ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 33
ZEVACHIM 31-33 - 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) We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Samach ... ve'Shachat" - the
principle 'Teikef li'Semichah, Shechitah'.
(b) The Beriasa cites as the only exception to this rule - an Asham Metzora,
which has to be standing in the actual entrance to the Azarah (not the
Azarah itself), since the Metzora is yet permitted to enter the Azarah.
(c) The Metzora stands inside Sha'ar Nikanor - which is the eastern entrance
to the Azarah, and which the Chachamim only sanctified with the Kedushah of
the Har Habayis (to enable the Metzora to stand there for his purification
(d) The Metzora is permitted to enter the Azarah - as soon as the blood of
his Asham and Chatas have been sprinkled.
(a) We try to prove from this Beraisa that 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah'
(like Ula Amar Resh Lakish) - because otherwise, why can the Metzora not
place his hand inside the Azarah and perform Semichah, rendering it possible
to Shecht the animal at once.
(b) The proof assumes the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi - who considers
the entire Tzafon of the Azarah Kasher for Shechting Kodshei Kodshim, even
east of the Mizbe'ach (the twenty-two Amos incorporating the eleven Amos
where only Kohanim are permitted to walk and the eleven where even
Yisre'elim may enter.
(c) Rav Yosef rejects the proof, by establishing the author as Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah - who restricts Tzafon to due north of the Mizbe'ach ...
(d) ... in which case, the Asham cannot be Shechted next to Sha'ar Nikanor
anyway (even if 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas is not considered Bi'ah).
(a) A 'Pishpesh' is - a small opening in the wall of the Azarah (which has
the status of an entrance).
(b) When we therefore ask why they could not make a Pishpesh, we mean in the
north wall of the Azarah directly opposite the Mizbe'ach, to enable the
Metzora to stand there and stretch his hands into the Azarah to perform
(c) ... a proof that Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah (because then he would be
forbidden to place his hand in the Azarah anyway.
(d) And we answer with a Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim - which explains that the
shape of the Beis-Hamikdash, including the number of entrances, big and
small - were handed to David, and that no changes could be made (even to
build a small Pishpesh in the wall).
(a) According to others, to refute the proof that 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah
Bi'ah', Rav Yosef did not change the author from Rebbi to Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah. In fact, he disagrees with our previous definition of
Semichah, requiring the head and majority of the Somech to be in the
Azarah - because in his opinion, Semichah must be performed with all one's
(b) Assuming that the Semichah of an Asham Metzora is d'Oraysa, and 'Teikef
li'Semichah Shechitah', we ask, let the Metzora enter the Azarah and perform
Semichah (since that is what the Torah has prescribed)? According to the
first Lashon - Rav Ada bar Masna answers that it is the Chachamim who
forbade him to enter, in case he takes just one step more than necessary, in
which case he will be Chayav Kareis.
(a) According to the second Lashon, even though Rav Ada bar Masna concedes
that Semichas Asham Metzora is d'Oraysa (like by other Ashamos), he holds
'Teikef li'Semichah, Shechitah' is only de'Rabbanan. We learn that Ashamos
require Semichah - from a Hekesh to Chatas ("ka'Chatas Ka'Asham", in Parshas
(b) We query this however, from the Beraisa "Ve'samach ve'Shachat", 'Mah
Semichah bi'Tehorin, Af Shechitah bi'Tehorin' - which clearly holds 'Teikef
li'Semichah Shechitah' (so how can Rav bar Masna say otherwise?).
(c) We therefore amend his second answer to read - that although the Tana
holds 'Teikef li'Semichah, Shechitah', he holds that the Semichah of an
Asham Metzora is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(d) The basis for the distinction between other Ashamos and an Asham Metzora
in this regard - is the fact that whereas the former come to atone, the
latter comes only to permit the Metzora to eat Kodshim and enter the
(a) When Ravina says 'le'Inyan Malkos Itmar', he means that Ula only said
'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah' with regard to Malkos (indeed, he only said
'Lokeh'), but not Kareis.
(b) He says that - in order to circumvent Rav Hoshaya's Kashya from a
Metzora who became a Ba'al Keri (see Tosfos DH 'le'Inyan').
(c) Ravin Amar Rebbi Avuhu answers the Kashya differently. When he says
'le'Inyan Tamei she'Naga ba'Kodesh Itmar', he means - that Ula is only
talking about a Tamei who touches Kodesh, but not one who enters the
Mikdash, where he will agree with Rav Yosef (who requires 'Rosho ve'Rubo').
(a) Resh Lakish (whom Ula initially quoted) specifically states that 'Tamei
she'Naga ba'Kodesh, Lokeh' - which he learns from "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga".
(b) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees on the grounds - that the Pasuk is referring to
Terumah and not Kodesh.
(c) We know that the Pasuk is indeed speaking about eating Terumah - because
the Pasuk concludes "ad M'los Yemei Taharah", which cannot be speaking about
Kodesh, because the woman (the Yoledes to whom the Pasuk is referring) is
still a Mechusar Kipurim, to whom Kodshim is forbidden.
(d) Neither can we then learn Kodshim from Terumah - because of the
principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din' (one cannot learn a warning [with
Malkos] from a 'Kal-va'Chomer').
(a) In another Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan quoting Tani Bard'la, learns the
Azharah for a Tamei who eats Kodesh from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Tum'aso"
"Tum'aso" - which is written in connection with the Chiyuv Kareis.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" - the La'av of
entering the Mikdash be'Tum'as ha'Guf.
(c) Resh Lakish learns the Azharah for a Tamei who eats Kodesh - from
"be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga".
(d) And he learns an Azharah for touching Kodesh - from the fact that the
Pasuk uses a Lashon Negi'ah ("Lo Siga" instead of "Lo Sochal").
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Hekesh Kodesh to Mikdash - that the Pasuk is
referring primarily to someone who *eats* Kodesh, and not who just touches
(b) The Hekesh implies this - because Kodesh, like Mikdash, is talking
primarily about a case of Kareis (and there is no Kareis for touching Kodesh
(c) The Beraisa supports the opinion of - Resh Lakish.
(a) In a third Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan, based once again on Tani Bard'la,
says that someone who eats Kodesh before the blood has been sprinkled, is
Patur from Malkos. He extrapolate this from the Pasuk "Kol Tahor Yochal
Basar ... ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar ve'Tum'aso Alav, Ve'nichresah" -
that it is only Basar which has become permitted to Tehorim (i.e. after the
Zerikah) for which a Tamei is Chayav Kareis.
(b) Resh Lakish extrapolates from "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" - that one is
Chayav, irrespective of whether it is before, or after, the Zerikas Dam.
(c) In spite of having already learned from this Pasuk` two things (an
Azharah for a Tamei eating and touching Kodesh), he now learns a third
thing - from the word "be'Chol".