ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 56
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the Chiyuv for entering the Mikdash in
a state of Tum'ah to an area a hundred and eighty-seven Amos long and a
hundred and thirty five Amos wide - comprising the entire area of the
Azarah, including the Ulam, the Heichal and the D'vir (the Kodesh Kodshim
[even incorporating the Ta'im, the rooms in the wall behind it]), but
precluding the Har ha'Bayis surrounding it.
(b) He is referring to a Tamei Meis, but not to a Metzora, a Zav, or a
Yoledes, who are Chayav for entering the Har ha'Bayis, too.
(c) When a Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa to Rav Nachman citing these
measurements, the latter commented in the name of his father - that besides
the Chiyuv Tum'ah, the Kohanim were permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim, and
one was permitted to Shecht Kodshim Kalim there as well.
(d) The Tana cannot be coming to preclude the windows and the doors (that
belonged to the walls of the Azarah) and the thickness of the walls, from
that area - because the Mishnah in Pesachim includes them.
(a) The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini rules that rooms that are situated in a
Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh are Kodesh. We nevertheless try
to establish the Beraisa with regard to such rooms, in spite of this
Mishnah - by suggesting that the Mishnah is speaking mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) We reject this answer however, based on another Beraisa - which
specifically permits eating Kodshei Kodshim and the Sheyarei Menachos in
precisely such rooms ...
(c) ... proving categorically that the Isur Tum'ah is not just
mi'de'Rabbanan and the Pasuk merely an Asmachta - because if the Rabbanan
declare Chol to be Kodesh, it will le'Chumra, not le'Kula.
(d) Based on the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchah) cited by the Beraisa
"ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah" (in spite of having already said "Matzos
Te'achel"), Rava draws a distinction between - eating Kodshei Kodshim (which
the Torah includes here ['Ribsah Chatzeros Harbeh'] ), and Tum'ah, seeing as
they are not really Kadosh.
(a) Rava amends the Beraisa which inserts in the Halachos of rooms that are
situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh - 've'Ein
Shochtin Sham Kodshim Kalim ve'Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah', to read - ' ...
ve'Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah'.
(b) And he does that - based on the preceding phrase 've'Ein Shochtin Sham
(c) We ask that if 'Ein Shochtin' is because it is not facing the doorway,
what is the reason for 'Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah' (seeing as Tum'ah does
not need to be opposite the doorway in order to be Chayav). We refute this
Kashya - because if that was the reason, why could he not Shecht opposite
the doorway (which is a requirement in the rooms, though it is not in the
Azarah proper, as we explained)?
(d) So the common reason that covers both 'Ein Shochtin' and 'Ein Chayavin
Mishum Tum'ah' is - the fact that these rooms were not sanctified with the
Kedushah of the Azarah.
(a) We can extrapolate from this - that Achilas Kodshei Kodshim - does not
require 'Pesach Ohel Mo'ed' (see Tzon Kodashim).
(b) Rava will reconcile this with the Beraisa, which attributed the two
Pishpeshin to the need to permit both Achilas Kodshei Kodshim and Shechitas
Kodshim Kalim in the relevant sections of the Azarah - by omitting Achilas
Kodshei Kodshim from the text.
(c) And he reconciles that with the Pasuk (in connection with the Shiv'as
Yemei ha'Milu'im) "Bashlu es ha'Basar Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, ve'Sham Tochlu
Oso" - by confining the latter to the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im, which were
Kodshei Sha'ah (a one-off occurrence), and we have a principle not to learn
Doros from Sha'ah.
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the
Korban Shelamim) "be'Yom Hakrivo es Zivcho Ye'achel" regarding the Zerikas
ha'Dam - that a Kodshim animal can only be brought on the day that it is
Shechted (i.e. that nightfall renders the blood Pasul).
(b) The Pasuk cannot just be coming to teach us the basic Halachah of when
the Korban Shelamim may be eaten - because then it could have omitted the
word "Hakrivu" (to write "be'Yom Zivcho Ye'achel").
(c) We then suggest that maybe the Pasuk is coming to teach us that if the
Shelamim is Shechted today, it may be eaten today and tomorrow, whereas if
it is Shechted tomorrow, then it may be eaten tomorrow and the day after -
based on the Lashon "Hakrivo Ye'achel", implying that the time period during
which it may be eaten is determined by the Zerikah, and not by the
(d) We refute this suggestion however - based on the word "Zivcho", which
would then be superfluous (and the Torah ought to have written "be'Yom
Hakrivo Ye'achel ... ").
