ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 14
ZEVACHIM 11-15 - 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.
(a) Resh Lakish states that according to Rebbi Shimon - Holachah of the
blood of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos renders them Pasul (even though it is not
subject to Kareis, as we just explained).
(b) When, as a reason for this, he explains because it is impossible to
dispense with it, he means - that it is not Derech Eretz to Shecht in the
Heichal; therefore one has no option but to Shecht it in the Azarah and to
take the blood into the Heichal (to place it on the corners of the Mizbe'ach
he'Zahav and to sprinkle it towards the Paroches [like the Kohen Gadol on
(c) The problem with this statement is - that in Rebbi Shimon's own opinion,
there is no Pigul outside the realm of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (as we just
(d) Rav Yosef b'Rebbi Chanina answers that Resh Lakish learns this from a
'Kal va'Chomer' from she'Lo li'Shemo - which is Kasher by Shelamim, yet it
is subject to Pigul, how much more so Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, which are
subject to she'Lo li'Shemo.
(e) He is not Chayav Kareis - because of the principle 'Dayo min ha'Din
Liheyos ka'Nadun' (when you learn a. from b. with a 'Kal va'Chomer', a.
cannot be more stringent than b.), and here the source is Shelamim, which is
not subject to Kareis.
(a) We then ask what Rebbi will say with regard to Chutz li'Mekomo by
Chata'os ha'Penimiyos. The objection against learning it from ...
1. ... Chutz li'Zemano (with a 'Mah Matzinu') is - that the latter possesses
the Chumra of Kareis, which the former does not.
(b) We finally learn Chutz li'Mekomo from she'Lo li'Shemo, because the
latter is not applicable by a Bamah either - seeing as it only applies to a
Korban Pesach and Chatas, neither of which were brought on a Bamas Yachid
(on which only Nedarim and Nedavos were sacrificed).
2. ... she'Lo li'Shemo (with a 'Kal-va'Chomer') is - that the latter applies
by a Bamas Yachid (at the time when Bamos were allowed), whereas the former
(c) Alternatively, we learn it from a Hekesh from Chutz li'Zemano. The Pasuk
1. ... "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... " refers to - the
P'sul Chutz li'Zemano (Pigul) ...
2. ... "Lo Yechashev Lo Pigul Yih'yeh" - to that of Chutz li'Mekomo.
(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds (in Perek Sheini) that the north side
of the area known as 'Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach' is considered Tzafon
(regarding the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodshim) - even though it is not
actually north of the Mizbe'ach (which is what the Rabbanan demand).
(b) On the assumption that Rebbi Shimon holds like his son (Rebbi Elazar),
Rava asserts that a Machsheves P'sul by the Holachah of the Chata'os
ha'Penimiyos, according to him, will invalidate the Korban - only from the
entrance of the Azarah and inwards (since the animal could have been
Shechted up to that point, and the Holachah was therefore dispensable).
(c) And he makes a similar statement with regard to the two Bazichei (little
dishes of) Levonah - whose burning on the Mizbe'ach permits the Lechem
ha'Panim to be eaten (like the Zerikas ha'Dam permits the flesh of the
Shelamim), which they will no longer do should they become Pasul.
(d) Based on the assumption that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yehudah (who
in turn, holds that the entire Azarah was sanctified to burn sacrifices, and
not just the Mizbe'ach), Rava now says - that only a Machsheves P'sul by the
Holachas Bazichin, from the entrance of the Heichal and outwards will
invalidate the Lechem ha'Panim, by which he comes to preclude the Azarah
(just like he did in the previous statement with regard to the Chata'os
Penimiyos), since carrying it to the Mizbe'ach is dispensable.
(e) A Machsheves P'sul does not affect the Bazichin in the Heichal, seeing
as the Shulchan can be placed anywhere in the Azarah (irrespective of Rebbi
Yehudah's opinion [rendering the Lashon 'Ela mi'Pesach Heichal' difficult to
(a) Rava also says that, based on the assumption that ...
1. ... the Kedushah of the Heichal and the Ulam are one and the same - the
Kohen will only be Chayav from the entrance of the Ulam and outwards
(meaning within the five Amoh thick walls that served as the entrance,
bearing in mind that Rebbi Shimon also purportedly holds like Rebbi Yehudah
(in Rava's previous statement).
(b) Abaye (or Rav Sheishes) ask the Amora (sometimes referred to as a
'Meturgeman') of Rav Chisda to ask Rav Chisda whether the 'Holachah of a
'Zar' - is Kasher or not.
2. ... the doorway of the Ulam is considered like the Ulam itself - he will
only be Chayav by bending down in the entrance of the Ulam and placing the
Bazichin on the floor of the Azarah.
3. ... Holachah she'Lo be'Regel (placing the Bazichin without actually
walking with them) is not considered Holachah - then, according to Rebbi
Shimon, Machsheves P'sul will not apply by Holachah of the Bazichin at all.
