ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 92
(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Yayin ke'Divrei Rebbi Akiva le'Sapalim, Shemen
ke'Divrei Rebbi Tarfon le'Ishim'. A second Beraisa gives the reason why
'Yayin le'Sapalim' (and not le'Ishim) as - the prohibition of "Lo Yichbeh"
(a Kashya on Shmuel.
(b) We reconcile Shmuel with this Beraisa, by establishing the author as
Rebbi Yehudah, who holds - 'Davar she'Eino Miskavein, Chayav' ...
(c) ... whereas Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, who holds Patur.
(a) Shmuel rules that extinguishing a burning coal in the street if it is
made of ...
1. ... metal - is permitted, to prevent the public from getting hurt.
(b) ... because the latter is an Isur d'Oraysa (which the Rabbanan are not
empowered to permit), whereas the former is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.
2. ... wood - is forbidden ...
(c) This proves that Shmuel really holds like Rebbi Yehudah, because if he
held like Rebbi Shimon (who also holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah
le'Gufah' Patur'), then he would allow the removal of a wooden coal, as well
(see Tosfos 'DH' 'Melachah').
(d) What makes this a case of 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is the
fact - that he only extinguishes the coal in order to remove the danger, not
because he needs the extinguished coal (in the same way as Rebbi Shimon
considers carrying a deceased person out of the house to bury him 'Melachah
she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' - for exactly the same reason).
(e) We resolve the contradiction in Shmuel - by establishing him like Rebbi
Yehudah with regard to 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', and like
Rebbi Shimon regarding 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven'.
(a) Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "*ve'Chol* Chatas ... ba'Kodesh ba'Eish
Tisaref" - that when Nesachim became Tamei, they must be burned on a special
Ma'arachah on the floor of the Mizbe'ach.
(b) They burn all other P'sulei Kodshei Kodshim - in the Beis ha'Deshen in
the Azarah ...
(c) ... and the reason that they did not burn the Nesachim there as well, is
because since they are liquid, their burning would be noticeable, in the
regular Beis ha'Deshen.
(a) We learned a Beraisa in support of Rav Huna. The Tana adds to 'Nesachim
she'Nitme'u' - 'ha'Dam, ve'ha'Shemen, ve'ha'Menachos'.
***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Tadir' *****
(b) Shmuel asked Rav Chana Bagdesa'a - to bring him ten men, so that he
could announce in front of them that 'Nesachim she'Nitme'u Oseh Lahen
Ma'arachah Bifnei Atzman ve'Sorfan'.
***** Perek Dam Chatas *****
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the blood of a Chatas squirted on to a
garment - that garment must be washed (in the Azarah).
(b) The source for this is - the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Makom Kadosh Te'achel".
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - that this ruling extends
to the blood of Chata'os Penimiyos (even though they are not eaten).
(a) The above ruling does not however, extend to the blood of Chata'os
1. ... which did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher" ...
(b) An example of ...
2. ... or even if they did.
1. ... 'she'Haysah Lah 'Sha'as ha'Kosher' is - if the blood stayed overnight
without being sprinkled, became Tamei or was taken out of the Azarah.
(c) And we learn from "Zos" - that the basic Halachah (of Kibus) does not
extend to the blood of birds.
2. ... 'she'Lo Haysah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher' is - if the animal was Shechted
with a Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemanah or Chutz li'Mekomah or if Pesulin
received the blood.
(a) Resh Lakish quoting bar Kapara, learns from "Tishachet" - that the basic
Pasuk requiring Kibus is confined to animals (that are Shechted) and not to
birds (that are killed by means of Melikah).
(b) "Zos" will not suffice to teach us this - because if not for
"Tishachet", "Zos" might just as well preclude Chata'os Penimiyos, which are
not eaten (and the Torah writes ''Te'achel'', as we explained in the
(c) We include Chata'os Penimiyos, and preclude Ofos - because they are
similar to Chata'os Chitzonos in more respects than Chatas ha'Of is.
(d) Chata'os Penimiyos are more similar to Chata'os Chitzonos than Chatas
ha'Of in no less than eight respects 'Beheimah, Shechitah, Tzafon, Kabalas
K'li, Keranos, Chudah shel Keren, Etzba and Emureihen le'Ishim'. Chatas
ha'Of is more similar to Chata'os Chitzonos than Chata'os Penimiyos are -
inasmuch as it is brought ba'Chutz and that it is eaten, like they are.
(a) Rav Yosef solves the problem of whether to preclude Chata'os Penimiyos
or Chatas ha'Of from the Din of Kibus, by referring to the word "Yochlenah"
(in the previous Pasuk) - which teaches us to preclude from "Zos", something
that is eaten, like Chata'os Chitzoniyos (and birds are eaten, whereas
Chata'os Penimiyos are not).
(b) We nevertheless need "Zos" - because otherwise we would have presumed
"Yochlenah" to be a natural expression (from which nothing can be learned).
(c) When Rabah says "Asher Yazeh", 'be'Niza'os ha'Kasuv Medaber", he means
that the Torah is talking (not about Chata'os Chitzonos, as we assumed until
now, but) - about Chata'os Penimiyos, because that is where it mentions
'Haza'ah' specifically ...
