ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 7
ZEVACHIM 7 (16 Sivan) - This Daf has been dedicated l'Zecher Nishmas Reb
Avrohom ben Reb Shmuel Teichman by his son Mr. Sidney Teichman, by Mrs. Leah
Teichman, by Mrs. Tzipora Lieber, by Mrs. Amy Kornfeld and by Mr. Berish
(a) According to Rav Idi bar Avin ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Shimon
holds that Temidin that are not needed cannot be redeemed without a blemish,
whereas the Rabbanan hold that they can. The basis of their Machlokes is -
whether we hold 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi
(b) Rebbi Yosef b'rei de'Rav Shemayah asked from here on Rav Papa - who just
ascribed 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen' to Rebbi Shimon (too).
(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why, having received the blood of
the two goats of Shevu'os in two separate vessels and having already
sprinkled the blood of the first one, they needed to sprinkle the blood of
the second one, the latter replied - that it was to atone for Tum'ah that
occurred between one goat and the other.
(b) From the fact that Rebbi Yirmiyah asked his Kashya with reference to an
Asei after the Shechitah, Rebbi Yosef b'rei de'Rav Shemayah infers - that
had it occurred after the Hafrashah, but before the Shechitah, Rebbi
Yirmiyah takes for granted that the goat would have atoned (and Rebbi Zeira
(c) The problem with the alternative explanation in Rebbi Shimon (that we
discussed above [that the Pasuk speaks when they designated the two goats at
two different times]) is - that we assumed there that, had they done so
simultaneously, the second goat would not now atone for an Asei after the
Hafrashah (which clashes with what we just said).
(d) Rav Papa (had no answer to the first Kashya). He answered the second
Kashya however with 'Dilma Im Timtzi Lomar ka'Amar', by which he meant -
that Rebbi Yirmiyah might really have incorporated two She'eilos in one;
first he asked whether 'Bein Zeh la'Zeh' of Rebbi Shimon refers to before
the Hafrashah or after it (because the goat atones even for an Asei after
the Hafrashah). And assuming that he is referring to after the Hafrashah,
will it even atone for an Asei after the Shechitah as well.
(e) That answers the Kashya - inasmuch as, 'Bein Zeh la'Zeh' of Rebbi Shimon
could in fact mean either before or after the Hafrashah, depending on the
two sides of Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah (which remains unresolved, due to
the possibility that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Zeira).
(a) Rabah validates Reuven's Todah that was Shechted on behalf of Shimon
(who is also obligated to bring a Todah). Rav Chisda invalidates it -
because he considers it Shinuy Kodesh. Rabah does not, seeing as they are
both Chayav the same Korban. Note, that neither Amora considers it Shinuy
Ba'alim, since both owners are Chayav a Korban.
(b) Rabah learns his ruing from a Beraisa, where Aba Chanin in the name of
Rebbi Eliezer validates a Todah that was Shechted as a Shelamim - because a
Todah is in fact, a Shelamim.
(c) Rabah extrapolates from there that a Todah as a Todah is definitely
Kasher. We counter Rabah's proof however - by establishing the Beraisa when
both Korbanos belong to the same owner (and it is Kasher even if the two
Todos are brought for different reasons [e.g. one because he returned from
the sea, the other, because he was set free from captivity).
(d) The Tana preferred to add that [his] Shelamim le'Shem Todah is Pasul
(rather than a case of Reuven's Todah for Shimon's Todah) - to teach us that
even though a Todah is considered a Shelamim, a Shelamim is not considered a
(a) We already discussed Rava's statement (earlier we cited it in the name
of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) 'Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Chatas Kesheirah,
le'Shem Olah, Pesulah'. When he says 'Chatas ... le'Shem Chatas', he means,
for example - a Chatas Cheilev as a Chatas Dam.
(b) And he learns his dual ruling from the Pasuk - "Ve'Shachat Osah
le'Chatas", validating the one (which is a Chatas), and invalidating the
other (which is not).
(c) Rava also extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Alav" - that if
Reuven's Chatas is Shechted as Shimon's, it is Pasul, whereas if it is
Shechted as Shimon's Olah, it is Kasher, because he Darshens "Alav", 've'Lo
al Chaveiro', to refer to a Chaver who like him, is Chayav a Chatas (but not
to one who is Chayav an Olah).
(d) Rava holds like Rav Chisda in the previous dispute (since Rabah was
referring not only to a Todah, but to all Korbanos [and he only mentioned
Todah because his proof was based on a Pasuk regarding Todah] see also
Tosfos DH 'Amar Rava'.
(a) Based on the previous case, Rava rules that a Chatas that was Shechted
for no particular sin, is Pasul - because there is nobody who has not
committed one Asei or another, for which a Chatas atones.
(b) Rava explains that a Chatas atones for Chayvei Asei - from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from Chayvei Kareis).
