ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 52
ZEVACHIM 52 (2 Av) - Dr. and Mrs. Andy and Dianne Koenigsberg, of New York,
have dedicated this Day's Torah-study material l'Iluy Nishmas Dianne's
father, Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New
York), who passed away on 2 Av 5761. May his love for Torah and for Eretz
Yisrael be preserved in all of his descendants.
(a) We object to the Tana's suggestion that "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" comes
to teach us that the actual sprinkling requires Yesod, because then the
Torah ought to have written ''el Yesod ha'Olah" - bearing in mind that it is
not a principle pertaining to whatever goes on the Mizbe'ach (seeing as it
does not extend to Chata'os, whose blood is placed on all four corners of
the Mizbe'ach [even the south-eastern one which did not have a Yesod]), but
one that is confined to the Olah.
(b) This not a problem however, now that it teaches us Shefichas Shirayim by
all Korbanos - since then, it does indeed extending to all Korbanos that are
brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(c) We resolve this problem by pointing out that, if not for the word
"Mizbach", we would have thought - that the blood must be sprinkled on to
the wall of the Yesod. But now that the Torah writes "el Yesod Mizbach
ha'Olah", we know that it must be sprinkled (or poured) on the roof of the
(d) We now amend Rebbi Yishmael's argument accordingly. In fact, he claims -
that the roof of the Yesod with regard to Shefichas Shirayim of the Olah
does not need a Pasuk, since we would know that from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from
the Shefichas Shirayim of the Chatas.
(a) Where Rebbi Yishmael stated his 'Kal-va'Chomer 'u'Mah Sheyarei Chatas
she'Ein Mechaprin ... ', Rebbi Akiva (who agrees with him against the Tana
Kama), adds ' 've'Ein Ba'in Lechaper'. The basis of their Machlokes, Rav Ada
bar Ahavah explains, is - whether Shirayim is crucial to the Avodah (Rebbi
Yishmael) or not (Rebbi Akiva).
(b) According to Rav Papa however, even Rebbi Yishmael agrees that the
Sheyarei ha'Dam are not crucial - even the Shirayim of the Chata'os
(c) And they argue over 'Mitzuy ha'Dam' of the Chatas ha'Of, which
constitutes - the squeezing of the leftover blood in the neck of the bird on
the Yesod, after the Haza'ah has been performed.
(d) The basis of their Machlokes is whether the Mitzuy Chatas ha'Of is
crucial (Rebbi Yishmael) or not).
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "ve'es Kol Dam *ha'Par*
Yishpoch" - that the Par Yom ha'Kipurim, like the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, needs
'Shefichas Shirayim li'Yesod'.
(b) Rebbi Yishmael argues that we do not need a Pasuk to teach us this,
since we can learn it from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach,
'she'Ein Nichnas Damo Lifenim Chovah' - by which he means that there is no
obligation for the Kohen Gadol to sin and bring a Par, whereas the Par shel
Yom ha'Kipurim is obligatory each year, whether Yisrael sinned or not.
(c) Rebbi Akiva extends the 'Kal-va'Chomer' - by pointing to the fact that
in addition, the blood of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim is taken into the
Kodesh Kodashim, whereas that of the Par shel Kohen Mashi'ach is not.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" -
that as long as the Kohen Gadol has performed the Matnos Dam, the Shefichas
Shirayim of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim is not Me'akev ...
(b) ... which we would otherwise have thought it is - since the Torah
includes it from "ve'es Kol Dam ha'Par", even though (due to the
'Kal-va'Chomer') it is not necessary.
(c) We do not answer that the Torah included it in spite of the
'Kal-va'Chomer', on account of the principle 'Milsa de'Asya
be'Kal-va'Chomer, Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah will insert a Pasuk
to teach us something that we already know from a 'Kal-va'Chomer) - because
we only apply it if there is nothing to Darshen from it, but not if there is
(such as that the Mitzvah is Me'akev, like here).
(a) By the same token, says the Beraisa, we could have learned the Shefichas
Shirayim by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, from the Sa'ir Nasi via a
'Kal-va'Chomer' - since the blood of the latter is not even taken into the
Heichal, whereas that of the former is.
(b) According to our text, the Tana refers to the blood of the Par as
'Nichnas Damo Lifenim bein le'Chovah bein le'Mitzvah'. True, we described it
earlier as 'she'Ein Nichnas Damo Lifenim Chovah' - but that was compared to
the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim; when compared to the Sa'ir Nasi, it is
appropriate to refer to is as 'le'Chovah' (since there is an aspect of
Chovah that does not exist by the latter).
(c) And by the same token, we refute the suggestion that the Shefichas Damim
is Me'akev, by quoting the Pasuk with which we began "ve'es Kol Dam ha'Par
Yishpoch", which teaches us - that the Shefichas Shirayim of this Par is
only a Mitzvah (and not Me'akev, like the other Avodos, where the Torah uses
a stronger term, such as "Ve'lakach", "Ve'hizah" ... ).
(d) We have proved from this Beraisa - that even according to Rebbi
Yishmael, the Shefichas Dam is not Me'akev, even by the Chata'os
(a) In another Beraisa, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk
"ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzei" - that if the Kohen has used all the blood
of the Chatas ha'Of for the Haza'ah, it is not necessary to perform the
(b) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yishmael in the previous Beraisa, who, we
just explained, holds that the Mitzuy ha'Dam of the Chatas ha'Of is
Me'akev - by presenting this as a Machlokes Tana'in in what Rebbi Yishmael's
(a) In the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Kohen who sprinkles the
Chatas Beheimah) "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei *Osah*", the Beraisa extrapolates -
that if the Kohen placed the blood of the Chatas below the Chut ha'Sikra,
the Korban does not atone.
