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 115
ZEVACHIM 115 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
1) "MECHUSAR ZEMAN" SLAUGHTERED "SHE'LO LISHMAH"
(a) Question (Rav Huna): We never find something that is
Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah!
1. Question: We do find this - Pesach on any day other
than Erev Pesach is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo
(b) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Chilkiyah.
2. Answer: Pesach on any other day is a Shelamim, Lo
l'Shem Pesach is not (Tosfos - purely) Lo Lishmah.
1. (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps Shechutei Chutz does
not apply to the following (because they are not fit
for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed) - an Olah that is Mechusar
Zeman, the Asham of a (Tamei) Nazir or Metzora (the
Pesul of these will be explained)!
(c) Rejection: Really, they were offered in the proper time,
2. Rejection: (The verse of Shechutei Chutz did not
need to list the three species Kosher for Korbanos,
each is extra to teach one of these -) "Shor,
3. The Tana omitted Chatas.
4. Question: What is the case of the Ashamos?
i. If they are offered (Lishmah) in the proper
time, Shechutei Chutz applies even to Chatas!
5. Answer: Rather, we must say that they are Mechusar
6. Question: Were they Lishmah?
i. If yes - why is he liable for them (it is not
Kosher until he is Oker by slaughtering l'Shem
a different Korban)!
7. Answer: We must say, they were Lo Lishmah. (This is
a proof for Rav Chilkiyah.)
1. The Tana is R. Eliezer, who says that also Asham Lo
Lishmah is Pasul. (Nevertheless, he is liable, for
if slaughtered Stam in the Mikdash, it would be
Lishmah and Kosher.)
(d) Question (against Rav Huna (and support for Rav
Chilkiyah) - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable
for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah which is (itself)
Mechusar Zeman or a Chatas that it or its owner is
2. He taught Asham, which we learned (that it is Pasul
Lo Lishmah) from Chatas, the same applies to Chatas.
1. Rejection: "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" -
Shechutei Chutz only applies to things fitting to be
offered Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.
(e) Answer: Indeed, they are Lo Lishmah, but one may not
infer that he would be liable for Asham;
2. The Tana excludes Asham.
3. Question: What is the case?
i. If the Korbanos are Lishmah, even for Asham he
should be exempt!
4. Answer: Rather, we must say that they are Lo
Lishmah. (The Tana excludes Asham, for he would be
liable for it - this supports Rav Chilkiyah and
refutes Rav Huna!)
1. The Tana is R. Eliezer, who is Posel Asham Lo
Lishmah; he taught Chatas, the source, and the same
applies to Asham, which we learned from Chatas.
(f) Version #1 (Rashi, excluding the bracketed text) Question
(against Rav Huna, support for Rav Chilkiyah:- Rav Dimi -
Tana d'vei R. Livai) Suggestion: Perhaps one is exempt
for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah if its owner is Mechusar
Zeman, and for Asham Metzora or Asham Nazir...
1. (The Tana omitted Chatas - we deduce (like above)
that the Ashamos were Mechusar Zeman and Lo Lishmah,
and he is liable!)
(g) Version #2 (Shitah Mekubetzes, including bracketed text):
The following refutes Rav Huna and supports Rav
2. Question: How does the Tana expound that he is
1. (Rav Dimi citing Tana d'vei R. Livai) Suggestion:
Perhaps one is exempt for Shechutei Chutz for an
Olah if its owner is Mechusar Zeman, and for Asham
Metzora or Asham Nazir...
(h) Answer: Tana d'vei R. Livai is Mechayev when two Ashamos
were separated for Acharayos (in case one will become
lost or Pasul, the other will be offered - since both of
them cannot be offered for Ashamos), from the beginning,
it is as if one of them is an Olah.
2. Rav Dimi: The Tana expounded that one is liable - I
do not understand! (End of Version #2)
3. Answer (Ravina): The verse did not need to list the
three species - "Shor, Kesev, Ez" are extra, to
teach that one is liable in these three cases.
4. Question: We already asked this (b) and answered it
(c) above (the Beraisa is like R. Eliezer, the
slaughter was Lo Lishmah!)
5. Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Because Rav Dimi
posed a contradiction, the above answer cannot be
i. Contradiction (with Tana d'vei R. Livai - Rav
Dimi - Levi): If Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora
was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher, the
owner did not fulfill his obligation.
6. Rav Ashi asked a similar contradiction between our
Mishnah (which exempts for Shechutei Chutz of Asham
Mechusar Zeman) and the Beraisa (above (b:1), which
ii. If the owner was Mechusar Zeman, or the animals
were two years old (a first year animal is
required), they are Pesulim (and one who
slaughters them outside is exempt.)
iii. Answer (Rav Dimi): Tana d'vei R. Livai is
Mechayev for slaughter Lishmah, Levi exempts
for slaughter Lo Lishmah.
i. He answered, the Mishnah exempts when it was
Lishmah (for it is Pasul), the Beraisa is
Mechayev for Lo Lishmah (it is Kosher).
