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 41
ZEVACHIM 41-43 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
1) WHAT WE LEARN FROM "PAR HE'ELEM DAVAR"
(a) Question: We only know the law of Se'ir Avodah Zarah from
a Hekesh (39B - "Ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah Zarah)
- can this then teach another law through a Kal
(b) Answer (Rav Papa): Indeed, R. Yishmael holds that
something learned from a Hekesh can teach something else
through a Kal va'Chomer.
(c) (Beraisa): "La'Par" - this is Par He'elem Davar.
(d) Question: The verse discusses Par He'elem Davar! (An
extra word should be used to expound something else!)
(e) Answer (Rav Papa): We need to learn that Yoseres ha'Kaved
(flesh that separates the liver from the lungs) and both
kidneys are offered (with the Chelev) in Se'ir Avodah
Zarah from Par He'elem Davar;
1. We learned this regarding Par He'elem Davar from a
Hekesh to Par Mashu'ach, it should not be able to
teach through another Hekesh;
(f) Support (for Rav Papa - Beraisa) Question: "V'Asa
*la'Par* ka'Asher Asa" - what do we learn from this?
2. Therefore, it says "La'Par", it is as if Yoseres
ha'Kaved and both kidneys are written regarding Par
He'elem Davar itself.
1. Answer: It says "V'Hem Hevi'u...*v'Chatasam*" - this
teaches (that we offer the Eimurim of) Se'ir Avodah
(g) (Beraisa): "V'Chatasam" teaches (that we offer the
Eimurim of) Se'ir Avodah Zarah.
2. "Shigegasam" - this refers to Par He'elem Davar;
3. "Chatasam...Al Shigegasam" - this teaches that the
law of Chatasam (Se'ir Avodah Zarah) is like
Shigegasam (Par He'elem Davar).
4. Question: We learned Par He'elem Davar from a Hekesh
to Par Mashu'ach, how can it teach through another
5. Answer "La'Par" - this is Par He'elem Davar, it is
like 'la'Par" - the Par of a Mashu'ach (it is as if
the Eimurim were written regarding Par He'elem Davar
(h) Question: Why don't we learn like above (39B) -
"Ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah Zarah?
(i) Answer (Rav Papa): If that was the only source, we would
only learn the Haza'os, for they are written regarding
Par He'elem Davar, we would not learn Yoseres ha'Kaved
and the kidneys, for they are learned from a Hekesh to
2) "PIGUL" DURING PART OF THE "MATIRIM"
1. "V'Chatasam" teaches the Eimurim of Se'ir Avodah
(j) Question (against Rav Papa - Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson):
The Tana learns everything about Par Yom Kipur from the
Hekesh - why do you say that he only learns Es, ba'Dam
(k) Answer (Rav Papa): Tana'im argue about what we learn from
the Hekesh - I discussed Tana d'vei Rav (a Beraisa in
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael) Question: Why
does the Torah explicitly mention Yoseres ha'Kaved
and the kidneys regarding Par Mashu'ach, but not
regarding Par He'elem Davar?
2. Answer: A parable explains this - a king was angry
at his close friend, because of his love he
minimized (the record of) his friend's wrongdoing,
(Rashi - the congregation of Yisrael sinned, Hash-m
discusses the Korban briefly; Maharsha - the Kohen
Gadol sinned, Hash-m describes the beauty of the
3. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael) Question:
Regarding Par Mashu'ach it says "Paroches ha'Kodesh"
regarding Par He'elem Davar it is called only
"Paroches" - why is this?
4. Answer: A parable explains this - a province
rebelled against the king:
i. If the minority rebelled, his cabinet of
confidants is intact;
ii. If the majority rebelled, he does not retain
his closeness with his confidants.
(a) (Our Mishnah): (Only one Matanah of an outer Korban is
Me'akev (according to Beis Hillel, and also Beis Shamai
regarding Korbanos other than Chatas -) therefore, if
Zerikah was done properly...
(b) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If a Kohen was Mefagel in the Kometz
(of a Minchah) but not the frankincense, or vice-versa,
the Minchah is Pigul, one who eats or offers it is Chayav
(c) Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in
all the Matirim (things that permit it - in this case,
the Kometz *and* frankincense).
(d) (Reish Lakish): R. Meir does not say that intent to
Mefagel in one of the Matirim makes Pigul - he agrees, he
must Mefagel in all the Matirim;
1. The case is, the Kohen verbalized his intent (Chutz
li'Zmano) in the Kometz, then offered the
(e) Question: What is Reish Lakish's source to say this?
2. R. Meir says that we assume that (unless he
specifies otherwise), all Avodos he does are
according to his initial intention.
(f) Answer: He derives this from our Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): ...Therefore, if all the Zerikos were
done k'Tiknan (as is required) and one was done Lo
k'Tiknan, it is Pasul, there is no Kares;
(g) Rejection #1 (and Answer #2 to Question 3 - Rav Shmuel
bar Yitzchak): Really, the Mishnah is Chachamim;
2. Inference: If the first Zerikah was done Lo k'Tiknan
and the rest were done k'Tiknan, it is Pigul.
3. Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
i. It cannot be Chachamim - they say that Kares
does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the
4. Answer #1: The Mishnah must be R. Meir.
5. Suggestion: If R. Meir held that intent to Mefagel
in one of the Matirim makes Pigul, he would Mechayev
Kares also in the case of the Mishnah (when the last
Avodah was Lo k'Tiknan)!
6. Conclusion: R. Meir must say that all Avodos are
done according to the initial intention.
1. K'Tiknan means, in the way required to make Pigul,
i.e. with intention Chutz li'Zmano.
(h) Objection (Mishnah): ...Therefore, if all the Zerikos
were done k'Tiknan and one was done Lo k'Tiknan, it is
Pasul, there is no Kares;
1. Inference: If all were done k'Tiknan, the Korban is
Kosher (i.e. k'Tiknan means with proper intent)!
(i) Rejection #2A (of the source for Reish Lakish - Rava):
(The Mishnah is Chachamim; K'Tiknan means, with intent
Chutz li'Zmano;) Lo k'Tiknan means, with intent Chutz
li'Mkomo, for this prevents the Korban from becoming
Pigul, i.e. with intention Chutz li'Zmano;
1. Rejection #2B (Rav Ashi): Rava could also explain Lo
k'Tiknan to mean Lo Lishmah, for this is Posel a
Chatas and prevents it from becoming Pigul.
(j) Question (against Rava and Rav Ashi): Above (f:2), we
derived from the Mishnah that if the first Matanah was
(with intent) Chutz li'Zmano and the rest were proper,
there is Kares - this is like R. Meir according to Reish
(k) Answer: No, there is no Kares;
1. The Mishnah teaches, (even) if all the Zerikos were
done k'Tiknan and one was done Lo k'Tiknan, it is
2. The words 'there is no Kares' are only for parallel
structure to the beginning of the Mishnah, not to