THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ZEVACHIM 10 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) WRONGFUL THOUGHTS THAT ARE NOT CARRIED OUT IN PRACTICE
OPINIONS: The Gemara (9b) records an argument between Rebbi Yochanan and
Reish Lakish regarding a person who -- while slaughtering a Korban Chatas --
has in mind to perform the Zerikah later with intent that it should be a
different type of Korban. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Chatas is Pasul,
because the thought that one has in mind during one Avodah about a different
Avodah is able to invalidate a Korban. Reish Lakish disagrees and maintains
that a thought about a different Avodah cannot invalidate the Korban.
Similarly, they argue (10a) whether or not slaughtering a Korban with intent
that the Zerikah will be done in the name of Avodah Zarah causes the animal
to be forbidden from benefit. Rebbi Yochanan says that the animal is
forbidden, and Reish Lakish says that one may benefit from the animal.
What exactly is the case in which Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue?
Must the person slaughtering the animal have intent that he *himself* will
do the Zerikah in a wrongful manner, or do these arguments apply even when
he intends to have someone else do the Zerikah in a wrongful manner?
(a) The RASHBA in TORAS HA'BAYIS (Hilchos Shechitah 1:1) discusses the
opinion in Chulin (39b) that says that it is permitted for Jewish butchers
to slaughter animals of Nochrim in return for the meat and skin, even though
it is apparent that the Nochrim will sprinkle the blood for Avodah Zarah.
The Rashba points out that the Jewish butchers may not have in mind that
their slaughtering is being done in order for the Nochri to be able to
sprinkle the blood, because such intentions would prohibit the meat and skin
from benefit, as stated by Rebbi Yochanan here in Zevachim. If the argument
between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish apply in a case in which the same
person who slaughtered the animal (with intention to do the Zerikah for the
sake of Avodah Zarah) is also performing the Zerikah, then even Reish Lakish
should agree that the meat is forbidden, because the person slaughtering the
animal is considered a Mumar whose Shechitah is forbidden! The Gemara,
therefore, must be referring to a case of a person who slaughters with
intention that a Nochri will perform the Zerikah for Avodah Zarah, and
nevertheless Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the animal is forbidden. Even
though the Rashba is unsure about the proof from our Gemara, he says that
this is the appropriate conclusion.
(b) The RE'AH in BEDEK HA'BAYIS writes that he does not understand the
Rashba's words at all. It is obvious from the context of our Gemara that our
Gemara is discussing only a case of a person who will do the Zerikah
himself. In addition, the Rashba's proof is not clear. The Rashba says that
Reish Lakish would agree that the animal is forbidden in a case in which the
person who slaughtered the animal planned to perform the Zerikah himself.
This is problematic, because Reish Lakish maintains that until the Zerikah
is actually performed for Avodah Zarah, the animal is permitted like any
other animal! The Re'ah also asserts that even if the person slaughtering
the Korban had arranged beforehand that someone else would perform the
Zerikah for Avodah Zarah, it is not at all clear that appointing a Shali'ach
for such a thing is effective.
The ME'IRI in Sanhedrin (60b) understands the case like the Re'ah. He
explains that the case involving Avodah Zarah refers to a case in which the
person had in mind during Shechitah "that *he* would sprinkle the blood...
to Avodah Zarah." He adds that this also applies to having intention to
*delay* the Zerikah beyond the proper time -- "as long as the *Kohen doing
the Avodah* has in mind to sprinkle the blood the next day after the correct
time, it is Pigul." It is apparent that the Me'iri maintains that only
someone who intended to do the Zerikah, during the Shechitah, could nullify
the Korban through this thought. This is why the case of a Korban being
nullified in such a way could only apply to a Kohen (as the Me'iri
writes) -- for a Yisrael is not able to do the Zerikah!
(c) It seems that RABEINU GERSHOM in Chulin (39a) has a third opinion. He
states that the case involving a thought during Shechitah about the Zerikah
is referring to a Kohen's thought, but he does not mention (as the Me'iri
does) that the case of Avodah Zarah is referring to a case in which the
slaughterer intends to perform the Zerikah himself.
The SHA'AR MORDECHAI writes that we can understand Rabeinu Gershom's opinion
based on a different statement of Rabeinu Gershom. The Gemara in Menachos
(5b) says that there are a number of conditions that must be met in order
for a wrongful thought to invalidate a Korban. One of these conditions is
that the thought must be done by "one who is fit to perform the Avodah."
What does this mean? The SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Menachos quotes Rabeinu
Gershom as saying that if a Yisrael slaughtered the Korban with a wrongful
thought in mind, his thought does not invalidate the Korban. This seems to
contradict the Mishnah later in Zevachim (31b) which explicitly states that
a Yisrael can invalidate a Korban with his thoughts during Shechitah! (The
text of the Shitah Mekubetzes is indeed changed in the margin of our text to
read "a Yisrael who performed the *Kabalah* or *Zerikah.* This change was
made apparently because of this question.)
The Sha'ar Mordechai answers that it must be that Rabeinu Gershom means that
a Yisrael cannot invalidate a Korban by having in mind that a different
Yisrael will do the Zerikah. This is why he states in Chulin that the case
there is discussing a Kohen. In most cases, the slaughterer will also be the
one intending to do the Zerikah. In explaining the normal case, Rabeinu
Gershom says that only a Kohen could make the Korban unfit, not a Yisrael.