(c) Rava also said that a Chatas that was Shechted for someone who is Chayav
an Olah is Kasher - because an Olah is a different species than a Chatas
(and is precluded from ''Alav", ve'Lo al Chaveiro').
(d) He nevertheless rules Pasul in the current case - because a Chatas does
not come to atone for an Asei Lechatchilah (see Tosfos DH 'Al Chayvei
Asei'). It atones Bedieved - for an Asei for which he did not yet obligate
himself to bring an Olah, but not for one which he did.
(a) We already discussed Rava's statement forbidding sprinkling an Olah
she'Lo li'Shemah even after having Shechted it she'Lo li'Shemah. He also
invalidates an Olah that is Shechted with Shinuy Kodesh after the owner's
death. He declares such an Olah that is Shechted with Shinuy Ba'alim Kasher
however - because once the owner dies, the Korban has no owner.
(b) Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami however - holds that the heirs become the
(c) Rav Ashi questioned what he meant by that. Whether he meant that we
take his words ...
1. ... literally - in which case, he argues with Rava, and the heirs will
have to bring another Olah to replace it.
(d) Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav replied - that he did indeed mean what he said
2. ... with a pinch of salt - and that this is not necessary. What he
therefore meant was that the Olah will atone for any Mitzvos Asei that the
heirs performed, provided it is brought correctly.
(a) We have learned that an Olah comes to atone for an Asei or a La'av
ha'Nitak la'Asei. The problem with that, assuming the sinner ...
1. ... did not do Teshuvah - lies in the Pasuk in Mishlei ''Zevach Resha'im
To'evah" (which teaches us that without Teshuvah, one's Korban is
(b) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, explains the sequence of first Chatas, then
Olah, that pertains to most cases where both are required as follows. First
the defense counsel enters to appease the king (the Chatas), he says, and
this is followed be a gift (the Olah).
2. ... did Teshuvah - lies in the Beraisa, which teaches us that the moment
one a person does Teshuvah, he is forgiven for his sin, in which case no
Korban is necessary.
(c) This Beraisa serves as a proof for Rava, who stated - that an Olah comes
essentially as a gift (and not as an atonement).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv, Ve'asisa Pesach" - that Shinuy Kodesh is
forbidden (Lechatchilah) by the Korban Pesach.
(b) Initially, we think that the Pasuk there needs to add "Ve'zavachta
Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha" - to teach us that both Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy
Ba'alim are even Pasul Bedi'eved.
2. ... "Va'amartem Zevach Pesach Hu" - (Im Eino Inyan) that Shinuy Ba'alim
is forbidden too.
(c) We objection to this D'rashah is - the fact that it is already used for
another D'rashah (as we shall now see).
(a) The problem Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah has with the continuation
of the Pasuk "Tzon u'Vakar" - is that the Korban Pesach has to come from
Tzon, and not Bakar.
(b) He therefore learns from it - that Mosar ha'Pesach becomes a Shelamim,
which is the only Korban that can be brought from any Tzon or Bakar, male or
(c) Rav Safra therefore concludes that "Ve'zavachta Pesach ... " teaches us
Rav Nachman's Din, and "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv, Ve'asisa Pesach" and
"Va'amartem Zevach Pesach", Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim respectively.
And we learn from "(Zevach Pesach) Hu" - Le'akev (that they are both Pasul
(d) And he learns all the other Avodos by Pesach from Shechitah with the
S'vara of 'Ho'il Ve'gali Gali'. Rav Ashi - disagrees with that S'vara.
(a) Rav Ashi therefore learns all the other Avodos - from the Hekesh of "Zos
ha'Torah la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ... " (as we shall now see).
(b) The continuation of the Pasuk "be'Yom Tzavoso es B'nei Yisrael Le'hakriv
es Korbeneihem" - comes to include Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.
(c) Firstly, he learns from Shelamim - that all three are included in the
Isur of Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, just like it is.
(a) Rav Ashi goes on to learn Pesach exclusively from the same Hekesh - by
extending the D'rashah to Bedi'eved, and comparing all Avodos to Shechitah,
rendering them all Pasul even Bedieved by Pesach, just as they are all
Kasher Bedieved by Shelamim.
(b) Seeing as he now learns Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim (by Pesach)
Lechatchilah from " ... Le'hakriv es Korbeneihem", he now learns that they
are Pasul even Bedi'eved - from the Pesukim in Re'ei ...
(c) ... and the D'rashah that is now redundant is - "Hu" (from which Rav
Safra learned the Din of Bedi'eved).
(d) We therefore conclude that "Hu" by the Korban Pesach comes to preclude
from Rebbi Eliezer's interpretation of "Hu" by Asham. When Rebbi Eliezer
Darshened from the latter "Hu" that an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul, Rebbi
Yehoshua said to him - that the Torah deliberately inserted it after the
Haktaras Eimurin to teach us not to Darshen this way, like we do by the
Pesach, where "Hu" is mentioned before the Shechitah.