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 52
ZEVACHIM 52 (2 Av) - Dr. and Mrs. Andy and Dianne Koenigsberg, of New York,
have dedicated this Day's Torah-study material l'Iluy Nishmas Dianne's
father, Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New
York), who passed away on 2 Av 5761. May his love for Torah and for Eretz
Yisrael be preserved in all of his descendants.
1) DO "SHIRAYIM" REQUIRE "YESOD"?
(a) Suggestion: Perhaps this only teaches that the blood (of
the Olah) must be put on the Yesod.
(b) Rejection: It does not say 'El Yesod ha'Olah', rather,
"El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah";
1. Had it said 'El Yesod ha'Olah', one might have
thought that the blood may be thrown on the vertical
wall of the Yesod - since it says "El Yesod Mizbach
ha'Olah", this teaches that it is thrown on the Gag
(top) of the Yesod. (The primary Zerikos are against
the edges of the Mizbe'ach itself, the blood falls
onto the Gag.)
(c) Beraisa (R. Yishmael): We do not need a verse, we can
learn this from a Kal va'Chomer!
1. Shirayim of Chatas are not Mechaper, yet they must
be put on Gag Yesod - the first Zerikah of Olah is
Mechaper, all the more so it must be on (or over)
(d) (R. Akiva): Shirayim are not Me'akev Kaparah, they do not
come to Mechaper, yet they require Gag Yesod - the first
Zerikah of Olah is Me'akev Kaparah, it comes to Mechaper,
all the more so it requires Gag Yesod!
(e) Question: If so, what do we learn from the last "El Yesod
(f) Answer: It teaches that blood leftover in the Kli is
poured on the Yesod.
(g) Question: What do they argue about?
(h) Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They argue about whether
or not Shirayim are Me'akev (R. Yishmael says that (they
are not Mechaper, but) they are Me'akev Kaparah; R. Akiva
says, they are not Me'akev.)
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): All agree that they are not
Me'akev; they argue about Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of (after
Haza'ah (shaking the bird towards the Mizbe'ach to
sprinkle the blood), the Kohen squeezes out the remaining
blood against the Mizbe'ach):
1. R. Yishmael says that this is Me'akev, R. Akiva says
that it is not.
(j) Support (for Rav Papa - Beraisa) Question: "V'Es Kol Dam
*ha'Par* (of a Mashu'ach) Yishpoch" - what do we learn
from this? (It could have said 'Damo' and omitted
1. Answer #1 (R. Akiva): This teaches about Par Yom
Kipur, that its Shirayim require (to be put on) the
(k) Question: But R. Yishmael holds that Mitzuy of Chatas
ha'Of is not Me'akev!
2. Answer #2 (R. Yishmael): We know this from a Kal
va'Chomer! There is no Mitzvah to bring the blood of
Par Mashu'ach inside (the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim), yet
it requires Yesod - we must bring the blood of Par
Yom Kipur inside, all the more so it requires Yesod!
i. R. Akiva: There is no obligation or Mitzvah to
bring the blood of Par Mashu'ach inside (he
should not sin, and never bring the Korban!),
yet it requires Yesod - the blood of Par Yom
Kipur must be brought inside, all the more so
it requires Yesod!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps this is Me'akev!
4. Rejection (R. Yishmael): "V'Chilah mi'Chaper Es
ha'Kodesh" - once the Haza'os in the Heichal are
finished, the Kaparah is complete - Kal va'Chomer,
Shirayim are not Me'akev in Par Mashu'ach.
5. Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Par
Yom Kipur requires Yesod!
i. There is no Mitzvah to bring the blood of Se'ir
Nasi inside the Heichal (even if he sinned and
brings the Korban), yet it requires Yesod - the
blood of Par Mashu'ach (when it is brought)
must be brought inside, all the more so it
6. Rejection: "V'Es Kol Dam ha'Par *Yishpoch*" - it
does not say 'v'Shafach' (whereas the rest of the
Parshah is written thusly,
"Velakach...Vehizah...Venasan"') to teach that it is
only l'Chatchilah, it is not Me'akev.
ii. Since the Torah wrote that Par Mashu'ach
requires Yesod even though we could have
learned this from a Kal va'Chomer, we should
say that this is Me'akev!
