ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 45
(a) We know that a Nochri can donate Korbanos - from the Pasuk in
Acharei-Mos (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "Ish Ish mi'Beis-Yisrael".
(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, Kodshei Ovdei-Kochavim are not subject to
Shechutei Chutz - Pigul, Nosar or Tum'ah.
(c) He adds in a Beraisa that Kodshei Ovdei-Kochavim are not subject to
Me'ilah either - though one may not derive benefit from them
(d) Neither can the owner declare a Temurah on them. When he says that
Nochrim cannot bring Nesachim - he means independently. Their Korbanos
however, are subject to Nesachim, just like those of a Yisrael.
(a) Rebbi Yossi rules - that the Korban of a Nochri is subject to all the
above, because the Torah writes "la'Hashem" (in Acharei-Mos).
(b) Even according to Rebbi Shimon - Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are subject to
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from ...
1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah - that Kodshei
Ovdei-Kochavim are not subject to Me'ilah.
(d) Rebbi Shimon exempts the Korban of a Nochri from the Isur of Tum'ah,
from "B'nei Yisrael", and he learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...
2. ... the Pasuk "Ish Ish mi'Beis Yisrael" (see Shitah Mekubetzes 1) - that
they are not subject to Tum'ah.
1. ... "Chilul" "Chilul" - that the same applies to Nosar.
2. ... "Avon" "Avon" - that Pigul is like Nosar.
(a) The Torah writes "Ki Sikchu me'es B'nei Yisrael", to preclude Nochrim
from Ma'aser Dagan. And we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Aser Te'aser" (initially) - that Ma'aser Beheimah has the same Din
in this regard Ma'aser Dagan.
(b) The problem with ...
2. ... "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso" - that Temurah has the same Din as Ma'aser
1. ... this dual Limud is - that in the realm of Kodshim, we cannot learn
one Hekesh from another Hekesh.
(c) We resolve the issue, when we conclude that Nochrim are not subject to
Ma'aser Beheimah even without the Hekesh to Ma'aser Dagan - because Nochrim
are not eligible to bring obligatory Korbanos that have a fixed time.
2. ... the answer 'Ma'aser Beheimah Chulin Hu' is - that this is fine
according to those who go after the Melamed, but according to those who go
after the Lameid (Temurah, in this case), this answer is not valid.
(d) Despite the fact that they are not eligible to bring any obligatory
Korbanos at all, we add the clause 'she'Ein Lahem Z'man' - because this
incorporates Ma'aser Beheimah, Chatas and Asham, which they are never
Chayav; whereas 'Chovos' S'tam would incorporate Olos and Shelamim, which
they are eligible to bring (when they are brought as Nedavos).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Kol *ha'Ezrach*" - that Nochrim are not eligible to bring
(b) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Shimon precludes Nochrim from the various
aspects of Kodshim learned above, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet"
from Terumah, he confines that to Kodshei Mizbe'ach - on the grounds that
Kodshei Mizbe'ach, like Terumah, is Kedushas ha'Guf, to preclude Kodshei
Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kedushas Damim.
2. ... *Kachah* Ye'aseh la'Shor" - that their Korbanos nevertheless require
(a) When the Tana talks about 'Dam she'Nitma' being Meratzeh, he means -
that the Tzitz worn by the Kohen Gadol waives the P'sul of Tum'ah
(Bedieved), enabling the blood to atone.
(b) And when he rules that Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko ...
1. ... be'Shogeg Hurtzah, he means - that it even permits the Basar to be
(c) The Tana rules ...
2. ... be'Meizid Lo Hurtzah, he means - that the Rabbanan issued a K'nas,
forbidding the Basar to be eaten. We cannot take this ruling literally -
because since min ha'Torah, the Korban atones, if the Chachamim were to
obligate the owner to bring another Korban, it would constitute Chulin
1. ... 'Hurtzah', even be'Meizid - by a Korban Tzibur.
2. ... 'Lo Hurtzah', even be'Shogeg - by the Korban of a Nochri.
(a) The Rabbanan of Rav Papa thought that the author of the latter ruling
cannot be Rebbi Yossi - who learns from "la'Hashem" that the Korban of a
Nochri is a full-fledged Korban.
