ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 42
ZEVACHIM 41-43 - 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) The Beraisa restricts the Din of one Matanah being Mefagel, to the
Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, but that will not be the case with
regard to the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. There are three such
cases - the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim, the Par shel Kohen Mashi'ach
and the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.
(b) The Tana arrives at ...
1. ... the forty-three Matanos of Yom ha'Kipurim (given the eight in the
Kodesh Kodashim [towards the lid of the Aron] and the eight in the Heichal
[towards the Paroches] of both the Par and the Sa'ir [totaling thirty-two) -
by adding the four Matanos of the combined bloods that he placed on the four
K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and the seven that he sprinkled on top of
(c) Rebbi Meir says 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein
bi'Shelishis', Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'. The Chachamim hold - that
there is no Kareis until he is Mefagel at every stage of the Matir
2. ... the eleven Matanos of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elam
Davar shel Tzibur - by adding the seven that he sprinkled towards the
Paroches and the four that he placed on the four corners of the Mizbe'ach
(d) When Rebbi Meir says 'bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein
bi'Shelishis', he means - that at whichever stage the Kohen is Mefagel (the
Matanos in the Kodesh Kodashim, in the Heichal towards the Paroches, or on
the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav), it is considered Pigul, and subject to Kareis.
(a) The problem this Beraisa creates with Resh Lakish's current statement -
stems from the statement 'bein bi'Sheniyah ... ', implying that it is Pigul
even though the Kohen was not Mefagel by the first set of Matanos (because
he holds Mefaglin be'Chatzi ha'Matir'), which clashes with Resh Lakish's
(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Avin establishes that the Kohen was Mefagel by the
Shechitah - where the blood spilled after the termination of the Matanos in
the Kodesh Kodashim and where Rebbi Elazar holds that they bring another
Par, to continue with the Avodah from the point where they left off. And it
was during the Shechitah of the second animal that the Kohen was Mefagel.
(c) In such a case, even Resh Lakish will agree that it is Pigul because,
the Avodah of that animal is independent of that off the previous one.
(d) The problem now is - on what grounds the Rabbanan then argue with Rebbi
Meir. What reason is here not to be Pigul?
(a) Rava establishes the author as Rebbi Elazar. According to the Rabbanan
in a Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh', one is Chayav for bringing a
k'Zayis ba'Chutz of the Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohanim, Minchas
Kohen Mashi'ach or Minchas Nesachim. Rebbi Elazar rules - that he is Patur
unless he brings whatever there is (and not just a k'Zayis).
(b) In a case where he brought the bulk of the Korban bi'Fenim, and the last
k'Zayis ba'Chutz - Rebbi Elazar will concede that he is Chayav (because he
also holds 'Haktaras k'Zayis Havi Haktarah', and he only holds Patur in the
Mishnah, because he did not burn all that there was to be burned.
(c) Similarly, the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir (alias Rebbi Elazar) hold 'Ein Bo
Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir', because if burning half the Matir
ba'Chutz is not considered Avodas Chutz, 'Kal va'Chomer' bi'Fenim will not
be considered an Avodah concerning Pigul.
(d) We query this from Rava however, who maintains that even Rebbi Elazar
will agree that if the Kohen sprinkled one of the above three bloods
ba'Chutz he will be Chayav - because it is effective bi'Fenim (even if the
blood spilt in the middle of one of the sets of Matanos, since Rebbi Elazar
holds that he Shechts a second Par and carries on from where he left off,
even if it spilt in the middle of the one of the Matanos [though it is not
why clear why we need to mention this here[).
(a) Rava therefore (retracts from Rav Yitzchak's answer ['Kgon she'Pigeil
bi'Shechitah'] and) tries to establish Rebbi Meir (in the Beraisa currently
under discussion) when the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul by the first and
third sets of Damim, but not by the second, in which case we might have
thought - that the fact that the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul by the third
set is proof that he did not follow his first Machshavah (even when
performing the second set of Damim).
(b) And the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir in that - they disagree with the
S'vara of 'Kol ha'Oseh, a'Da'as Rishonah Hu Oseh'.
(c) Rav Ashi refutes Rava's explanation however, on the grounds of 'Midi
Shasak Katani' - meaning that 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah ...
