REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 38
ZEVACHIM 36-40 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) From where does the Tana of another Beraisa initially learn a 'Binyan
Av' that one Matanah will suffice Bedieved by a Chatas Chitzonah?
(b) On the other hand, from where might we learn a 'Binyan Av' that all four
Matanos are required?
(c) On what basis would it be preferable to learn Chatas Chitzonah from ...
(d) How do we know that "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (the source of Matanah
Achas Bedieved by other Korbanos), does not extend to Chata'os too?
- ... le'Matah mi'Chut ha'Sikra?
- ... a Chatas Penimi?
(a) What does the Tana therefore learn from the three times "Ve'chiper"
written by a Chatas Chitzonah (by the Sa'ir Nasi, and the Kisbah and Se'irah
of a Yachid)?
(b) Rav Ada Mari explained to Rava why these words are not all needed for
the intrinsic Halachah of Kaparah in each of the three cases.
What did he
(c) We still query the D'rashah, on the grounds that maybe we ought to learn
from the first "ve'Chiper" that even three Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra
and one below will suffice, from the second, two above and two below, and
from the third, even all below and none above. The problem with this
suggestion is - that this would mean negating the whole concept of 'K'ranos'
(which is synonymous with Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra).
(d) And how do we then refute Rav Ada bar Yitzchak answer, that if the Torah
indicates that Bedieved, no K'ranos are needed, so be it? What do we learn
from the fact that Torah writes three times "Ve'chiper", and not four?
(a) Still, we persist, perhaps Bedieved, the Chatas requires one Matanah
above the Chut ha'Sikra and three below it.
How do we reject this
suggestion as well?
(b) How do we reconcile this statement with the Mishnah in Yoma (regarding
the blood of the Par on Yom Kipur) 'Hizah Mimenu Achas Lema'alah, ve'Sheva
(c) Rav Yehudah demonstrated 'ke'Matzlif' 'ki'Menagdana'.
What does this
(d) Why then, does the Tana say 'le'Ma'alah' and 'le'Matah'?
(a) We also learned in the Mishnah there (in connection with the blood of
the Par of Yom Kipur) 'Hizah al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach Sheva Pe'amim'.
Assuming that 'Taharo' is from the same root as 'Tihara Yoma' (mid-day),
what Kashya does this pose on the current theory?
Answers to questions
(b) So how does Rava bar Shilo explain 'Tihara', based on the Pasuk in
Mishpatim "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'Tohar"?
(c) How do we then reconcile the current theory with the fact that although
the blood of the Chatas ...
- ... Chitzonah was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Shirayim was poured on to the Yesod (which is below it)?
- ... Penimi was sprinkled on the K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, yet the blood was poured on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (according to those who hold that it was crucial to the Avodah)?
(a) What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov mean when he states in a Beraisa
that two Matanos of a Chatas (and one of other Korbanos), according to Beis-
(b) What equivalent ruling does he issue according to Beis-Hillel?
- ... are Matir?
- ... are Mefagel?
(c) What did Rav Oshaya mean when he asked why the Machlokes does not appear
in Iduyos? Why ought it to?
(d) What did Rava answer him?
(a) On what grounds did Rebbi Yochanan rule that the last three Matanos of a
(b) What did he say about someone who performs them outside the Azarah?
- ... may not be performed at night-time?
- ... may be performed after the owner's death?
(c) Rav Papa lists the first and third Halachah of Rebbi Yochanan among the
things that give the last three Matanos the status of the first one.
does he say about Zarus, K'li Shareis, Keren, Etzba, Kibus Begadim and
(d) 'Shirayim' means that if the Kohen received the blood in four cups, and
sprinkled on one Keren from each Kos, the remainder must be poured on to the
Yesod (as we learned earlier).
What does Rav Papa mean by 'Kibus'?
(a) Rav Papa also includes Rebbi Yochanan's Din of 'Ba'os le'Achar Miysah'
in his list of those things that render the last three Matanos like
What does he mean when he includes in this list ...
(b) Rav Papa proves his ruling by Kibus Begadim from a Mishnah in Perek Dam
- ... 'Lo Sharya'?
- ... 'Lo Mefagla'?
- ... 'Lo Ayla le'Gava'i'?
What distinction does the Tana draw there between blood that
squirted straight from the animal's neck and blood that splashed from the
Keren or the Yesod, on to the Kohen's shirt?
(c) What does Rav Papa extrapolate from 'min ha'Keren, Eino Ta'un Kibus
Begadim', as a source for his ruling?
(d) How do we initially refute Rav Papa's proof from 'min ha'Yesod Eino
Ta'un Kibus Begadim'? What is wrong with making the same inference there?
(a) We answer this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechemyah
(see Tosfos DH 'Ha Mani').
What does Rebbi Nechemyah say in a Mishnah in
'ha'Shochet u'Ma'aleh' with regard to 'Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan
(b) How does this answer the Kashya on Rav Papa?
(c) How do we refute this answer?
(d) What do we mean by 'Midi de'Havi a'Eivarim u'Pedarim'?
(a) We reject this refutation however, on the basis of another Beraisa.
What does the Tana say there about blood that needs to be poured on to the
Yesod regarding Kibus, Machshavah an Ma'aleh ba'Chutz?
Answers to questions
(b) In which case is the Tana lenient in all three regards?
(c) How do we know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Nechemyah?
(d) What does this prove?