ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 63
ZEVACHIM 62-63 - 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) Our Mishnah now discusses Menachos. Like Chata'os, they can be eaten by
male Kohanim, inside the Kela'im ... . The Kemitzah may be
performed -anywhere in the Azarah.
(b) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) learns that if the Kemitzah takes place in the
Heichal, the Minchah is Kasher - from the Bazichin, whose removal from the
Shulchan in the Heichal, corresponds to the Kemitzah of the Minchah,
permitting the Lechem ha'Panim to be eaten by the Kohanim.
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Rebbi Elazar from a Beraisa, which learns from
the Pasuk "Ve'hevi'ah (ha'Zar) el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim, ve'Kamatz
*mi'Sham* M'lo Kumtzo" - that the Kohanim may perform the Kemitzah wherever
a Zar is permitted to go (which seems to preclude the Heichal).
(d) ben Beseira learns from there that - if the Kohen took the Kemitzah with
his left hand, he must repeat the process with his right hand.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah himself (or Rebbi Ya'akov to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Tachlifa)
answers the Kashya. In fact he says, the Tana Kama is coming not to teach
us a Chumra (to preclude the Heichal from Kemitzah), but a Kula - namely,
that anywhere in the Azarah is Kasher for Kemitzah, and not just in the
(b) ... like other Kodshei Kodshim.
(c) The source for this supposition could not have been...
1. ... the Olah - since it is completely burned, which the Minchah is not.
(d) We conclude that the source is in fact, the Pasuk "ve'Higishah el
ha'Mizbe'ach ... ve'Heirim Mimenu be'Kumtzo", from which, if not for
"Vekamatz mi'Sham", we would have learned - that the Kemitzah must take
place by the south-western Keren.
2. ... the Chatas - since it comes to atone for Chayvei Chatas ... (which
the Minchah does not).
3. ... the Asham - since it is an animal offering (whose blood is sprinkled,
whereas the Minchah is not) and for the same reason ...
4. ... we could not learn the Minchah from all three?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Shelamim)
"u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - that if Shelamim can be Shechted in the
Azarah (which the Torah refers to here as ''Pesach Ohel Mo'ed"), then they
can certainly be Shechted in the Ohel Mo'ed proper (i.e. the Heichal).
(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Achilas Kodshei
Kodshim) "be'Kodesh ha'Kodshim Tochlenu" - that if the enemy are bombarding
the Azarah, and it is impossible for the Kohanim to eat Kodshei Kodshim
there, then they are permitted to eat them in the Heichal.
(c) Bearing in mind that we learn Achilas Kodshei Kodshim from the Pasuk
"ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah", the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan is - why may
they not do so even Lechatchilah, using the same S'vara (that if they can
eat Kodshei Kodshim in the Chatzer of the Ohel Mo'ed, how much more so in
the Ohel Mo'ed itself).
(d) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa - by drawing a distinction
between the Kemitzah of the Minchah - which in its capacity as an Avodah, is
applicable no less in the Heichal than in the Azarah, and Achilas Kodshei
Kodshim - which one may do in the outer courtyard, but not in the presence
of one's Master.
(a) The Tana now discusses Chatas ha'Of - which the Kohen brought to the
south-western corner, though he appears to say that this was not crucial.
(b) That Keren was used for three things below the Chut ha'Sikra and three
things above it. Two of the things below were the Chatas ha'Of and the
'Hagashos' - bringing the Minchah to the Mizbe'ach.
(c) The third thing that was performed there was - the Shefichas Shirayim of
the Chata'os ha'Chitzaniyos.
(a) One of the three things to be performed by the Keren Ma'aravis-Deromis
was the Olas ha'Of - which was usually brought by the south-eastern corner,
unless there was no room on the Sovev (where the Kohen stood when bringing
it), because a number of Olos ha'Of were being brought there.
(b) The other two things that were performed on top of the Mizbe'ach by the
south-western corner were - Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim.
(c) To perform the Avodah of the Chatas Beheimah, arrange the Ma'arachah or
turn over the limbs on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohanim would - ascend on the
right side of the ramp and descend on the left.
(d) The three exceptions to this rule - are the Olas ha'Of (when it was
performed in the south-west), Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim.
(a) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ... ki Chatas
Hi", that a Minchah, like a Chatas, requires Tzafon, an obvious error, since
we learned in our Mishnah that the Minchah requires the south-western
(b) Neither can the Torah be comparing a Minchas Chotei to a Chatas
Beheimah, and the Minchas Chotei is an exception, because then our Mishnah
ought to have said so. And besides - if the Chatas ha'Of, (which the Minchas
Chotei replaces) does not require Tzafon, why should the Minchas Chotei?
(c) Rebbi Elazar is comparing a Minchah to a Chatas - with regard to P'sul
(a) Rebbi Elazar also compares a Chatas to a Minchah, in that like it, its
Avodah requires the south-western corner. To reconcile this with the earlier
Mishnah, which permits Kemitzah anywhere in the Azarah, we must remember
that the Tana is speaking about Hagashah, and not Kemitzah.
(b) And as far as the Chatas ha'Of is concerned - Rebbi Elazar is referring
to Haza'as ha'Dam (which is the main Avodah).
(c) As far as the Minchah itself is concerned, the Beraisa learns it from a
combination of two Pesukim in Tzav, "Lifnei Hashem" - which implies the
west, and "el P'nei ha'Mizbe'ach" - implying the south.
(d) The Kohen therefore brings the Minchah - to the edge of the
(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer, in a Beraisa, suggests reconciling the two
Pesukim - by giving the Kohen a choice to bring the Minchah to whichever of
the two sides he chooses.
(b) He rejects this suggestion however, applying the S'vara - that it is
preferable to explain a Pasuk in a way that incorporates a second Pasuk,
rather than in a way that negates it.
(c) Rav Ashi explains the fact that the southern corner is considered
"Lifnei Hashem" - by establishing Rebbi Eliezer like those who hold that the
Mizbe'ach was entirely in the north, because then, its south side faced the
(a) According to Rav Ashi, the statement in our Mishnah (in connection with
the Chatas ha'Of) 'u've'Chol Makom Haysah Kesheirah' means - that the
Melikah could take place anywhere on the Mizbe'ach (on top or below).
(b) Initially, the supporting Beraisa - permits the Haza'as ha'Dam (of the
Chatas ha'Of) anywhere on the Mizbe'ach.
(c) Subsequently however, the Tana adds - that it must be done below the
(d) We cannot reconcile the two statements by saying that the Tana requires
two Ha'za'os - because 'Hizah Damah be'Chol Makom' implies *all* of its
(a) To answer the Kashya, we amend the Beraisa to read (not 'Hizah Damah
be'Chol Makom Kesheirah', but) - 'Mitzah Damah ... '.
(b) 'Mitzuy' entails - squeezing its blood on the wall of the Mizbe'ach.
(c) The Tana mentions Haza'ah in that statement - because the reason that
Mitzuy does not need to be performed by the south-western corner is 'she'Im
Hizah ve'Lo Mitzah, Kesheirah' (which concludes the amendment).
(d) The Chatas ha'Of Kasher, irrespective of whereabouts the Mitzuy is
performed - provided the Haza'ah that preceded it was performed with the Dam
ha'Nefesh on the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach.