ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 120
ZEVACHIM 120 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) Rebbi Zeira asks whether, if an Olas Bamas Yachid that was taken into
the confines of a Bamas Tzibur after the Shechitah, and then taken out
again - we say 'Keivan de'Ayla, Kaltah Lah Mechitzos' (and it nevertheless
retains the Din of an Olas Bamas Tzibur) or 'Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar' (and it
reverts to its original Din of an Olas Bamas Yachid.
(b) We try to connect this She'eilah to the following Machlokes Amora'im.
The Mishnah in Me'ilah says that even if Kodshei Kodshim are Shechted in the
south of the Azarah - they are subject to Me'ilah.
(c) The Chidush is - that we do not say that Shechting them in the south is
akin to killing them without Shechitah (in which case they would lose the
(d) Rabah maintains that if they were subsequently taken up on the
Mizbe'ach, 'Im Alu Yerdu'. Rav Yosef rules - 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.
(a) We try to resolve our She'eilah based on the Machlokes between Rabah and
Rav Yosef - in that here too, Rabah will hold 'Keivan de'Hadar Hadar' (since
Shechitah in the wrong place removes their Kedushah (at least as regards the
Din of 'Im Alu ... '); whereas Rav Yosef, who holds that it does not, holds
'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.
(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that ...
1. ... Rabah might well confine his ruling to the case of the Mizbe'ach in
the Beis-Hamikdash, (conceding that in our case, we will say 'Keivan
she'Hichnisah, Kaltah Lah Mechitzos') - because the Mizbe'ach only
sanctifies Kodshim that are fit for it (as we already learned in
'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh'), whereas the Bamah Gedolah is Mekadesh even Kodshim
that are not.
(c) What was obvious to Rabah (one way) and Rav Yosef (the other), was not
so obvious to Rebbi Yanai (see Shitah Mekubetzes and Hagahos Rav Yitzchak
Iyzak Chaver). He asked whether the limbs of a Bamas Yachid that were taken
up on to the Mizbe'ach of a Bamas Tzibur, must be taken down again.
2. ... Rav Yosef confines his ruling to the case of Mizbe'ach (conceding
that in our case, we will say 'Keivan de'Hadar Hadar') - because both
Kodshim that are Shechted in the north and Kodshim that are Shechted in the
south, are brought on the same Mizbe'ach, whereas Kodshei Bamas Tzibur and
Kodshei Bamas Yachid are brought on different Mizbechos.
(d) We remain with a She'eilah ('Teiku'), though we do qualify the
She'eilah. It is obvious (to Rebbi Yanai) - that if the majority of the limb
is already burning 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' (and the She'eilah pertains to a case
where it is not.
(a) Rav and Shmuel argue over Shechitas Laylah by a Bamah Ketanah - one
validates it, the other, doesn't.
(b) Rebbi Elazar referred to an apparent discrepancy between two Pesukim in
Shmuel - where once, when they were preparing for war, Shaul specifically
ordered the people to Shecht by day, and then the Pasuk records that they
Shechted by night.
(c) Rav and Shmuel answer the Kashya differently. One of them establishes
the first Pasuk by Kodshim, and the second, by Chulin (because he holds that
Laylah is forbidden even by a Bamas Yachid) - the other establishes the
first Pasuk by Kodshei Bamah Gedolah (which require day, even though they
are being brought on a Bamah Ketanah); and the second Pasuk, by Kodshei
Bamah Ketanah (which do not).
(a) According to Rav, Kodshei Bamas Yachid do not require Hefshet and
Nitu'ach. Rebbi Yochanan says - that they do.
(b) They argue over a statement by Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who says - that the
Olah which Yisrael brought in the desert (i.e. at Har Sinai) did not require
Hefshet and Nitu'ach.
(c) He concludes his statement with 'she'Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach Ela me'Ohel
Mo'ed. Rebbi Yochanan takes Rebbi Yossi Hagelili to the letter. Rav
qualifies his words - confining them to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah
(a) After listing the differences between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah
Ketanah, the Beraisa (which we cited already in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh'
lists the Halachos that they share. The Tana rules that ...
1. ... Kiyor ve'Kano - applies to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah
(b) This Beraisa - proves Rebbi Yochanan right.
2. ... Shechitah - applies to both Bamos, as does ...
3. ... Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach and ...
4. ... Dam Matir u'Mefagel.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Z'man and Nosar apply equally to a Bamah
Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah. We would learn otherwise from a 'Binyan Av'
from Yotzei, which is not Pasul by a Bamah Ketanah - but, like Lan (Nosar),
it must be burned (in the Beis-Hamikdash).
(b) We know that Yotzei is not Pasul by a Bamah Ketanah - since a Bamah
Ketanah does not require Mechitzos.
(c) Consequently, based on what we have just said, just like Yotzei is
Kasher by a Bamah, so too is Lan.
(a) We refute this Limud however by learning a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ofos -
which do not become Pasul by means of a Mum, whereas Kodshei Bamas Yachid do
(b) ... in which case, if Z'man applies to Ofos, 'Kal-va'Chomer' to Kodshei
(a) We repudiate this 'Kal-va'Chomer' however, on the grounds that Ofos also
posses a stringency, inasmuch as a Zar is forbidden to sacrifice Ofos,
though he is permitted to sacrifice Kodshei Bamas Yachid.
***** Hadran Alach 'Paras Chatas' u'Selika Lah Maseches Zevachim *****
(b) We finally learn the Din of Z'man from the Pasuk "ve'Zos Toras Zevach
ha'Shelamim" which teaches us - that all Shelamim share the same Halachos,
irrespective of whether they are brought on the Mizbe'ach on a Bamas Yachid.
(c) We confine this Limud specifically to Z'man, and not to all the other
Dinim of Shelamim - because the Limud pertains to the Halachos that are
dealt with in that Parshah, one of which is that of Z'man and Pigul.
(d) And we extend this ruling to ...
1. ... Nosar - because of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avon" "Avon" from Pigul.
2. ... Tamei - because it too, is written in that Parshah.
On to Menachos