REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 13
ZEVACHIM 11-15 - 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) What does our Mishnah rule with regard to Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah
she'Lo li'Sheman by a Pesach or a Chatas?
(b) What does the Tana mean when it extends this ruling to ...
(c) With which of the above cases does Rebbi Shimon disagree with the Tana
Kama? Why is that?
- ... 'li'Sheman ve'she'Lo li'Sheman'?
- ... 'she'Lo li'Sheman ve'li'Sheman'?
(d) There is a 'Holachah be'Makom she'Hu Tzarich Le'halech' and a 'Holachah
be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech' (which will be explained in the Sugya).
What distinction does Rebbi Elazar make between the two?
(a) In the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar, Ve'hikrivu B'nei
Aharon ha'Kohanim es ha'Dam", how does the Beraisa interpret the word
(b) And what do we learn from "B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim"?
(c) On what basis do we suggest that "Ve'hikrivu" really means 'Zerikah'?
(d) How do we then know that it does not mean ...
- ... Zerikah?
- ... Holachah?
(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with the Tana Kama's D'rashah (from "B'nei Aharon
What does he learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "B'nei Aharon"
"B'nei Aharon" (from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "Eileh Sh'mos B'nei Aharon ... "
[in connection with Elazar and Isamar])?
(b) What does he learn from "Asher Milei Yadam le'Chahen" written there"?
(c) What did Rebbi Tarfon comment about the corollary between Kabalah and
Zerikah? What bothered him?
(a) Rebbi Akiva put Rebbi Tarfon's mind at rest, by presenting three
distinctions between the two, one to do with Machshavah, one with Chutz and
one with Pesulin.
Which three distinctions are we referring to?
(b) Why is Kabalah ...
(c) Why was Rebbi Tarfon so impressed with Rebbi Akiva?
- ... ba'Chutz not Chayav Kareis?
- ... via Pesulin not Chayav Kareis?
(d) What did he subsequently declare?
(a) In any event, Rebbi Akiva clearly states that Machshavah by Kabalah does
not render the Korban Pasul. How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah,
which holds that it does?
(b) How do we prove this from the Lashon in our Mishnah 'she'ha'Zevach
Nifsal be'Arba'ah Avodos'?
(c) Given that in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'B'sar Zevach
Shelamav Lo Yeratzeh", "Lo Yeratzeh" refers predominantly to Zerikah, what
does the Beraisa learn from the Lashon "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel"?
(d) How does the Tana extrapolate that from there?
(a) Which other two Avodos do we suggest ought to be included in the above
(b) We reject this suggestion however, based on the Pasuk "ha'Makriv Oso Lo
Yechashev", which teaches us the Din of Pigul by Zerikah.
What is strange
(c) How do we then go on to refute the current suggestion from there?
(a) In any event, we see that Kabalah is subject to Pigul.
Answers to questions
How do we
reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva, who taught us in the previous Beraisa that
it is not?
(b) With regard to the Beraisa, which precludes Shefichas Shirayim ... from
the Din of Pigul, a certain Chacham asked Rava from another Beraisa.
does the Tana there learn from the double Lashon "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel"?
(c) What did Rava answer him? When is Shefichas Shirayim subject to Pigul,
and when is it not?
(d) What is the guiding principle in this matter? At which point must one
think, and what must one think, for Pigul to take effect?
(a) With regard to the Chata'os Penimiyos, the Torah writes in Vayikra
"Ve'taval ha'Kohen Etzba'o ... ". What did Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi
Chiya comment about Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os Penimiyos?
(b) How does bar Pada query this ruling (from the source of Pigul), when
Ilfa repeated this Chidush in front of him?
(c) The Mishnah says in Perek Sheini that if, after a Korban Chatas has been
Shechted with thoughts of Pigul, the Kohen makes Kabalah or Holachah she'Lo
li'Shemo, the person who eats it is not Chayav Chatas.
Why is that?
(d) Why then, if the same occurs with a Shelamim, does the Din of Pigul
(a) If, as we explained earlier, we learn Pigul by Chatas from Pigul by
Shelamim, then how will we explain the difference between the Din of Chatas
and that of Shelamim that we just cited?
(b) How will this vindicate Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya?
(c) In a repeat of the Sugya, Resh Lakish (who holds like bar Pada) asks
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who holds like Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya)
the same Kashya as bar Pada asked Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya. Only
there, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina concludes that we do indeed learn Chatas
Where do we find by Shelamim that a subsequent Machsheves
P'sul negates the Machsheves Pigul that preceded it (even though a
Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemo does not)?
(d) What Pircha does Rebbi Yirmiyah ask on this Limud? Why can we not learn
the Din of she'Lo li'Shemo (by Chatas) from Chutz li'Mekomo (by Shelamim)?
(a) So we learn Chatas from Shelamim with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shelamim, via
a set of principles.
How (via which principle) do we then learn ...
(b) Rav Mari tries to prove this from a Mishnah in Menachos.
- ... that she'Lo li'Shemo by a Chatas negates the Pigul that preceded it?
- ... that Tevilas Etzba renders Pigul by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos?
What does the
Tana say there about a Kohen performing the Kemitzah, placing the Minchah
into a K'li Shareis, taking it to the Mizbe'ach or burning it on the
Mizbe'ach? What must he have in mind to render the Minchah Pigul?
(c) To which four Avodos of a Zevach do these four Avodos correspond?
(d) If we can learn the other three from the corresponding Avodos by a
Shelamim, what is the problem with learning Matan Kometz bi'Cheli from
(a) What does Rav Mari therefore learn from the Mishnah in Menachos,
regarding the Din of Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos?
(b) On what grounds do we refute Rav Mari's proof?
(c) One Beraisa states 'Tevilas Etzba Mefageles be'Chatas', whilst another
Beraisa states 'Lo Mefageles ve'Lo Mispageles'.
How do we initially
interpret the Machlokes?
(d) We counter that both Beraisos may well consider Tevilas Etzba like
Holachah, and the author of the Beraisa 'Lo Mefageles ... ' is Rebbi Shimon.
So what if it is? What does he say?
(a) What problem do we have with establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi
Shimon, based on the fact that we are talking about Pigul in the Heichal?
(b) So we establish both Beraisos like the Rabbanan.
How then, do we
explain 'Lo Mefageles ... ' in the second Beraisa? What sort of Chata'os is
the Tana talking about?
(c) We ask on that 'P'shita'.
What do we mean by that?
(a) In fact, when the Torah writes (by Chatas Chitzonah) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen
mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o", it refers to Kabalas ha'Dam.
Answers to questions
How do we know
that it does not refer to Tevilas Etzba'o?
(b) Then why might we have thought that it does?
(c) Why then, is Tevilas Etzba'o not subject to Pigul?