(a) With regard to 'ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi', Chizkiyah rules Kasher.
'ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi' means - that the Shochet has in mind to eat
the Korban the night after the second day.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds - Pasul.
(c) According to ...
1. ... Chizkiyah, the Korban is Kasher - because the Korban is not yet
completely Pasul, since it is not due to be burned until the morning.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless says Pasul - because it may no longer be
(a) By the same token, if someone ate the Basar of a Shelamim on the night
after the second day, they argue as to whether he is Chayav - a Korban for
Shigegas Nosar or not.
(b) There too, Chizkiyah rules - Patur, and Rebbi Yochanan - Chayav (based
on the same reasoning as to why they ruled Kasher and Pasul, respectively,
in the previous case).
(c) We cite a Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan. According to the Tana, Pigul is
effective by all Korbanos, with regard to ...
1. ... the Dam - if he has in mind to sprinkle it from the moment night
falls following the Shechitah.
(d) He makes a distinction however, with regard to the Basar, between
Korbanos that can be eaten for one day - when Pigul is effective if during
the Shechitah, he has in mind to eat the Korban at dawn-break (like by
burning the Eimurim), and Korbanos that can be eaten for two - if he intends
to eat them after the following nightfall (like Rebbi Yochanan).
2. ... the Eimurin - if he has in mind to burn them the next morning.
(a) The Beraisa suggests that one ought to be able to eat Shelamim the night
after the second day - just like one can eat Kodshei Kodshim the night after
the first day.
(b) The Tana extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nosar ad Yom ... " - that
one may only eat them until the end of the second day (but not at night).
(c) The Tana also suggests that one ought to burn Nosar of Shelamim the
night after they become forbidden - just as one burns Kodshei Kodshim
immediately after they become Asur (at the end of the first night).
(d) He extrapolates from the Pasuk there "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ba'Eish
Yisaref" - that in fact, they may only be burned the morning after they
(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Korban Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach, which can
be Shechted - anywhere in the Azarah.
(b) The Tana learns that they only require one Matanah, because the Torah
1. ... writes by Bechor - "es Damam Tizrok".
(c) The Matanah was performed - on any corner of the Mizbe'ach that had a
2. ... does not write by any of them "Saviv".
(a) Bechor differs from Ma'aser - inasmuch it is given to, and eaten by
Kohanim. Pesach on the other hand, can only be eaten by someone who has
registered to eat that particular Pesach, whereas Ma'aser can be eaten by
(b) Both Bechor and Ma'aser can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim - and so
could the Pesach.
(c) We know this - from the Pasuk in Re'ei, which requires all Korbanos
(including Shelamim, Bechor and Ma'aser) to be brought to Yerushalayim. And
since no other boundaries are prescribed for Kodshim Kalim, it is assumed
that they can be eaten anywhere on the city.
(d) And both could be eaten in any way, for two days and the night in
between - whereas the Pesach could only be eaten from nightfall until
mid-night, and had to be roasted.
(a) The Torah writes (in connection with Bechor) "es Damam Tizrok al
ha'Mizbe'ach ve'es Chelbam Tatir". Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa, learns
from the Torah's use of the plural "Damam" and "Chelbam" - that the blood of
Ma'aser Beheimah and of Pesach had to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, and
their Cheilev burned on the Mizbe'ach, like that of Bechor.
(b) We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - because the Tana
differentiates between the way the three Korbanos have to be eaten, but not
the way their blood was sprinkled or their Eimurim were treated.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with our Mishnah - inasmuch as he holds that
Pesach requires Shefichah and not Zerikah.
(a) Rebbi Elazar learns the Din of Yesod by all three via a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zerikah" "Zerikah" from Olah, which we know - because the
Torah writes (by Chatas "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah [at least, we would learn
it from there if not for the fact that we have a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from
Chatas] see also Shitah Mekubetzes).
(b) And from the fact that the Torah writes "Saviv" by Olah and "Saviv" by
Chatas, we learn - that Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach do not require four
Matanos in the manner that Olah and Chatas do (See Tosfos and Shitah
Mekubetzes here and in the Hashmatos), due to the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim
ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin).
(c) According to those who hold 'Melamdin' - we have a third Pasuk by Asham
(and everyone agrees that 'Sheloshah Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin').
(d) From this Sugya it is clear - that even though 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im
ke'Echad' generally comes to negate a 'Binyan-Av', it will also negate a
'Gezeirah-Shavah', when need be.