POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafPesachim 78
1) TUMAH HUTRAH B'TZIBUR
(a) Our Mishna apparently differs with R. Yosi.
2) THE OPINION OF R. YOSI
1. R. Yosi says that the Tzitz does not address
(b) No, R. Yosi holds like R. Eliezer.
2. To do Zerikah requires that the meat be considered
3. R. Yosi, then, appears to agree with R. Yehoshua.
(c) Question: Then what difference does it make that R.
Yosi holds that the Tzitz does not address edibles?
(d) Response Question: And what difference does it make for
R. Eliezer that it *does*?
(e) Answer: The "existence" of the edibles allows the
Korban to contract Pigul and to become immune from
1. R. Eliezer holds that the Tzitz allows the Korban
to proceed as though the edibles were there.
(f) Question: What Ritzui Ochlin helped the Shtei Halechem?
2. R. Yosi holds that it does not.
1. Perhaps it permits the Korban brought with them?
(g) Answer: R. Yosi holds that Tumah is *permitted* in
communal offerings (and the Tzitz is not needed).
2. That would have been address by "Shalmei Tzibur,
making the list four, not five.
(h) Question: Why (if the Tumah is Hutrah) does R. Yosi
require sprinkling on the Kohen?
(i) Answer: Indeed, the Mishna is not like R. Yosi.
(a) Question: R. Yosi appears to accept contradictory
1. He accepts both R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in
(b) Answer: When he was learning each topic (Zevachim and
Menachos), he asserted that the dispute would hold by
the other topic, as well.
2. He repeats this acceptance both by Zevachim as
well as by Menachos.
(c) Question: Why does he need to mention, again, by
Menachos that the dispute would carry over?
(d) Answer: R. Yosi agrees with R. Eliezer when the Ochlin
become Tameh (but still exist) and with R. Yehoshua
when the Ochlin are lost or burnt.
(e) Question: The only way to accept the Tamei Ochlin is
with Ritzui Tzitz, but we were taught that R. Yosi
holds that the Tzitz is *not* Meratzeh?!
(f) Answer: The opinion of R. Yosi is to accept R. Eliezer
(blood even without meat) in public offerings, and to
accept R. Yehoshua (no blood without meat) by
(g) Question #1: We learnt previously that R. Yosi holds
Tumah B'Tzibur is *Dechuyah* not *Hutrah*?
(h) Question #2: R. Yehoshua would also agree by Tzibur
that the blood can come without the meat!?
3) MISHNA: LOSS OF CHELEV
(i) Answer: The opinion of R. Yosi is to accept R. Eliezer
after b'Dieved and R. Yehoshua l'Chatchilah.
(j) Question: But we were taught that R. Yehoshua *also*
holds that after the fact the Korban is effective!?
(k) Answer: R. Yehoshua holds that b'Dieved it is effective
only in the instance of Tumah, not of loss; R. Yosi is
siding with R. Eliezer in the b'Dieved case even where
there was loss of the meat.
(a) If the meat of the Korban Pesach become Tameh, there is
no Zerikah, even if the Chelev exists.
4) EATING THE KORBAN PESACH
(b) By other Korbanos, as long as either the meat or the
Chelev is not Tameh, there is Zerikah.
(a) [Rav] If there was Zerikah, even by the Korban Pesach,
b'Dieved, the owners were Yotzei.
5) RAV REGARDING TUMAH B'DIEVED
(b) Question: But the Korban Pesach must be *eaten*!?
(c) Answer: The lack of eating does not block its
(d) Question: But the Pasuk says "each according to his
(e) Answer: That is the Mitzvah, but does not preclude
effectiveness without it.
(f) Question: But we have a Bereisa by Menuyin that implies
that the eating *is* Me'akev!?
(g) Answer: Rav holds like R. Noson that the eating is
(h) Question: Where do we find R. Noson holding this
1. One source is his statement that all of Klal
Yisrael could be Yotzei with one Korban.
(i) Answer: The source is from his teaching that the second
group of Menuyin on the Korban do not have to bring a
Pesach Sheni because the blood was sprinkled (even
though they did not eat a Kezayis).
2. That could be because each group could withdraw,
allowing all others to participate, but this would
*not* hold if the Korban became Tameh!
(j) Question: Here, too, it could be because the first
group *could have* withdrawn.
(k) Answer: Then the Bereisa should have said "because they
could have withdrawn," not "because the blood was
sprinkled?" (Hence we see Rav's source.)
(a) Question: What forced Rav to learn the Mishna according
to R. Noson, learn it like the Rabanan (and even
b'Dieved there is no Zerikah)?
(b) Answer: Rav was troubled by the words "he does not do
Zerikah," since it should have said simply "Pasul,"
thus implying that it is only speaking l'Chatchilah.
(c) Question: According to R. Noson, what is meant by "each
according to his eating?"
(d) Answer: The person must be able to eat.
(e) Question: Who holds that a thought regarding a person
who cannot eat will not invalidate the Korban Pesach?
1. Is it R. Noson
(f) Answer: All hold this since incorrect thoughts
regarding the consumers at the time of Zerikah would
not invalidate the Korban.
2. This would be a logical extension of his Din.
(g) Question: Who holds that we do not prepare a Korban
Pesach for anyone who was unable to eat either at the
time of the Shechitah or the Zerikah? (This would
appear to not follow R. Noson, who holds that the
inability to eat should not pose an issue of
(h) Answer: Even R. Noson holds that the *person* must be
able to eat.
(i) Question: Who holds that if the owners became Tameh
after the Shechitah we still do the Zerikah even though
there will not be Achilah?
(j) Answer #1: R. Eliezer holds that this is the view of R.
Noson (that even if the owner is Tameh the eating is
(k) Answer #2: We are speaking when the majority of the
Tzibur became Tameh after the Shechitah.
(l) Question: If we are dealing with a Tzibur Tameh, then
why isn't the Korban eaten?
(m) Answer #1: It is a Gezeirah lest people confuse the
(n) Answer #2 [top of 79a]: Rav holds like R' Yehoshua
(that the eating is not Me'akev).