REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 35
ZEVACHIM 35 (14 Tamuz) Dedicated by Shabsi and Celine Ledereich in honor of
the marriage of Serena Morsel to Shimy Berenholtz; may theirs be a "Binyan
(a) Rebbi Yehudah asked the Rabbanan why, seeing as they disagree with him
regarding the cupful of blood, the Kohanim would block up the exit of the
Amah to prevent the blood from flowing out of the Azarah.
What did they
(b) According to the Chachamim, why did the blood on the Kohanim's feet not
constitute a Chatzitzah?
(c) What does the Beraisa say about blood, ink, honey and milk?
(d) What other problem do we have with the fact that, according to the
Chachamim, the Kohanim had to wade through the blood?
(a) To dispense with the previous Kashya, why could the Kohanim simply not
have raised the hem of their shirts?
(b) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that they were only required
to wade through the blood whilst carrying the limbs on to the ramp, because
it is not an Avodah?
(c) Then by which non-Avodah did the Kohanim wade through the blood (hems
(d) How did they then avoid getting their clothes blood-stained when
carrying the limbs and the blood to the Mizbe'ach?
(a) What does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah say about someone who Shechts a
Korban having in mind to eat ...
(b) With which of these rulings does Rebbi Eliezer disagree?
- ... part of the animal that is not normally eaten or to burn part of it that is not normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano?
- ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten *or* to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano?
- ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten *and* to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano?
(c) And what does the Tana say about someone who Shechts a Korban with the
intention of eating a k'Zayis of the skin or the gravy Chutz li'Zemano
ve'Chutz li'Mekomo? Which other three P'sulin are they (as well as the
remainder of items on the list that we are about to discuss) not subject to?
(d) The Tana includes the Kifah and the Elel in the list. If 'Kifah'
constitutes the spices and the fragments of meat at the bottom of the pot,
what is 'Elel'?
(a) Which other four parts of the animal does the Tana add to the list?
(b) What do all the items in the Tana's list have in common?
(c) If someone ...
(d) Which other two Isurim are the milk of Mukdashin and eggs of a Kodshim
pigeon not subject to?
- ... Shechts an animal as a Korban, are the fetus and the placenta subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo?
- ... (a Kohen) performs Melikah on a bird as a Korban, is its egg subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo?
(a) Rebbi Elazar holds 'Pigeil be'Zevach, Nispagel ha'Sh'lil'.
(b) Then on what grounds does he continue 'Pigeil ba'Shelil, Lo Nispagel
(c) In the latter case, is the Sh'lil itself subject to Pigul?
(a) He continues 'Pigeil be'Elel, Nispagel ha'Mura'ah', but not vice-versa.
If the Mura'ah is not edible, what is the reason for the first ruling
(bearing in mind that in our Mishnah, we described Elel too, as being
inedible)? What is 'Mura'ah'?
(b) Rebbi Elazar continues 'Pigeil be'Eimurim, Nispaglu Parim; be'Parim, Lo
What does 'Parim' refer to?
(c) What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(d) What can we extrapolate from Rebbi Elazar's dual rulings regarding the
Sh'lil, the Mura'ah and the Basar Parim?
(a) Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue in Perek T'vul-Yom whether Parim
ha'Nisrafin are subject to Pigul at all. What does the Beraisa say about a
case where the Kohen sprinkled the blood with the intention of eating the
Basar or burning the Eimurim Chutz li'Zemano?
Answers to questions
(b) How do we reconcile this with what we learned in the previous Perek
'Chishav she'Tochleihu Eish le'Machar, Pigul'?
(c) When, according to the Rabbanan, will Pigul then apply to Parim
(d) What do we try to extrapolate from the Lashon of the Beraisa 've'Shavin
she'Im Chishav ba'Achilas Parim, u'vi'Sereifasan Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum' (as a
proof for Rebbi Elazar)?
(e) How do we refute this proof? If a Machshavah on the Eimurim does not
render the *Parim*, Pigul, then what *does* it render Pigul?
(a) The Beraisa discusses Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin.
which stage do they become ...
(b) How do we again attempt to prove Rebbi Elazar right from here?
- ... subject to Me'ilah?
- ... Pasul through being touched by a T'vul-Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim and subject to Linah?
(c) According to the Seifa of the Beraisa, up until when are they subject to
(d) Why does the Seifa create a problem with our suggestion that Linah in
the Reisha refers to Linas Eimurim (and not Basar)?
(e) How do we repudiate this Kashya?
(a) The Beraisa, discussing the things that are neither Mefagel nor
Mispagel, lists all the items in our Mishnah.
Why does the Tana find it
necessary to add specifically the wool of the head and the hair of the
(b) From which La'av does the Tana exempt them, besides that of Pigul, Nosar
(c) What Kashya does Rabah ask on Rebbi Elazar from this Beraisa? How does
he interpret 've'Eilu she'Ein Mefaglin ve'Ein Mispaglin'?
(d) How do we answer the Kashya? How do we establish it?
(a) Rabah's proof is based on the Seifa 'Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo Mispaglin'.
Why is that a problem?
(b) How do we counter this Kashya from the continuation 've'Ein Chayavin
Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'?
(c) So what do we conclude?
(a) What does Rava extrapolate from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Chalav
ha'Mukdashin u'Beitzei Torim Ein Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar
ve'Tamei', (bearing in mind that the Tana has just said 'Hashochet es
ha'Mukdashin Le'echol Sh'lil O ha'Shilya ba'Chutz Lo Pigeil')?
(b) How does he then reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two
(c) What does he prove from there?
(a) The Tana Kama in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh includes Ba'alei Mumin
among the Pesulin that 'Im Alu, Yerdu'.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(b) Rebbi Yochanan restricts Rebbi Akiva's ruling to the Mum of Dukin
she'be'Ayin (eye's web).
Why is that?
(c) He also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the Mum.
Why is that?
(d) In which case of Olah Pesulah will Rebbi Akiva concede that 'Im Alah
Yeired', even though it is Kasher by an Olas ha'Of?
(a) We learned in the Beraisa (that we cited earlier) 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen
ba'Chutz, Patur. Rebbi Zeira infers from the Beraisa 'Meihen (from the
Sh'lil and the Shilya), Ha me'Iman, Chayav.'
Why must this be talking
about an Olas Nekeivah, and not for example, a Shelamim?
(b) Why must the author be Rebbi Akiva?
(c) What Kashya does this pose on what we just learned?
(d) What objection do we raise to the suggestion that the inference reads
(not 'Ha me'Iman, Chayav', but) 'Ha me'Eimurei Iman, Chayav'?
(e) So how do we amend 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Patur', to accommodate
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, if someone Shechts Kodshim
having in mind to leave its blood or its Eimurin until the next day, the
Korban is Pasul.
What is strange about this ruling?
(b) What do the Chachamim say?
(c) What does our Mishnah say in a case where one Shechted the Korban having
in mind ...
(d) What other case of Machsheves P'sul does the Tana add with regard to a
- ... to place the blood on part of the Mizbe'ach where there is no Yesod, above the Chut ha'Sikra instead of below it, or vice-versa, or on the outer Mizbe'ach instead of on the inner one, or vice-versa?
- ... that Teme'im or Areilim should eat it or bring it?
- ... to break its bones (assuming it is a Korban Pesach)?
(a) What does the Tana finally say about a case where he had in mind to mix
the blood with the blood of a Pasul Korban?
Answers to questions
(b) What is the K'lal? What are the only three Machshavos that render a
Korban Pasul or Pigul?