(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 88

ZEVACHIM 89-90 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y. Mazel Tov on the Bar Mitzvah of his son; may he grow to be a true Ben Torah and Yerei Shamayim and bring his parents -- and all of Yisrael -- much Nachas!


OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that all Klei Shares are Mekadesh their contents only within the Azarah. Does this mean that the Klei Shares, while inside of the Azarah, are Mekadesh their contents only for the purpose of making them fit to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, but outside of the Azarah the Klei Shares are nevertheless Mekadesh their contents with regard to making them Pasul? Perhaps the Klei Shares give their contents no Kedushah at all if they are outside the Azarah. What Kedushah, if any, do the Klei Shares give to their contents outside of the Azarah?
(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES quotes a Girsa which includes this question in the text of the Gemara. In our text, the Gemara says that a Kli Shares used for liquids is not Mekadesh non-liquid items to make them fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach, but it is Mekadesh them in order to make them Pasul. This means that if solids are placed in a Kli Shares used for liquids and then taken out of the Azarah, they become Pasul. The Shitah Mekubetzes records a Girsa that says that this statement was not made with regard to a Kli Shares used for liquids as opposed to being used for solids, but rather it was made with regard to the Halachah that Kli Shares are Mekadesh their contents only in the Azarah. The Gemara says that outside of the Azarah, the Klei Shares are able to make their contents Pasul. For example, if the item was placed in a Kli Shares and stayed there overnight, the Korban becomes Pasul.

This is also the opinion of the RA'AVAD (K'sav Yad, cited by SHA'AR MORDECHAI) and RASHI in Menachos (63a, DH Kesheros). The Gemara there understands that Rebbi Shimon maintains that an oven which is a Kli Shares can be Mekadesh a Korban. The Gemara asks if this is true. Rebbi Shimon says that the Lechem ha'Panim are valid even if they are baked in "Beis Pagi." Rashi explains that "Beis Pagi" refers to a place outside the Azarah, which would make the bread baked there Pasul. This is because it was made Kadosh outside of the Azarah, since it was baked in an oven which was a Kli Shares. This shows clearly that Rashi also maintains that a Kli Shares can make a Korban become Pasul outside the Azarah.

(b) However, the ZEVACH TODAH points out that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:20) writes that a Kli Shares that is half-full, and there is no intent to fill it with the normal amount used for a Korban, is only Mekadesh its contents to make them Pasul, and not to make its contents fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach (see KESEF MISHNEH for the source of this statement). The Zevach Todah says that the fact that the Rambam does not make this differentiation with regard to anything else indicates that he argues on the opinions above and holds that a Kli Shares makes nothing Kadosh, in any way, if it is outside of the Azarah.

This is also the view of RABEINU GERSHOM in Menachos (63a). Rabeinu Gershom explains that the question of the Gemara is not that the Lechem ha'Panim should be Pasul when baked outside of the Azarah. Rather, the question is that Rebbi Shimon says that the Lechem ha'Panim are *Kosher* outside the Azarah. If a Kli Shares is only Mekadesh a Korban when it is inside the Azarah, then how is it that the Lechem ha'Panim is considered Kosher when it is still outside the Azarah? This shows that Rabeinu Gershom, like the Rambam, maintains that a Kli Shares is not Mekadesh outside the Azarah at all. This is also the opinion of TOSFOS and the RASHBA in Sukah (50a).

The Sha'ar Mordechai understands that the argument is based on how the Rishonim understand the logic behind the rule that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh a Korban only in the Azarah. Apparently, Rabeinu Gershom, the Rambam, and others understand that the rule is simply that the Kedushah given by a Kli Shares can take effect only in the Azarah. The other Rishonim, such as Rashi, understand that the rule is not based in the ability of a Kli Shares to be Mekadesh an item. Rather, the rule is based on the nature of Korbanos: items that need to become Kadosh in order to be offered on the Mizbe'ach can acquire this Kedushah only when they are in the Azarah. The Gemara presents this fact in terms of a Kli Shares being unable to give that Kedushah unless it is in the Azarah, because the Korban becomes Kadosh only by entering the Kli Shares. However, this statement does not deal with the fact that a Kli Shares that is designated for Korbanos can disqualify items which enter its confines when it is outside the Azarah. (Y. Montrose)


QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the specific sins for which each of the Bigdei Kehunah atoned. For example, the Gemara says that when the Kohen wore the Kesones, it was Mechaper for the sin of murder, and when the Kohen Gadol wore the Me'il, it was Mechaper for Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the atonement for murder is the bringing of the Eglah Arufah, and the atonement for Lashon ha'Ra is the offering of the Ketores. The Gemara answers that both statements are true. When we are uncertain who killed the victim, the Eglah Arufah provides atonement. When the identity of the murderer is known, but he was not warned properly before the act and therefore he cannot be killed in Beis Din, the wearing of the Kesones provides atonement. Regarding Lashon ha'Ra, the atonement depends on the type of Lashon ha'Ra that was spoken. The offering of the Ketores atones for Lashon ha'Ra spoken in private, since the Ketores, too, is offered in private. The Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra spoken in public, since there are bells attached at the hem of the Me'il, making noise, publicly, wherever the Kohen Gadol walks.