(b) Based on the Pasuk (in connection with the Tzitz) "le'Ratzon *Lahem* "
Rav Papa told them - that even Rebbi Yossi will concede to this Halachah,
since the Pasuk precludes the Korbanos of Nochrim, from the word "Lahem"
(implying that 'B'nei Yisrael's Korbanos exclusively are subject to Ritzuy
(c) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua asked on Rav Papa from the Pasuk (in
connection with Tum'ah) "Asher *Heim* Makdishim Li" - which by the same
token, ought to preclude the Korbanos of Nochrim from the Din of Tum'ah, yet
Rebbi Yossi (whose opinion we are currently dealing with), specifically
(d) Rav Ashi finally precludes Ritzuy Tzitz from "*le'Ratzon* Lahem" -
because the Korban of a Nochri, which is merely a gift, has nothing to do
with Ritzuy (Kaparah).
(a) All the items that we precluded earlier in the Perek (such as the Kometz
and the Ketores) from the Isur of Pigul, our Mishnah includes in the Isur of
Nosar and Tamei - with the exception of Dam.
(b) When Rebbi Shimon restricts the Din of Tum'ah to Kodshim that are
edible - he comes to preclude Eitzim, Levonah and Ketores, which are not.
(a) We initially think that the Isur Tum'ah should only pertain to Kodshim
that have parts that are permitted both to the people and to the Mizbe'ach -
because that is the Din by Pigul (from which we will now try learn it with a
(b) Pigul has three Chumros over Tum'ah. One of them is that it is
'bi'Kevi'a', meaning that if one transgresses, one brings a Chatas Kavu'a
(whereas for Tum'ah, one is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).
(c) The second is that one Yedi'ah suffices, whereas Tum'ah requires a
Yedi'ah at the beginning and a Yedi'ah at the end. The Yedi'ah in the case
of Pigul is - the one at the end.
(d) The third Chumra of Pigul is - that it does not become permitted in the
case of a Tzibur (such as a Korban Pesach, like Tum'ah does).
(a) So we learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'as Kodshim) ...
1. ... "Asher Heim Makdishim Li" - that Tum'ah applies even to Kodshim that
does not have parts that are permitted both to the people and to the
(b) An example of ...
2. ... "Asher Yikrav" - that, in the case of a Korban which has Matirin, the
Chiyuv of Tum'ah only applies once the Matirin have been brought (and not
that one is Chayav for touching it be'Tum'ah, since the Torah writes in Emor
"Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon ... ba'Kodshim Lo Yochal").
1. ... 'Yesh Lo Matirin' is - the Eimurin or the Basar.
(c) We know that the same applies to Nosar - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
2. ... 'Ein Lo Matirin' - the Minchas Kohanim, which becomes subject to
Tum'ah as soon as it has been sanctified in a K'li Shareis.
(d) We suggest that one should rather learn Nosar from Tum'ah because it is
similar in 'Gezel' (Guf, Zerikah and Chilul. 'Guf' means that they are both
Pesulei ha'Guf (as opposed to Pigul, which is a P'sul Machshavah), whereas
1. ... 'Zerikah' means - that (unlike Pigul, which is determined by the
Zerikas ha'Dam), they are not.
2. ... 'Chilul' means - that the Torah writes "Chilul" by both of them
(which it does not do by Pigul).
(a) We counter the above suggestion however, with the fact that Nosar is
similar to Pigul as regards 'Hutar, Tzitz, Tahor, bi'Z'man and Kareiv'.
'Hutar' means that neither of them is permitted by a Korban Tzibur, 'Tzitz',
that the Tzitz does not atone for either of them and 'Tahor' just like it
suggests, 'bi'Z'man' and 'Kareiv' mean - that, as opposed to Tum'ah, both
have to do with time, and both are talking about the P'sul of Kodshim,
whereas Tum'ah refers to Tum'as ha'Guf.
(b) So we finally learn Nosar from Tani Levi, which learns from the Pasuk
there (before "Asher Heim Makdishim Li") "ve'Lo *Yechalelu* es Sheim Kodshi"
(and not "ve'Lo "Yechalu) - that the Torah is referring to two Pesulim,
Nosar, as well as Tum'ah.