(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, 110

ZEVACHIM 110 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Hillel Yakov and Elisheva Tzipora Kagan. May they be blessed with a year of Berachah and joy, and may Hashem answer all of their prayers!


QUESTION: The Mishnah (109a) teaches that one who offers a k'Zayis of a mixture of meat and Eimurin of a Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash transgresses the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, offering a Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara asks that this should not constitute a violation of the prohibition, because the meat -- which is not fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach and therefore is not subject to the Isur of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz -- is an intervening substance, a Chatzitzah, between the Eimurin and the altar, and thus it is not considered as though the Eimurin are being offered on an altar outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash!

The Gemara gives three answers to this question. Rav answers that "Min b'Mino Eino Chotzetz" -- the law of a Chatzitzah does not apply to two items of the same type.

TOSFOS (DH Min b'Mino) asks that Rav's opinion here is not consistent with the Gemara in Yoma (15b). The Gemara there says that a Kohen may not perform the Avodah while standing on the foot of another Kohen. The Kohen must be standing on the floor when he performs the Avodah, and if he stands on another Kohen's foot, then that foot is a Chatzitzah. However, according to Rav who says that "Min b'Mino Eino Chotzetz," the other Kohen's foot should not be considered a Chatzitzah!

ANSWER: TOSFOS answers that the reason why the Gemara disqualifies an Avodah that was done while the Kohen was standing on another Kohen's foot is not because of Chatzitzah. Rather, it is because doing the Avodah in such a way is not called "Derech Sherus," the normal way of performing the service.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in Gilyon ha'Shas) refers us to a different Gemara in Yoma (58a), which seems to pose a question on Tosfos. The Gemara there asks from the previous Gemara in Yoma (15a) that we see that there *is* a problem of Chatzitzah, even in a case of "Min b'Mino." The Gemara answers that the only reason why standing on someone else's foot disqualifies the Avodah is because the other person is not Mevatel his foot to the other Kohen, or to that place. This implies that in the Gemara's conclusion, the reason the Avodah is Pasul is because it is a Chatzitzah, and not because it lacks "Derech Sherus." Why, then, does Tosfos here say that the reason the Avodah is Pasul in such a case is because it is not "Derech Sherus?"

Moreover, RASHI in Pesachim (65b, DH v'Ha) says that the reason why the Avodah of a Kohen who stands on someone else's foot is invalid is because of Chatzitzah. However, Rashi elsewhere seems to contradict his words in Pesachim. Rashi in Shabbos (93b, DH Kohen ha'Omed) quotes the verse, "[v'Shares...] k'Chol Echav ha'Leviyim" -- "[and he will minister...] like all of his brothers, the Leviyim" (Devarim 18:7). Rashi explains that this verse teaches that the Kohen's Avodah should be done in the same manner as the service of his brothers is performed. Rashi clearly seems to be learning like Tosfos, and he makes no mention of Chatzitzah at all. What does Rashi hold?

Before answering these questions, we must first identify the source for the requirement of "Derech Sherus." The Tosefta in Menachos (1:8) states that the reason why the Avodah performed by a Kohen who is sitting is Pasul is because the verse says, "la'Amod l'Shares" -- "to stand to minister" (Devarim 18:5). The Tosefta says that the reason the Avodah performed by a Kohen who is standing on a brick is Pasul is because the verse says, "[v'Shares...] k'Chol Echav ha'Leviyim" -- "[and he will minister...] like all of his brothers, the Leviyim" (Devarim 18:7). The Tosefta seems to be the source that an Avodah that was performed not in the normal manner of service is disqualified. (See CHAZON YECHEZKEL there.) A similar teaching is cited in the Sifri (Devarim 18:7).