(b) The Tana bases this ruling on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Dam Zevachecha
Yishafech al Mizbach Hashem Elokecha" - from which we learn that if the
Kohen performed only one Matnas Dam of a Chatas Beheimah, instead of four,
the Korban nevertheless atones.
(c) That justifies the D'rashah from "Osah" - without which we might have
applied the same ruling, rendering Kasher Bedieved, a Korban Chatas whose
blood is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra from a 'Binyan Av' from the
(a) The Tana queries why the Pasuk is necessary. Initially, he tries to
learn - that 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lema'alah she'Nitnu Lematah' should not atone
even Bedieved from 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lematah she'Nitnu Lema'alah' via a
(b) He refutes that Limud - with the Pircha that 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lematah sh
e'Nitnu Lema'alah' are Pasul, because they are not destined to be placed
above the Chut ha'Sikra at any stage, whereas 'Damim she'Nesunin Lema'alah
she'Nitnu Lematah' would be Kasher, seeing as they are anyway destined to be
placed below the Chut ha'Sikra in the form of Shefichas Shirayim.
(c) The Tana refutes this counter argument however, by citing 'Damim
ha'Penimiyim, she'Nitnu ('Lechatchilah) ba'Chutz', which are Pasul if the
blood is placed Lechatchilah (in the form of Matanos ba'Chutz), even though
Bedi'eved, it is destined to be placed there in the form of Shefichas
(d) Finally, he rejects this too, on the grounds that 'Ein Mizbe'ach
ha'Penimi Memarkan', Tomar ba'Elyonim she'Harei Karnos Memarkos Osan', which
Rami bar Chama interprets to mean - that we cannot learn Chata'os
Chitzoniyos from Chata'os Penimiyos in this regard, since Chata'os Penimiyos
have the Chumra that the Matanos on the Keranos alone do not atone, without
the Shefichas Shirayim, a proof that this Tana holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi'.
(a) Rava objects to Rami bar Chama's interpretation of the Beraisa, because
if that is what the Tana means, we certainly ought to learn the Damim
ha'Chitzoniyim from the Damim ha'Penimiyim (in which case, the Pasuk would
be redundant) - inasmuch as if the Damim ha'Penimiyim, which are destined to
be placed as a Chovah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon in the form of Shefichas
Shirayim, yet if the Kohen paced it there Lechatchilah, it is Pasul, Damim
Chata'os Chitzoniyim, which is not destined to be placed below the Chut
ha'Sikra as a Chovah below the Chut ha'Sikra, should definitely be Pasul if
the Kohen placed it there Lechatchilah.
(b) What the Tana therefore means when he says 'Ein Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi
Memarkan' - is that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi alone is not Mechaper without
having first sprinkled the blood on the Paroches ...
(c) ... but 'Shirayim Lo Me'akvi'.
(a) Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa explains the Pasuk "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es
ha'Kodesh", 'Im Kiper Kalah, ve'Im Lo Kiper, Lo Kalah', by which he means -
that as the Kohen Gadol finishes the three sets of Matanos, the Chatas
atones, but not if he doesn't.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah - on the grounds
that the latter (his Rebbe) for some reason Darshens the Pasuk backwards,
beginning with "Kiper", and ending with "Kilah" (and he prefers to Darshen
it forwards, beginning with "Kilah", and ending with "Kiper".
(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue. One of them says
'Mashma'os Dorshin Ika Beinaihu', by which he means - that Rebbi Yehudah
does not argue with Rebbi Akiva practically, only technically, as we
(d) According to the other opinion however, Rebbi Yehudah Darshens 'Im Kilah
Kiper', to mean that the Chatas only atones if the Kohen performed the
Shefichas Shirayim, as well (because he holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi').
(a) We try to prove that the latter opinion is that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi, from a statement that he made. In a case where the blood of the Par
shel Yom ha'Kipurim spilled after the Kohen Gadol had completed all the
Matanos in the Heichal, he ruled that according to the Tana who holds
'Shirayim Me'akvi', he is obligated to Shecht a fresh bull, and to begin
with the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, before pouring the remainder of
the blood on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.
(b) He does not simply Shecht an animal and begin with the Shefichas
Shirayim - because unless he first performs some Matanos in the Heichal,
what he pours on to the Yesod is be considered Shirayim.
(c) We are trying to prove with this statement - that (based on the
assumption that the Tana referred to by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is Rebbi
Yehudah) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi must be the one who holds that according to
Rebbi Yehudah, 'Shirayim Me'akvi'.
(a) We counter this however, with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who
maintains that Rebbi Nechemyah, who is Mechayev someone who sacrifices
Sheyarei ha'Dam ba'Chutz because of 'Shechutei Chutz' - must hold 'Shirayim
(b) We therefore conclude - that just as, according to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi
Nechemyah holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi, but not necessarily Rebbi Yehudah; so
too, even though Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites a Tana who holds 'Shirayim
Me'akvi', it does not necessarily mean that Rebbi Yehudah holds like that,