ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 105
ZEVACHIM 105 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) Rebbi Elazar asked what the Din will be if those who took the Parim
ha'Nisrafin out of the Azarah took it back - whether their clothes are still
Tamei, or perhaps not (because it is considered as if they had not left [see
Tosfos DH 'O Dilma').
(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which renders Tahor
those carriers who have not yet left the Azarah - which can only be because,
if those who left become Tahor once they return, how much more so those who
have not yet left.
(c) Ravina (or Rava) refutes this proof (as well as the current version of
Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah), by quoting the Pasuk "va'Achar Yavo el
ha'Machaneh" - which precludes any carrier who is still inside the Azarah
from Kibus Begadim, whilst at the same time, it includes anyone who has
(d) Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah must therefore concern a case - where after
returning the Parim ha'Nisrafin ... , others standing outside held on to the
animal with sticks (or ropes) to pull it back outside again. And the
question is whether the bull, having left the Azarah, is Metamei, or not,
since it is has now returned to the Azarah.
(a) The Beraisa rules that ...
1. ... the one who burns the Parah Adumah and the Parim ha'Nisrafin, those
who take it out from the Azarah, and the one who takes out the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach - render them, together with the clothes that they are
wearing, Tamei ...
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, all three are Metamei food and drink. The
Chachamim agree with regard to Parah and Parim, but not with regard to Sa'ir
2. ... but the Parah Adumah, the Parim ha'Nisrafin and the Sa'ir
themselves - do not.
(c) ... because it is alive, and live animals are not subject to Tum'ah
(d) The Din of Metam'in Begadim is written explicitly by the Parah Adumah
and by the Par of Yom Kipur, and we know it by Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par
ha'Eidah - from the word "Chatas", which is written by each one, and which
(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection
with Hechsher Tum'ah) "Al Kol Zera Zeru'a .. ", which he restricts to things
which will not be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah - by which he means Adam ve'Keilim
(Tum'ah Kalah is Ochel u'Mashkeh).
(b) And he then learns from there that ...
1. ... Nivlas Of Tahor - which will be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, does not
require Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah ...
(c) The Kashya this poses on the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir is - that if they
learn like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, then the Sa'ir ought to be Metamei
Ochlin u'Mashkin too, whereas if they don't, then why do they agree with
Rebbi Meir regarding Parah and Parim.
2. ... and neither does Parah, Parim and Sa'ir, which would then be unique -
inasmuch as they would be the only live animals to be Metamei.
(d) So we amend Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael from 'Tz'richin Hechsher' to
'Tz'richin Hechsher Tum'ah mi'Makom Acher', meaning - that even though
things that will be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah do not need 'Hechsher' (for
Tum'ah Kalah), they do however, need to be fit to become Tamei (to preclude
when they are alive), automatically precluding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach
from Tum'ah Kalah.
(a) Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim and Se'irim ha'Hisrafin are Metamei
food and drink (Tum'ah Kalah) whilst they are still inside the Azarah.
Bearing in mind that they are not yet Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, the She'eilah
is - whether the fact that they still needed to be taken outside (to be
Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah) is considered 'Mechusar Ma'aseh' or not.
(b) He concluded - that 'Mechusar Yetzi'ah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (in
which case food touched by the Parim inside the Azarah remains Tahor).
(c) In similar vein, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether a
k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor is Metamei. What makes this She'eilah similar to
the previous one is - the fact that Nivlas Of Tahor is only Metamei Begadim
once a person has eaten it and it is in his throat. Consequently, prior to
that, it might be considered Mechusar Ma'aseh.
(d) This She'eilah is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir - who declares
that a live Sa'ir is Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin, but according to the
Rabbanan, who require the Metamei to be Ra'uy Lekabel Tum'ah, a K'zayis of
Nivlas Of Tahor is not Ra'uy (because Tum'as Ochlin requires a k'Beitzah).
(a) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal added that his She'eilah did not pertain to a case
where the Nivlas Of Tahor was either lying on the floor or already in the
mouth of the person eating it (which contained other Tahor food) - because
neither can is 'Sofo' Letamei Tum'ah Chamurah', the former, because he might
not place it in his mouth, and the latter, because it is already in place to
be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah.