This does not imply that he holds like the Me'iri or the Re'ah regarding
slaughtering for Avodah Zarah, for in that case he might hold like the
Rashba that it could be done with intent that someone else will do the
Zerikah. (Y. Montrose)
2) AN ATONEMENT WHICH IS "PASUL"
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer who maintains
that just as a Chatas slaughtered with intent to be brought as a different
Korban is Pasul, an Asham slaughtered with such intent is also Pasul. Rebbi
Eliezer attempts to demonstrate how these two Korbanos are common such that
an Asham should have the same Halachah as a Chatas in this regard. At one
point, the Gemara asks that a Chatas differs significantly from an Asham in
the Halachah that if the blood of a Chatas is brought into the Heichal, then
the Korban becomes Pasul, while, in contrast, an Asham does not become Pasul
if its blood is brought into the Heichal.
This Halachah regarding a Chatas is derived from the verse, "Any Chatas
whose blood is brought into the Ohel Mo'ed to make atonement in the
sanctuary (l'Chaper ba'Kodesh) may not be eaten; it must be burned in fire"
(Vayikra 6:23). The Torah, however, does not specify the exact case to which
this law applies. To what exactly does this verse refer?
(a) RASHI (DH she'Im, and in his commentary to Vayikra 6:23) explains that
the verse is discussing a Chatas "Chitzonah" (an "outer" Chatas) which is
not supposed to be taken into the Heichal.
The RAMBAN in Vayikra (ibid.) explains that according to Rashi, when the
verse says that the Korban is "l'Chaper ba'Kodesh" -- "to make atonement in
the sanctuary," it cannot mean that the purpose of the Chatas is to *attain
atonement* for the owner by being brought into the Kodesh (the Heichal) --
because, to the contrary, entering the Heichal makes the Korban Pasul! The
verse must be telling us that if a Kohen brought some of the blood of the
Chatas into the Heichal *with the intent* to perform a Zerikah of a Chatas
Penimis (an "inner" Chatas), then the Korban is Pasul and the animal must be
burned. Consequently, the Ramban suggests that perhaps the Korban is Pasul
only when its blood was brought into the Heichal *for the purpose of
atonement*. If the blood was not brought in for that purpose, then the
Korban remains fit. (According to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (82a), who
says that the Chatas is only Pasul only if an actual *Zerikah* was performed
in the Heichal, the Zerikah must have been done with the intent of
performing a Zerikah for a Chatas Penimis, which was supposed to be done in
The MINCHAS CHINUCH (#139) proves the Ramban's point that in order to be
considered Pasul, the intent of the Zerikah must be that of a Chatas Penimis
and not that of a Chatas Chitzonah. Later in the Gemara (83a), Rebbi
Eliezer learns a Gezeirah Shavah ("l'Chaper") from this verse (6:23) to a
verse later (16:17) that discusses the Se'irim ha'Nisrafim that are brought
on Yom Kipur, teaching that the verse here of "l'Chaper" is related in some
way to a Chatas Penimis. It must be that the word "l'Chaper," which is
written regarding our case of a Chatas Chitzonah that is invalidated, is
also referring to a Kohen who has *intention* to do the Zerikah of a Chatas
(b) It is questionable whether Rashi agrees to the Ramban that the thought
only invalidates the Korban when the thought is to perform a Zerikah of a
Chatas Penimis, and not that of a Chatas Chitzonah. In explaining Rebbi
Yehudah's opinion later (36a), Rashi (DH Hichnis) says that as long as the
blood was sprinkled *on the inner Mizbe'ach* the Korban is Pasul. (Rebbi
Yehudah's opinion is similar to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who says that
one must actually do the Zerikah to make it Pasul, and not just bring the
blood inside with intent to do the Zerikah.) We know that a full Zerikah for
a Chatas Penimis includes being sprinkled on the Paroches seven times and on
the Mizbe'ach four times, without any allowance for error. If Rashi agrees
with the Ramban, then why does he mention only that the blood was placed on
the inner Mizbe'ach without mentioning the amount of times, and without
mentioning the sprinkling on the Paroches? Apparently, Rashi maintains that
the Korban becomes invalidated even if it was not brought into the Heichal
for the purpose of performing the Avodah of a Chatas Penimis.
The Minchas Chinuch, however, rejects this proof, suggesting that it is
possible that Rashi did not want to get involved with this aspect of the
Zerikah and did not detail the steps of Zerikah necessary to make the Korban
Pasul, but he may indeed agree with the Ramban.
The SHA'AR MORDECHAI suggests that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin
2:16), who says merely that the blood was "brought inside in order to atone
in the inner area," indeed holds that the Korban becomes Pasul with intent
to perform a regular Zerikah of a Chatas Chitzonah.
(c) The ME'IRI in Pesachim (83a) says that the verse is discussing a Chatas
Penimis. It is telling us that it is forbidden to eat a Chatas Penimis once
the Zerikah is done, since the Korban is supposed to be burned (as a normal
Chatas is burned). Accordingly, the verse is saying that once the blood is
brought for Zerikah *in order to atone*, the prohibition against eating the
Korban takes effect (see also the MOSHAV ZEKENIM and the Ramban (end of his
commentary to Vayikra 6:23), who say that this is the straightforward
explanation of the verse, and the explanation of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili).
The Me'iri adds that even though, in some places, the Gemara teaches that a
Chatas Chitzonah becomes Pasul if its blood is brought into the Heichal, it
is possible that both laws are learned from the verse. Alternatively, he
suggests that the source for the Halachah that bringing the blood of a
Chatas Chitzonah into the Heichal makes it Pasul is a different verse which
says, "Behold, the blood was not brought to the Kodesh inside" (Vayikra
10:18). When Moshe Rabeinu rebuked the Kohanim for not eating the Chatas, he
said, "Since the blood was not yet brought inside, why are you not eating
the Korban?" This teaches that if the blood *was* brought into the Heichal,
then it would be forbidden to eat the meat of the Korban. (Y. Montrose)