', does not imply that he performed the second set 'Stam'.
(a) Rav Ashi himself therefore tries to establish Rebbi Meir, when he was
Mefagel by all three sets of Matnos Damim, but not by the fourth (see Tosfos
DH 'K'gon') - i.e. the sprinkling on top of the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores.
(b) The Chidush is - that the Kohen's Machsheves Pigul by the same second
and third set of Matanos does not indicate that his S'tam fourth Matanos did
not follow the Machsheves Pigul of the first.
(c) We refute Rav Ashi's explanation - on the grounds that, here too, the
Beraisa says (not 'u'vi'Sheniyah u'vi'Shelishis', but 'bein bi'Sheniyah,
(d) Rebbi Meir's reason is finally - because of 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.
(a) Pigul cannot take effect 'ad she'Yikrevu Kol Matirav' - in the same way
as the Korban does not atone until its final Avodah has been completed, so
too, does its P'sul not take effect until its final Avodah has been
(b) Based on this principle, the problem now that we ascribe Rebbi Meir's
ruling to 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' is - that not only does the Kohen end
up without a Zerikah Kesheirah, but he also ends up without a Zerikah
Pesulah (but with only half of each).
(c) This is not a problem according to those who establish the Beraisa by
Pigeil bi'Shechitah (or according to the Rabbanan who require a Machsheves
Pigul by all parts of the Zerikah) - because in those cases, there is no
other way of becoming Pigul (and that is the way the Torah obligates the
(a) Rabah establishes the case by four Parim or four Se'irim, by which he
means - that each time after he concluded the Matanos, the blood spilt,
first in the Kodesh Kodashim, then in the Heichal, then on the K'ranos, and
then on the roof of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and each time, he Shechted
another bull (or goat), and continued with the next set of Matanos.
(b) And when Rebbi now says 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah ...
Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis', he means - that if he was Mefagel by all the
Matanos in any one of the locations, the Korban is Pigul, even if he
performed all the others be'Kashrus.
(c) In fact - even the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that
the Kohen continues the new Matanos from where he left off. They argue with
Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon only in a case where the blood spilt in the
middle of a set of Matanos.
(a) Rava (or Abaye) establishes the Beraisa even by one Par and one Sa'ir,
because 'le'Pigulo Meratzeh', which means - that the second half of the
Zerikah that is performed be'Kashrus concludes the Pigul just like the
Zerikah be'Kashrus does if the Shochet is Mefagel the Korban by the
(b) The Tana of the current Beraisa refers to forty-three Matanos. The
Beraisa which refers to ...
1. ... forty-seven - holds that the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the blood of the
Par and the Sa'ir on the roof of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav separately, whereas
our Beraisa maintains that they mixed the two bloods before sprinkling it.
2. ... forty-eight - counts the pouring of the Shirayim of the blood on to
the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah (which he considers crucial to the
Avodah) as a Matanah. The other two Tana'im do not consider it crucial.
(a) When the Tana of another Beraisa states 'ba'Meh Devarim Amurim,
bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch', he means - that it is specifically
by these three Avodos that Pigul applies to the Kometz only and not to the
Levonah (which is not subject to these three Avodos).
(b) The Levonah is however - subject to Haktarah.
(c) The Chachamim go on to rule 'Nasan es ha'Kometz be'Machshavah ve'es
ha'Levonah bi'Shesikah, O es ha'Kometz bi'Shesikah ve'es ha'Levonah
be'Machshavah, Ein Chayavin Alav Kareis' - because they hold 'Ein Mefaglin
(d) Rebbi Meir holds 'Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis, in spite of the fact
that in the latter case, the Shesikah preceded the Machsheves Pigul, a
Kashya on Resh Lakish (since Rebbi Meir's clearly holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi
(a) We try to amend the Lashon ' ... ve'es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah' - to '
... u'K'var Nasan es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah' (to reconcile the Beraisa
with Resh Lakish).
(b) We object to that however - because it would merely be a repetition of
the first case (since, if it is a matter of following the first Lashon, what
difference will it make which of the two he did first?).
(c) In any case, another Beraisa words the same ruling ' ... ve'Achar-Kach
Levonah be'Machshavah', rendering our amendment impossible.