(c) The Amora himself, supported by the Pasuk "Va'yishchatu es ha'Pesach,
Va'yizreku ha'Kohanim mi'Yadam ... " (implying that the Zarim took the blood
from the Mekabel and carried it to the Kohen) - replied that it is Kasher.
(a) Rav Sheishes asks on the Amora from a Beraisa which discusses a Zar,
an Onan, a Shikor and a Ba'al-Mum. A 'Shikor' is - a Kohen who has drunk
(b) The Beraisa disqualifies them all - from performing Kabalah, Holachah
and Zerikah, adding a Kohen who is seated and one who uses his left hand.
(c) The Kashya on the Amora - remains unanswered.
(d) Rav Sheishes explains the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim to mean - that the
Kohanim took the blood from the hands of the Zarim, without the latter
making any movement that might be construed as Hiluch.
(a) According to Rabah and Rav Yosef, whether Holachah Kesheirah be'Zar or
not is a Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon - who does consider
not Holachah an Avodah, because it is dispensable (whereas the Rabbanan do).
(b) When Abaye asked them from Shechitah, which is indispensable, yet a Zar
is eligible to perform it (even according to the Rabbanan), they answered -
that Shechitah is different, because it is not an Avodah.
(c) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav learns from the fact that the Torah writes Elazar
and Chukah by Parah Adumah (as quoted by Rav [or Rav Papa]) - that it
requires a Kohen to Shecht it.
(d) Despite the previous ruling permitting a Zar to Shecht Kodshim, the
Torah forbids it here - because Parah Adumah is different, since it is
Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which is not subject to Avodos to begin with, and
must therefore be a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').
(a) We query the previous answer (which distinguishes between Kodshei
Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis) - by asking that if Kodshei Bedek
ha'Bayis requires Kehunah, how much more so Kodshei Mizbe'ach (to which
(b) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi answers 'Midi de'Havi a Mar'os Nega'im ...
' - meaning that Mar'os Nega'im too (which has certainly nothing to do with
Avodah), requires Kehunah, because it is a 'Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv' (likewise by
(c) So we ask from Holachas Evarim la'Kevesh, which we consider a
dispensable Avodah - because the Kohanim have the option of flaying it and
cutting it up beside the Mizbe'ach.
(d) Yet we learn from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol Ve'hiktir
ha'Mizbeichah" - that Holachas Evarim la'Kevesh requires Kehunah.
(e) And we reconcile this with Rebbi Shimon, who holds that any Avodah that
is dispensable can be performed by a Zar - with 'Heicha de'Gali, Gali'
(meaning that obviously, wherever the Torah indicates that an Avodah
requires Kehunah, it requires Kehunah, irrespective of the fact that it is
(a) We finally learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Holachas Evarim - which is
*not crucial to the Avodah*, yet it requires Kehunah, how much more so
Holachas Dam, which *is*.
(b) And we bear this out with a statement from Ula Amar Rebbi Elazar, who
adds 'Afilu le'Rebbi Shimon' meaning - that even though a P'sul Machshavah
by Holachas ha'Dam does not invalidate the Korban, it is nevertheless an
Avodah that requires Kehunah.
(a) They asked whether 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel Sh'mah Holachah' or not,
meaning - that one made Holachah by handing over the bowl of blood to a
Kohen to sprinkle, without actually moving from the spot.
(b) The She'eilah has two ramifications, one of them, whether a Machshavah
Pesulah whilst it is being performed will invalidate the Korban, according
to the Rabbanan. The other - whether it invalidates the Korban if performed
by a Zar (even according to Rebbi Shimon, as we just explained).
(a) We learned above in a Beraisa 've'Chein Yoshev, ve'Chein S'mol' -
implying that if the Kohen performed the Avodah standing, in the same way as
one normally sits (i.e. without moving), the Korban would be Kasher,
resolving our She'eilah.
(b) We refute the proof by establishing 'Yoshev' - when he actually shuffled
along, and that is what 'Omed' means too.
(c) And that is also how we establish the Beraisa 'Shachat ha'Kohen ve'Kibel
ha'Kohen, Nasno la'Chavero, ve'Chavero la'Chavero', and the Tana is coming
to teach us - the principle 'be'Rov Am Hadras Melech' (the more who
participate in performing a Mitzvah, the Hashem's glory is enhanced).
(a) In a case where a Kasher Kohen received the blood and handed it to
someone who is Pasul - the Beraisa rules that the latter must hand it back
to the one who handed it to him.
(b) Besides the fact that the Korban does not become Pasul by virtue of the
fact that a Pasul person received it in the middle, the Tana is also coming
to teach us - that the Holachah of the first person was not Kasher (because
he handed it over without walking), because if it was, let the Pasul stand
still, and a Kasher Kohen come and take it from him ...
(c) ... a proof - that 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Lo Sh'mah Holachah'.
(d) We reject the proof by amending the Beraisa to read - 'Yachzir ha'Kasher