The same Sugya is recorded in the Gemara in Erchin (16a). However, the Gemara in Erchin records many sins for which a person is punished with Tzora'as, and among them is the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara there asks that if Tzora'as atones for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra, then how can we say that the Me'il atones for it? The Gemara there answers that it depends on whether the transgressor's Lashon ha'Ra had detrimental consequences, or whether it had no consequences. If the person's Lashon ha'Ra had detrimental consequences, then he is punished with Tzora'as. If it had no practical consequences, then the Me'il atones for it. The Gemara there proceeds to record the discussion of our Gemara concerning the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

The Gemara there seems to be ignoring an obvious question. Two of the things that the Gemara in Erchin lists as causes of Tzora'as are murder and promiscuity. The statement regarding the atonement provided by the Bigdei Kehunah includes the Kesones as an atonement for murder, and the wearing of the Michnasayim as atoning for promiscuity. Why does the Gemara not immediately ask, as it does with regard to the atonement for Lashon ha'Ra, that both murder and promiscuity have double atonements? This question is especially relevant for the atonement for murder, since the Gemara itself asks later why murder needs both atonements of the Eglah Arufah and the Kesones.


(a) RASHI in Erchin (DH Ahanu) answers that the Gemara there knows that the atonement provided by the Bigdei Kehunah for murder and promiscuity is an atonement for the Jewish nation as a whole, and not for the individual perpetrator. This is because we find verses that describe how the public is endangered by these sins of the individual. With regard to murder, the verse says, "... for the blood will obligate the land" (Bamidbar 35:33, see ONKELUS). Regarding promiscuity, the verse states, "... and the land became Tamei, and I punished it for its sin" (Vayikra 18:25). These verses shows that atonement is needed in order to prevent the Jewish nation as a whole from being banished from Eretz Yisrael as a result of these sins. However, we do not find that the public is in danger because of the individual's transgression of Lashon ha'Ra.

TOSFOS here (DH Mechaprim) also mentions Rashi's answer. Part of this explanation is given by Rashi (DH Bar Ketala) in our Gemara, when he explains that the murderer himself does not gain atonement through the Kesones. (See PANIM ME'IROS who proves this from the Gemara in Makos 10b.)

Tosfos in Erchin (DH Ha) asks that this approach seems to be inconsistent with the Gemara in Shevuos (39a) that says that all Jews are responsible for any sin committed by another Jew, as long as they have the ability to protest and try to stop him. Why, then, does the Gemara assume that Lashon ha'Ra (against which no other Jew protested) does not need a general atonement for the public? Tosfos continues and says that if we suggest that the Lashon ha'Ra was spoken in private and no one was able to protest, then in such a case the public is also not held responsible for murder and promiscuity!

(b) TOSFOS quotes others who explain that the Gemara in Erchin itself addresses this question. The Gemara answers that it depends on whether the sinner's transgression was effective or not. This answer is also referring to sins of murder and promiscuity. If someone actually killed, then he gets punished with Tzora'as. If he did not actually kill, but rather he embarrassed someone, which is an act tantamount to killing (see Bava Metzia 58b), then the Kesones atones. Similarly, Tzora'as is a punishment for one who is promiscuous. One who commits an act which is merely compared to promiscuity (see Shabbos 55b) receives atonement from the Kohen's wearing of the Michnasayim.

Similarly, the SHITAH MEKUBETZES quotes the ROSH who answers the same question regarding Gasei ha'Ru'ach, people who are haughty. This sin is listed as a cause for Tzora'as, and it is also listed as being atoned for by the Mitznefes (of the Kohen Gadol). The Rosh says that the reason why the Gemara does not ask about this double atonement is similar to the reason given by Tosfos. If a person became haughty and sinned as a result of his haughtiness (as did King Uziyah when he attempted to offer the Ketores), then he receives Tzora'as (as Uziyah received). A person who merely feels haughty but does not actively sin as a result receives atonement from the Kohen Gadol's wearing of the Mitznefes. This explanation is also advanced by the RASHASH.

(c) The MAHARSHA here gives a different explanation. The Gemara in Erchin understands that when we say that the Bigdei Kehunah atone for such serious sins as murder and promiscuity, it means that they atone for these sins only when these sins were done inadvertently. If they were committed knowingly and willfully (and are not subject to punishment by Beis Din, such as when there is no proper warning), the sinner receives Tzora'as as his atonement. This is why the Gemara asks only about Lashon ha'Ra, since one cannot transgress the sin of Lashon ha'Ra by mistake. Since both atonements for Lashon ha'Ra involve Lashon ha'Ra that was spoken willfully, the Gemara asks why both atonements are necessary. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,