmah it is Pasul?
(k) Answer: "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - only a Chatas is
Pasul if slaughtered Lo Lishmah, other Korbanos are
(a) Question (Rav Huna and Rav Nachman): Reish Lakish asked
about Asham because it is not brought after the owner
died - R. Elazar should have said that it is!
3) DO HEIRS ACQUIRE A "KORBAN"?
1. Version #1 (our text) Objection (Rav Sheshes): You
refer to Mosar Asham (if the owner died, it grazes
until it becomes blemished, we redeem it, the money
is used to buy Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olah offerings of
the Tzibur to bring when the Mizbeach is idle);
(b) Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer (Rav Sheshes): You refer to
i. There is also a case of Mosar Chatas (if two
animals were separated for Acharayos (in case
one will become Pasul, the other will be the
Chatas)), if the first animal was offered
properly, the other can be offered after death!
2. Answer: "(Chatas) Hu" - a Chatas Lo Lishmah is
Pasul, even though Chatas is sometimes brought after
the owner died;
ii. (Just as Chatas (Lo Lishmah) is Pasul, even
though it is sometimes brought after the owner
died, also Asham!)
i. (We have no such verse regarding Asham.)
3. Question: Also regarding Asham it says "(Asham) Hu"!
1. There is also a case of Mosar Chatas, if the first
animal was offered properly, the other can be
offered after death;
(c) Question: Regarding Asham it says "(Asham) Hu" - what
does it teach (if not that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul)?
(End of Version #2)
2. "(Chatas) Hu" - only Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, and
even though Chatas is sometimes brought after death.
(d) Answer: That is said after burning the Eimurim (Chelev)
on the Mizbeach;
1. A Korban is not Pasul if the Eimurim are burned Lo
Lishmah - even if they are not burned at all, the
Korban is Kosher!
(e) Question: What does "Hu" teach?
(f) Answer: It teaches Rav Huna's law.
1. (Rav Huna): If an Asham (which cannot be offered,
e.g. the owner offered a different animal for his
Asham) was Nitak (given to a shepherd) to graze
(until it becomes blemished, and to buy Olos Kitz
ha'Mizbe'ach with its redemption money) and
slaughtered Stam (without special intention), it is
(an Olah, it is) Kosher.
(g) Question (Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes): R. Elazar said
that Korbanos brought after death do not atone - Reish
Lakish should have said, they do!
2. Inference: Before Nituk, it may not be slaughtered!
(R. Tam deletes this from the text.)
3. Question: What is the reason?
4. Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: "Hu" - it is in its
original status (an Asham (until Nituk), an Asham
that is not needed is Pasul).
5. Version #2 (Tosfos): Answer: "Hu" - (mid'Oraisa) it
is in its original status (Asham, until the owner
offers a different Asham in its stead; Chachamim
enacted not to slaughter it before Nituk, lest one
slaughter it before a different Asham was offered).
6. Version #3 (R. Tam): Answer: "Hu" - it is
(immediately) in its (ultimate) status (an Olah,
mid'Oraisa; mid'Rabanan, we do not offer it itself,
rather it grazes...).
1. Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah): They do not atone -
if a woman gave birth and died before bringing her
Olah, the heirs bring it, it does not fulfill an
obligation of theirs!
2. Answer (Rav Ashi): An Olah (even if brought on
account of a birth) atones for Bitul Ase (failure to
fulfill a Mitzvas Ase) - just as it would have
atoned for her, it atones for her heirs when they
3. Inference: This implies that the heirs acquire the
Korban regarding atonement.
(a) Question: But R. Yochanan taught, if two brothers
inherited a Minchah, they offer it, it is not considered
a Minchah of partners;
1. If heirs acquire a Korban regarding atonement, they
are partners in it - but it says "Nefesh" (a person
must bring a Minchah by himself)!
2. Counter-question: Can we say that heirs do not
acquire a Korban regarding atonement?!
i. But R. Yochanan taught, if two brothers
inherited an animal Korban, they offer it,
neither can make Temurah (if he tries to
transfer the Kedushah to a Chulin animal, it
3. Answer: "V'Im Hamer Yamir" - the double language
teaches that an heir can make Temurah, the singular
conjugation teaches that two heirs cannot.
ii. We understand this if heirs acquire the Korban
regarding atonement, it is like a jointly owned
Korban, therefore they cannot make Temurah;
iii. But if they do not acquire it, Temurah should
apply to it!