7. Summation of question: This refutes Rav Huna, for he
cannot answer like above!
(i) This is like Rav.
2) THINGS NOT FIT FOR "HAKTARAH"
1. (Rav): If an Asham was Nitak to graze, and it was
slaughtered Stam, it is a Kosher Olah.
(a) (Mishnah): If one offers (is Maktir) meat of a Chatas
(outside, he is exempt...)
3) "AVODAH" BEFORE THE "MISHKAN"
(b) (Beraisa) Question: What is the source to exempt for
offering any of the following outside?
1. Meat of a Chatas, Asham, (other) Kodshei Kodoshim,
2. The remains of the Omer or of a Minchah (after
Kemitzah), Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim.
3. Answer: One is liable for something like "Olah",
i.e. it is fitting to be offered.
4. Question: What is the source to exempt for the
following Avodos outside?
i. Pouring oil (on a Minchah), breaking a Minchah
into pieces, mixing (the flour with oil),
salting, Tenufah, Hagashah, arranging the
Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, Dishun
ha'Menorah, Kemitzah, and Kabalah.
5. Answer: "Asher Ya'aleh Olah O Zevach" - one is
liable only for something resembling Ha'alah
(Haktarah), i.e. a final Avodah (there is no Avodah
(a) (Mishnah): Before the Mishkan was erected... (Avodah was
done by the firstborns.)
(b) (Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina citing R. Asi): "Vayishlach Es
Na'arei Benei Yisrael" (before Matan Torah) - this was
the last time Avodah was done by the firstborns.
(c) Rav Chisda was planning on challenging this from our
1. He heard Rav Huna say in the name of Rav Ada bar
Ahavah that the Olah that Benei Yisrael offered in
the Midbar did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach, so
Rav Chisda instead challenged both of Rav Huna's
teachings from a Beraisa.
(d) Question (against both teachings - Rav Chisda - Beraisa):
Before the Mishkan was erected, Bamos were permitted,
Avodah was done by the firstborns, anything could be
offered on a Bamah, Behemah, Chayah, Of, male or female,
Tam or Ba'al Mum;
1. Only Tahor species could be offered, not Teme'im.
(e) Answer (for the first teaching): Tana'im argue about
this, Rav Huna holds like Rebbi:
2. All the Korbanos were Olos.
3. The Olah that Benei Yisrael offered in the Midbar
did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach;
4. Nowadays, Nochrim may do so (offer anything on a
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): "V'Gam
ha'Kohanim ha'Nigashim El Hash-m Yiskadashu" - this
warns the firstborns (they are the 'Kohanim' who
come close for Avodah) to stay far from Har Sinai;
(f) Question: According to Rebbi, we understand "Hu Asher
Diber Hash-m bi'Krovai Akadesh" - the end of the above
verse ("Pen Yifrotz Bahem") foreshadowed the death of
Nadav and Avihu (when they entered the Kodesh
2. Rebbi says, it warns Nadav and Avihu (for only Benei
Aharon will do Avodah from now on).
1. But according to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (the first
verse refers to the firstborns) - where had Hash-m
alluded to the death of Nadav and Avihu?
(g) Answer: "V'Noadti Shamah li'Vnei Yisrael v'Nikdash
*bi'Chvodi*" - we read this 'bi'Chvudai' (through my
1. Hash-m told this to Moshe on Sinai, Moshe did not
know to whom He referred to until they died; then,
Moshe told Aharon that they were killed (Maharsha -
for a minute transgression) in order to Mekadesh
(h) (R. Chiya bar Avin): "Nora Elokim mi'Mikdashecha" - we
read this 'mi'Mekudashecha (from Your holy ones)', when
Hash-m punishes Tzadikim (for minute transgressions), He
is feared, exalted and praised.
2. Aharon realized that their death signified their
awesome greatness; he was silent, and was rewarded -
"Dom la'Sh-m V'Hischolel Lo";
3. We can also learn from "Es Lachashos v'Es Ledaber" -
sometimes one is rewarded for silence, sometimes one
is rewarded for speaking.
(i) Question: We have not defended Rav Huna's teaching about
Hefshet and Nitu'ach of the Olah!
(j) Answer: Tana'im also argue about this, he holds like R.
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Hash-m taught to
Moshe the essence of the Mitzvos on Sinai, He taught
to him the details (during the 40 years in the
Midbar) in the Ohel Mo'ed;
i. (Hefshet and Nitu'ach are details, they were
taught in the Mishkan, they did not apply
before this, e.g. to the Olah of Sinai.)
2. R. Akiva says, the essence and the details were
given on Sinai, they were repeated in the Ohel Mo'ed
and again in Arvos Mo'av (Sefer Devarim, in the 40th
year in the Midbar).