(d) ... and we learn Haza'ah by the Chata'os Chitzoniyos - from "Zos Toras
ha'Chatas" (in Parshas Tzav).
(a) Rabah will explain ...
1. ... 'Af-al-Pi she'Ein ha'Kasuv Medaber Ela be'Ne'echalos' in our
Mishnah - with regard to 'Merikah and Shetifah' (which we have yet to
discuss), but not with regard to 'Kibus'.
(b) Here again, we prefer to include Chata'os Chitzoniyos and preclude Ofos,
because the former are similar to Chata'os Penimiyos in more ways than the
latter are. The only similarity between Ofos and Chata'os Penimiyos (that
does not exist by Chata'os Chitzoniyus) is - that they are both 'Niza'os'
in the way that we just explained it.
2. ... the Mishnah 'Echad ha'Ne'echalos ve'Echad ha'Penimiyos', as if the
Tana was learning the latter from the former, instead of vice-versa - by
actually inverting the two, to now read 'Echad ha'Penimiyos ve'Echad
(a) Rebbi Avin asks what the Din will be if the Kohen took a Chatas ha'Of
inside the Heichal with the blood on its neck. If he did the same thing with
a Chatas Beheimah - the animal would be Kasher, since he did not take it
there in a K'li Shareis.
(b) What causes him to ask the She'eilah by Chatas ha'Of is - the fact that
a bird does not require a K'li Shareis ...
(c) ... and the two sides of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah are - whether the
animal's neck takes the place of a K'li Shareis (in which case, it will be
Pasul), or whether it will be Kasher, since the Torah writes "mi'Damah",
from which we Darshen 've'Lo Besarah' (not if he took it inside together
with its flesh).
(d) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa (in connection with a
Chatas ha'Of) 'Pirch'sah Ve'nichn'sah li'Fenim ve'Chazrah, Kesheirah', from
which we infer - 'Ha Hichnisah, Pesulah'.
(a) We counter this proof from a similar Beraisa which rules (in connection
with Kodshei Kodshim) 'Pirch'sah ve'Yatz'ah le'Darom ve'Chazrah, Kesheirah'.
The problem with making the same inference there is - that there is no mark
delineating between the north and south of the Azarah, so how can an animal
possibly become Pasul, even if it is taken there?
(b) In fact, the Tana inserts the case of 'Yatz'ah le'Darom' - to balance
the case of 'Yatz'ah ba'Chutz, Pasul ... ', which is a Chidush in itself ...
(c) ... similarly, the Tana inserts the case of 'Nichn'sah li'Fenim, to
balance 'Yatzesah la'Chutz, Pesulah' (and not because of the inference).
(d) Despite the fact that in the cases of 'Nichn'sah b'Fenim' and 'Yatz'ah
le'Darom', 'Ve'chazrah' is superfluous, the Tana nevertheless mentions it -
because in both cases of 'Yatz'ah ba'Chutz ... Pesulah', where it is a
(a) Rebbi Avin also asked whether blood that spilled from the bird's neck on
to the floor of the Azarah, and the Kohen gathered it, is Kasher for Haza'ah
or not. In the equivalent case, if blood spilled on the floor from the neck
of a Chatas Beheimah - it would be Pasul (because it spilled before being
received in a K'li Shareis).
(b) And the basis of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah is - that, since the Torah did
not prescribe a K'li Shareis for the blood of a bird, its neck takes the
place of a K'li Shareis. If it does, then it will be Kasher.
(c) On the other hand, it might be Pasul there too - because maybe the Torah
deliberately disqualifies a K'li Shareis by the blood of a bird, and if a
K'li Shareis renders the blood Pasul, how much more so the floor.
(a) We already discussed the Beraisa regarding Dam Chatas ha'Of. The Tana
learns from "Zos" - that the blood of Chatas ha'Of does not require Kibus.
(b) Rava tries to resolve the current She'eilah from there - because if the
blood from the floor was Pasul, then it will also be Pasul from the moment
it enters the air-space of the garment on which it is squirting (and why do
we then need "Zos" to render it Pasul).
(c) To refute the proof, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua establishes the
Beraisa - when the Kohen is actually holding the bird right next to the
(a) Levi asked Rebbi whether, if the blood of a Korban Beheimah bounces off
one garment on to another, the second garment requires Kibus or not. The
She'eilah is - whether it is perhaps worse than the blood of a bird which
spilt from the K'li on to the floor, where it is at least fit to pick up and
perform Haza'ah with it, whereas here, having already been Chayav Kibus when
it squirted on to the first garment, it is no longer eligible for Haza'ah.
(b) Rebbi replied - that 'Mah Nafshach', it requires Kibus. If it is still
eligible (which Levi took for granted it is not), then it certainly requires
Kibus; but even if it is not ('Osfo u'Pasul'), he rules 'Ta'un Kibus ...
(c) ... because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Ya'akov, who holds that even
if the blood is Pasul, it still requires Kibus, as long as it had a Sha'as
(d) We did indeed learn in our Mishnah that the garment does not require
Kibus, even if had a Sha'as ha'Kosher - but that was the opinion of the
Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Ya'akov (as we shall soon see).