ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 34
ZEVACHIM 34 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish,
concerning Tamei sha'Achal Basar Kodesh Lifnei Zerikah by Tum'as ha'guf.
Even Rebbi Yochanan will agree however - that someone who eats Basar Kodesh
Tamei before the Zerikas ha'Dam will receive Malkos.
(b) And he learns it from Mar who Darshens "ve'ha'Basar" (in the Pasuk
"ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel") - to include wood and
frankincense in the Isur (even though they are not fit to eat).
(a) Rava (based on the fact that Tum'as Basar is not subject to "ve'Tum'aso
Alav ve'Nichr'sah" [which speaks after the Zerikas ha'Dam], as we explained)
maintains, that quite to the contrary - even Resh Lakish will agree that
there is no Malkos for eating Basar Kodesh Tamei before the Zerikas ha'Dam.
(b) And he establishes Mar's interpretation of "ve'ha'Basar" - by wood that
the Kohen shoveled from the Mizbe'ach, using a shovel that was a K'li
Shareis, together with coal and frankincense.
(c) This in turn, is based on a Mishnah in Me'ilah, which draws a
distinction between Kodshim that has a Matir (which is subject to Kareis for
eating it be'Tum's ha'Guf only after the Matir has been brought), and one
that does not (which is subject to Kareis as soon as it is placed into a
(a) Resh Lakish extrapolates from the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon
Takrivu" - that if a Kohen takes the limbs of a Tamei (non-Kasher) animal on
to the Mizbe'ach - he receives Malkos.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules - that he does not ...
(c) ... because "min'ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu" is an Asei, and he
holds 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei'; whereas accoring to Resh Lakish,
it is a La'av.
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa. The Tana ...
1. ... extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the list of Kasher
animals) "Osah Tocheilu" - to preclude non-Kasher animals ...
2. ... adding - 've'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei' (a Kashya on Resh
(a) Rebbi Ya'akov therefore amends the wording of the Machlokes. In fact,
both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish hold that someone who brings a
non-Kasher animal on the Mizbe'ach - does not receive Malkos ...
(b) ... and they argue by a Chayah. Rebbi Yochanan exempts someone who
brings a Chayah on the Mizbe'ach, from Malkos - on the basis of the same
Pasuk "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu", which is a 'La'av ha'Ba
mi'Chelal Asei', which is an Asei, as we just explained.
(c) Resh Lakish then absolves him even from an Asei - because, in his
opinion, the Torah only absolves one from the obligation of bringing a
Chayah, but someone who wishes to bring one, may (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
(d) We cannot say the same as regards bringing a non-Kasher animal - because
we know from the pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", that one may only bring a
Korban from an animal that a Yisrael is permitted to eat.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu, Shor ... Ayal
u'Tzvi ... " - that "Beheimah" incorporates Chayah.
(b) Had the Pasuk written " ... Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Korban la'Hashem min
ha'Beheimah" and stopped, we would have said - that one may bring a Chayah
(c) The Beraisa learns from the fact that the Torah adds "min ha'Bakar u'min
1. ... once - that one may bring a Chayah, even though it is not a Mitzvah.
2. ... twice - that it is actually forbidden to bring a Chayah on the
(a) We present an analogy of a Rebbe who instructed his Talmid to bring him
wheat, and the Talmid brought him wheat and barley ...
1. ... to describe the first scenario (where bringing a Chayah is Reshus) -
when the Rebbe instructed him to bring him wheat (in which case the Talmid
did not transgress his Rebbe's command by adding barley).
(b) This Beraisa - disproves Resh Lakish.
2. ... to describe the second scenario (where it is forbidden) - when the
Rebbe instructed him to bring him only wheat (where adding barley is
certainly a transgession).
(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Pasul person who received
some of the blood (see Tosfos DH 'Li'me'utei') makes the remainder
Shirayim - in which case it must be poured out on to the Yesod (and it will
not help for a Kasher Kohen to receive it and sprinkle it), or not (in which
case, it will).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied that in general, a Kabalah or a Zerikah Pesulah
does not make Shirayim - except for Zerikah be'Mahshaves Chutz li'Zemano or
Chutz li'Mekomo, since it is effective in rendering the Korban Pigul or
(c) According to Rav Z'vid, Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Kos
Pasul renders the rest of the blood Shirayim or not, by which he meant -
whether for example, if the Kos of blood that he received was taken out of
the Azarah, the rest of the blood becomes Shirayim, or whether a Kohen can
receive it and sprinkle it.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan replied - by expressing surprise that he did not ask the
previous She'eilah (regarding a Pasul person who received some of the
blood), since if the one is Shirayim, so is the other.
(a) According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, Abaye asked Rabah whether a Kos
renders the rest Dachuy or Shirayim. 'Dachuy' (as opposed to Shirayim, which
we have already defined) means - that it is not even poured on to the Yesod,
but emptied into the Amah (the stream that flowed through the Azarah).
(b) Rabah replied that this She'eilah is a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa.
The Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... (in connection with a Chatas Yachid) "ve'es Kol Damah Yishpoch el
Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach" - that there where the Kohen received the blood in four
Kosos, and subsequently placed blood from each Kos on one corner of the
Mizbe'ach, then the remainder of all four Kosos is poured on to the Yesod.
(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules in the latter case - that the
remaining blood in all four Kosos is poured on to the Yesod.
2. ... (in connection with a Chatas of a Nasi) "es Damo Yishpoch" - that
there where the Kohen received the blood in four Kosos, and placed blood
from only one of the Kosos on each corner of the Mizbe'ach, then the
remainder of blood in that Kos only, is poured on to the Yesod, whilst the
blood in the other four Kosos is emptied into the Amah.
(d) And he establishes the Pasuk "ve'es Damo Yishpoch" - with regard to the
blood that remains on the neck of the animal, which is poured into the Amah.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah presents three cases of P'sul which can be
rectified by retracting what one did. Having presented the case of ...
1. ... 'Kibeil ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul', he added the case of 'Kibeil
bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'S'mol' - because otherwise, interpreting 'Pasul' to
mean Tamei, we would have restricted the concession to rectify it that case
only, since Tum'ah is permitted be'Tzibur (whereas S'mol is not).
(b) The problem with the Mishnah's basic ruling is - why, having transferred
the blood to a Pasul, it is not Dachuy (since, something that was Kasher and
becomes Dachuy, is Pasul according to all opinions).
2. ... 'Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'S'mol', he nevertheless found it
necessary to add 'Kibeil bi'Keli Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol' - because, by
the same token, S'mol has a leniency on Yom-Kipur (when he has to carry both
the pan with the coal and the spoon with the Levonah simultaneously (which
K'li Chol does not).
3. .. 'Kibeil bi'Keli Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol', the Tana needs to
present the first two cases - because unlike a K'li Chol, which can be
sanctified, a Pasul and a left-hand cannot be rectified at will.
(c) Ravina told Rav Ashi quoting Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti in the name of Rava
that the author of our Mishnah is Chanan ha'Mitzri - who does not hold of
Dichuy at all.
(d) In a case where the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem is already in the Kos,
when the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies, he rules in a Beraisa - that they
simply pair off the Sa'ir la'Hashem which another goat, and the Kohen Gadol
proceeds from where he left off.
(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah even like those who argue with Chanan
ha'Mitzri. According to him, none of the cases in our Mishnah fall into the
category of Dachuy - because it lies in the hands of the Kohen to rectify.
(b) Rav Shisha bears this out by reminding us that Chanan ha'Mitzri's
disputant is Rebbi Yehudah, who rules, that in a case where ...
1. ... the blood (of the Sa'ir la'Hashem) spills - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach
(c) And in another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says - that a Kohen should gather
a cupful of the blood of the many Korbenos Pesach that spilt and sprinkle it
towards the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ...
2. ... the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies - the blood in the cup must be poured
out, because the Korban is 'Dachuy'.
(d) ... a proof that whatever is rectifiable does not fall under the
category of 'Dachuy'.
(a) The purpose of that one Zerikah - was so that, in case the entire Kos of
any other Korban Pesach spilt, it would be covered by this Zerikah.
(b) The Kohen was not able to sprinkle it - on the south-eastern corner,
because it had no Yesod.
(c) When they asked Rebbi Yehudah that perhaps the blood fell directly from
the neck on to the floor (and not from the bowl) - he replied that he was
talking about blood which had spilt from the K'li.
(d) They could take this for granted - based on the principle 'Kohanim
Zerizim Hein' (Kohanim are alert, and it is therefore unlikely that the
blood spilt on the floor before it had been received in a K'li Shareis).
(a) Perhaps, we ask, some of the blood was 'Dam ha'Tamtzis (and not Dam
ha'Nefesh). Initially, we answer - that Rebbi Yehudah follows his own
reasoning, that Dam ha'Tamtzis is considered blood ...
(b) ... which we know from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah declares someone
who drinks it, Chayav Kareis (whereas according to the Rabbanan, he is only
subject to Malkos).
(c) We reject this answer however - on the basis of a statement of Rebbi
Elazar, who confines Rebbi Yehudah's ruling to Chulin, but who precludes it
from being Mechaper.
(d) We final resolve the problem of 'Dam ha'Tamtzis' - by citing another
Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that blood does not nullify blood ('Miyn
be'Miyno La Bateil'), in which case it doesn't really matter even if some of
the blood in the cup is Dam ha'Tamtzis.