(b) The case is - when as he is holding the Nivlas Of Tahor in his hand,
ready to place it in his mouth, it touches another piece of food.
(c) And his She'eilah is - whether 'Mechusar K'reivah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh
Dami, O Lo'.
(d) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba replied - 'Mechusar K'reivah La'av ki'Mechusar
(a) When the Beraisa presents one of the thirteen things said in connection
with Nivlas Of Tamei 'Tzerichah Machshavah ve'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher', it
means - that in order to combine with less than a k'Beitzah of food to make
up the Shi'ur, the owner must have the intention of eating it, though it
does not require Hechsher (through contact with water or with a Sheretz).
(b) The Tana adds 'u'Metam'in Tum'as Ochlin - bi'k'Beitzah'.
(c) The Tana must be speaking when the person is holding the bird in his
hand - because if it was lying on the floor, it would require Hechsher, and
if it was in the owner's mouth, it would not require Machshavah.
(a) We try to prove from Seifa of this Beraisa - that according to Rebbi
Meir, 'Mechusar K'reivah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (and the Nivlas Of Tahor
requires a k'Beitzah and not a k'Zayis), a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba.
(b) We query our attempt to establish the Seifa like the Rabbanan, on the
grounds that the Reisha 'Tz'richah Machshavah ... ' is the opinion of Rebbi
Meir (see Gilyon ha'Shas), in which case we assume that the Seifa is too.
(c) The Beraisa continues 'Shechitasah u'Melikasah Metaheres Tereifasah
mi'Tum'asah', which as we already learned in 'Chatas ha'Of', is the opinion
of Rebbi Meir. We answer both the previous query and the Kashya from the
continuation 'Reisha ve'Seifa Rebbi Meir, u'Metzi'asa, Rabbanan?' - by
countering that it does matter if the Reisha is learned by a different
author than the Seifa, or the Metzi'asa by a different author than the
Reisha and the Seifa.
(a) When Rav Hamnuna asked Rebbi Zeira whether Rishon le'Tum'ah and Sheini
le'Tum'ah apply to Nivlas Of Tahor, he added - that he should refrain from
sitting down until he has given him a reply.
(b) Rav Zeira replied that Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah only apply to
something that is Metamei through touching - which he learns from Tum'as
Sheretz (in Parshas Shemini), the Torah's source for the Din of Rishon and
(a) The Mishnah in Taharos rules - that two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah which
are joined by liquid - that is 'Tofe'ach' (enough to wet the hand that
touches it sufficiently that it will in turn, make other things wet) combine
to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.
(b) Rebbi Zeira ask Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (or Rebbi Avin bar Kahana) about
food or drink that touched one of the half-k'Zeisim - whether food that
touches one of the halves is subject to Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah.
(c) Rebbi Avin bar Chiya replied - that only food that can be Metamei a
person can make a Rishon, to make a Sheini, but not one that can only render
Tamei, food and drink.
(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk writes in connection with the Par Kohen
ha'Mashi'ach "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", and then compares the Par ha'Eidah
to it, when it writes "Ka'asher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon", the Beraisa
learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... (written in connection with the latter) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" -
that we need to add a second Machaneh to the location where they are burned.
(b) This latter Pasuk is superfluous - because the Torah has already written
"al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref".
2. ... (written in connection with the Terumas ha'Deshen) "el mi'Chutz
la'Machaneh" - that we need to add even a third Machaneh.
(c) Bearing in mind that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur also belong to the
above category, another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "el mi'Chutz
la'Machaneh", implying 'outside the first Machaneh' (i.e. as soon as they
leave Machaneh Shechinah) - that that is when those who are carrying them
together with the clothes they are wearing become Tamei.
(a) The problem we now have with Rebbi Shimon is - since he does not declare
those dealing with the animals Tamei until the animals have been burned,
what does he learn from "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur)?
(b) We therefore establish Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Eliezer in yet a third
Beraisa, who learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur)
and "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the burning of the Parah Adumah). We learn ...
1. ... from the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom Kipur - that the Parah Adumah must be
burned outside the three camps.
(c) ... which we know - from the fact that the Torah instructs the Kohen who
burns it to sprinkle some of the ashes towards the entrance of the Ohel
2. ... from Parah Adumah - that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur is burned on
the east side of Yerushalayim ...