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "*Veha'Nish'ar*
ba'Dam Yimatze" - if blood remains, he squeezes it
against the Mizbe'ach, if none remains, it is not
(l) Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Yishmael.
2) ARE "SHIRAYIM" "ME'AKEV"?
(a) (Rami bar Chama): The following Tana holds that Shirayim
1. (Beraisa): "Ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah..." - if he
put the blood on top (of the Mizbe'ach, this is
proper for Chatas, he may eat it), not if he put the
blood on bottom.
(b) Rejection (Rava): If so, we could learn from the
2. Question: Why do we need a verse to Posel this?
3. Answer: "V'Dam Zevachecha Yishpoch El Mizbach"
teaches that one Matanah of blood is Machshir a
Korban that (l'Chatchilah) requires four Matanos;
i. One might have thought, even if he put the
blood on bottom (of a Chatas whose blood goes
on top) he was Mechaper.
4. Question: We should know this without a verse!
i. The Torah teaches that blood that should go on
bottom (e.g. of Chatas ha'Of) is not Mechaper
if it was put on top - likewise, blood that
should go on top (Chatas Behemah) should not be
Mechaper if put on bottom!
5. Answer: No, we cannot learn from lower blood, since
none of it should be put on top, but some of the
upper blood (Shirayim of Chatas Behemah) should be
put on bottom!
6. Question: We should be able to learn from inner
Chata'os - their Shirayim go outside (on the outer
Mizbe'ach), if their first Matanah was outside, it
was not Mechaper!
7. Answer: We cannot learn from inner Chata'os, for the
inner Matanos do not complete the Kaparah (i.e. the
Shirayim are Me'akev, the blood must be put in
different places), whereas (even one of) the upper
Matanos of a Chatas complete the Kaparah (perhaps
even below, it is Mechaper).
i. This is why it must say "Osah" to teach that a
Chatas is Kosher only if its blood was put
8. Summation of Rami's assertion: The Beraisa said that
the inner Matanos do not complete the Kaparah - this
means that the Shirayim are Me'akev!
1. The Shirayim of inner Chata'os must be put outside,
this is Me'akev, yet one Matanah outside is not
(c) Rather, 'the inner Matanos do not complete the Kaparah',
i.e. Matanos on the inner Mizbe'ach, for the blood must
also be thrown towards the Paroches.
i. Putting Shirayim of outer Chata'os on bottom is
not Me'akev, all the more so one Matanah below
is not Mechaper!
(d) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "V'Chilah mi'Kaper" - if he was
Mechaper, he finished; if not, not (this will be
(e) R. Yehudah: We should expound (in order) if Chilah (he
finished), he was Mechaper; if not, not, i.e. if one
Matanah was omitted, he accomplished nothing.
(f) Question: What is the difference between them?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan or R. Yehoshua ben Levi): They
only argue about how to expound (not about the Halachah).
(h) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben
Levi): R. Akiva holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev (once
all the inner Matanos are done, he finished everything
that is Me'akev), R. Yehudah holds that they are Me'akev.
(i) Suggestion: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that they argue!
1. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): (If the blood of Par Yom
Kipur spilled during the Avodah, any Kaparah that
was finished need not be repeated; another Par is
brought, its blood is used for the remaining
Kaparos. If the blood spilled after all the inner
Matanos), according to the opinion that Shirayim are
Me'akev, he must bring another Par and make its
blood Shirayim, i.e. he puts some on the inner
Mizbe'ach, and then the Shirayim on the outer
(j) Rejection: This only shows that R. Yehoshua holds that
*some* Tana says that Shirayim are Me'akev - R. Yochanan
agrees with this!
1. (R. Yochanan): R. Nechemyah holds like the opinion
that Shirayim are Me'akev.
2. If R. Yochanan said that R. Akiva and R. Yehudah
agree that they are not Me'akev, he must refer to
some other Tana.
3. Likewise, it is possible that R. Yehoshua ben Levi
refers to another Tana!