The SHA'AR MORDECHAI (24a, note 212) understands that the Tosefta is teaching that the two cases that it mentions have two different reasons for why the Avodah is Pasul. One reason is that the Kohen must perform the service in the proper manner, as implied by the verse, "la'Amod l'Shares." The second reason is that there cannot be a Chatzitzah, and that is why the Avodah is Pasul when the Kohen stands on a brick. (See the explanation of RABEINU HILLEL on the Sifri.) Based on this understanding, we can suggest the Gemara in Yoma (58a) is answering its question only with regard to the issue of Chatzitzah, which is the subject of the Gemara there. Tosfos here, on the other hand, is telling us another reason for why the Avodah is Pasul when the Kohen stands on another Kohen's foot -- it is not "Derech Sherus."

Similarly, we may suggest that Rashi agrees that both of these reasons -- Chatzitzah and "Derech Sherus" -- apply. (See Chazon Yechezkel to Zevachim 1:5 for another explanation of Rashi in Shabbos 93b.) (Y. Montrose)


QUESTION: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Eliezer who says that one who pours a container of water, outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, which was filled up with intention to be used for the Nisuch ha'Mayim on Sukos, transgresses the prohibition Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, offering a Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. We see that Rebbi Eliezer holds that the Nisuch ha'Mayim is an offering mandated by the Torah, because one is Chayav for Ma'aleh ba'Chutz only for an offering that is fit to be offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

The RAMBAM (in PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS) and the BARTENURA explain that the Halachah does not follow the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer because the pouring of the water on Sukos is merely a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, and not a normal Halachah d'Oraisa.

This is very difficult to understand. What difference does it make whether a Halachah is written explicitly in the Torah, or whether it was transmitted as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? Both types of Halachos have the status of a Halachah d'Oraisa! (TOSFOS YOM TOV)


(a) Perhaps the Rambam and Bartenura maintain that although a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is mid'Oraisa, one cannot receive a punishment (such as Malkus) for transgressing a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. This view is expressed by the RITVA in Shabbos (96b). The YAD BINYAMIN writes that this view is explicitly stated by the Gemara in Nazir (25b), which says that "if we would learn this from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then we might have thought that if transgressed, one would not be Chayav [to receive punishment] for it." Accordingly, the reason why we do not rule in accordance with the view of Rebbi Eliezer is because we do not administer a punishment to one who transgresses a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, and the Nisuch ha'Mayim of Sukos is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(b) The TOSFOS YOM TOV says that the Girsa in our text of the Perush ha'Mishnayos is incorrect. Indeed, we find in the Eretz Yisrael printing of the Rambam's commentary that the Rambam writes that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that even if one offers a small amount of water outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, one would be Chayav. The Rambam writes that the Halachah does not follow this opinion, because "since it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, everyone would agree that one is Chayav only if he offers three Lugin of water." This is the Halachah as recorded by the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 10:6, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 19:4).

However, that text seems to have a different difficulty. Our Gemara comes to the opposite conclusion -- that if the law of Nisuch ha'Mayim is based on a verse in the Torah, then three Lugin are required, and if it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then any amount suffices! Why does the Rambam rule against the apparent conclusion of our Gemara?

The ZEVACH TODAH explains that the Rambam chose to rule in a way that is not in accordance with our Gemara, because if he would have ruled like our Gemara, then he would have been contradicting a number of Beraisos (cited by the Gemara earlier, 109a and 109b) that explicitly state that one is Chayav only if he offers three Lugin of water, but not less. The Rambam chose to rule like those Beraisos.

The CHOK NASAN explains that when the Gemara says that there is no minimum amount if Nisuch ha'Mayim is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, it does not mean that one may offer as little as one wants. Rather, the Gemara means (as the Rambam rules) that the minimum is three Lugin, but if one wants to offer *more* he may do so, unlike other Korbanos which have a specific amount to which one may not add or subtract. (See RASHI, DH b'Yesh Shi'ur, in contrast to TOSFOS, DH b'Yesh Shi'ur; see also KEREN ORAH and PANIM ME'IROS.) (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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