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 39
ZEVACHIM 36-40 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the
Dafyomi shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy
1) THE LAST THREE "MATANOS" OF A "CHATAS" (cont.)
(a) Question (Tosfos - against Rav Papa; Rashi - this
challenges Objection (d), it is Answer #1 for Rav Papa):
Indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside -
but one is also liable for offering Eimurim outside, we
cannot prove that he requires washing!
2) BLOOD OF INNER "CHATA'OS"
(b) Answer: Indeed, we can prove this!
1. (Beraisa #1): The following apply to blood that must
be put on the Yesod:
(c) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The law of Shirayim and
Eimurim is different (than blood that is Mechaper) -
since they are not Me'akev Kaparah, intent does not take
effect on them.
i. It must be washed, intent (Chutz) takes effect
on it, one is liable for it outside.
2. None of these apply to blood that is poured into the
3. Conclusion: The Beraisa must be R. Nechemyah, for he
is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, and it says that
Shirayim must be washed and intent takes effect on
(d) Answer (and rejection of Answer (b)): Beraisa #1 refers
to blood of the last three Matanos of a Chatas.
(Therefore, we have no source that R. Nechemyah obligates
(e) Objection: The last three Matanos are put on the Keranos,
the Beraisa (#1) says that they are put on the Yesod!
(f) Answer: It means, what remains of them is put on the
(g) Question (against Rav Papa): The Beraisa says that intent
takes effect on the three Matanos - but Rav Papa says
that they do not permit anything, intent does not
Mefagel, if the blood entered the Heichal it is not
(h) Answer: The Beraisa refers to the last three Matanos of
(i) Inference: One is exempt for offering the last three
Matanos of outer Chata'os outside the Mikdash, it need
not be washed.
(j) Question: If so, why did the Beraisa distinguish between
(blood put on) the Yesod and (blood poured into) the Amah
- it should have distinguished between inner and outer
(k) Answer: The Beraisa is R. Nechemyah, he is Mechayav for
1. He distinguished between the Yesod and the Amah, for
these differ in all three respects (washing, intent
and outside) - had he distinguished between Shirayim
of inner and outer Chata'os, they would not differ
in all three respects.
(l) Answer #2 (to Question 2:d (38B) - Ravina): The Mishnah
said 'If blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod'...-
this means, blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood
*Ra'uy for* the Yesod.
(m) Question (Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza): You should (be
consistent and) say that it refers to blood Ra'uy for the
Keren or for the Yesod!
(n) Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah would not need to teach both
of them - if blood Ra'uy for the Keren need not be
washed, all the more so blood Ra'uy for the Yesod!
(a) (Beraisa): "V'Asa (he will offer Par He'elam Davar)
ka'Asher Asa (like the Chatas of a Kohen Mashu'ach)" -
this is a second command to perform all the Matanos,
therefore, all are Me'akev, if one was omitted the Par
did not atone at all.
(b) Suggestion: Perhaps this only applies to the seven
Haza'os (on the Paroches), for seven Haza'os are always
Me'akev - what is the source that the four Matanos (on
the Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach) are Me'akev?
(c) Answer: "Ken Ya'aseh". (The Beraisa proceeds to expound
the entire verse.)
(d) "La'Par" refers to the Par of Yom Kipur (that atones for
the Kohanim); "Ka'Asher Asa *la'Par*" refers to the Par
Chatas of a Mashu'ach (for transgressing through his own
mistaken Hora'ah); "Ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah
Zarah (brought if most of Yisrael transgressed idolatry
through a mistaken Hora'ah of the Great Sanhedrin).
1. Suggestion: The Musaf of festivals and Rosh Chodesh
includes a Sa'ir Chatas - perhaps it is also
included (in this verse, and it is offered like an
(e) "V'Chiper" - even if the Zekenim did not do Semichah on
2. Rejection: "Lo" (it, Se'ir Avodah Zarah, not other
3. Question: ("Ha'Chatas" and "Lo" do not connote one
Sa'ir more than the other) - why do we include Se'ir
Avodah Zarah and exclude Se'irim of the festivals?
4. Answer: It is more reasonable to include the former,
for they atone for a known Aveirah (like Par He'elam
Davar), whereas Se'irim of the festivals atone for
Aveiros (of Tum'ah) which no one ever knew about.
(f) "V'Nislach" - even if the Shirayim were not put on the
(g) Question: (The verse did not specify which Avodos are
Me'akev and which are not) - why do we say that Matanos
are Me'akev, and Semichah and Shirayim are not?
(h) Answer: Wherever the Torah requires Haza'ah it is
Me'akev, Semichah and Shirayim are (usually) not Me'akev.