POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 28
ZEVACHIM 26-30 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) WHAT MAKES "PIGUL"?
(a) (Gemara): (We are thinking that the skin of the tail has
the same law as the tail, i.e. it is part of the
2) "PASUL" AND "PIGUL"
(b) Inference: Intent for a person to eat something which
should go on the Mizbe'ach is intention (to make Pigul).
(c) (Shmuel): Yes - the Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who says that
intent for a person (or the Mizbe'ach) to 'eat'
something fit for the Mizbe'ach (or people) is intention.
1. (Mishnah): If one slaughtered a Korban with intent
to eat (or burn) (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo)
something which is normally eaten (or burned), it is
(d) Question: Our Mishnah cannot be R. Eliezer, the end of
the Mishnah is not like him!
2. R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
1. The general rule is - If one slaughtered, did
Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah with intent to eat (or
burn) (Chutz li'Mkomo or Chutz li'Zmano) something
which is normally eaten (or burned), (it is Pasul or
(e) Answer (Shmuel): Indeed, the beginning of the Mishnah is
R. Eliezer, the end is Chachamim.
2. Inference: If it is not normally eaten, it is
3. This is like Chachamim!
(f) (Rav Huna): The skin of the tail does not have the law of
1. (Rava): He learns from "Chelbo ha'Alyah" - not the
skin of the tail.
(g) (Rav Chisda): Really, the skin of the tail has the same
law as the tail;
1. The Mishnah discusses a goat (its tail is not part
of the Eimurim).
(h) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda did not explain like Shmuel, they
did not want to establish the beginning and end of the
Mishnah according to different Tana'im;
(i) Shmuel and Rav Chisda did not explain like Rav Huna, they
hold that the skin of the tail has the same law as the
(j) Question: Why didn't Shmuel and Rav Huna explain like Rav
(k) Answer: If so, the Mishnah teaches that the skin of the
tail has the same law as the tail - we already learn this
from another Mishnah!
1. (Mishnah): The skins of the following are like the
flesh - the skin under the tail...
(l) Rav Chisda says, one might have thought that that only
applies to Tum'ah - since it is soft, it joins with flesh
for the required quantity for Tum'ah;
1. Kodshim are to be eaten "L'Mashchah" (in grandeur),
as kings eat, they normally do not eat skin of the
(m) Question (Beraisa): If one slaughtered an Olah with
intent to burn the skin under the tail Chutz li'Mkomo, it
is Pasul, there is no Kares; Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul,
one who eats the meat is Chayav Kares.
2. Therefore, the Mishnah must teach this.
1. Eliezer ben Yehudah says, the same applies to the
skin of the feet (below the knees) of small animals,
the skin of the head of a yearling calf, and the
skin under the tail, and the skins which Chachamim
said have the same Tum'ah as the flesh;
(n) Answer #1: The Beraisa refers to a goat (the tail itself
is not part of the Eimurim).
2. This comes to include the skin of the Ervah of a
3. Inference: The Beraisa specifies an Olah (for all
the meat is burned) - but the skin under the tail
could not make Pigul in other Zevachim (because it
is not included in the Eimurim)!
4. This is like Rav Huna, it is difficult for Rav
(o) Answer #2: Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'If one
slaughtered a Zevach...'
(a) (Mishnah): It is Pasul, there is no Kares.
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Shmuel): Two verses teach about Pasul and Pigul.
(d) Question: What are these verses?
(e) Answer (Rabah): "Shelishi" - this refers to (intention
of) Chutz li'Zmano;
1. "Pigul" refers to Chutz li'Mkomo;
(f) Question: Perhaps 'Mimenu' teaches Kares for Chutz
li'Mkomo, and Chutz li'Zmano does not have Kares!
2. "Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu (Avonah Tisa)" - only
one of them has Kares - Chutz li'Zmano, not Chutz
(g) Answer #1: Presumably, Chutz li'Zmano is Chayav Kares,
for this was expounded earlier in the verse.
(h) Rejection: Just the contrary! Chutz li'Mkomo should be
Chayav Kares, for this was expounded closer to "Mimenu"!
(i) Answer #2 (Abaye - Beraisa): In Parshas Kedoshim, it says
"(V'Im He'achel Ye'achel ba'Yom) ha'Shelishi (Lo
Yeratzeh)" (eating Nosar cannot retroactively invalidate
the Korban, surely the verse discusses improper
1. Question: We already know Chutz li'Zmano from the
longer verse (above, in Tzav) "V'Im He'achel...".
2. Answer: The shorter verse (in Kedoshim) is used to
teach about Chutz li'Mkomo.
(j) Objection: How do we know that the long verse (which is
Mechayev Kares) refers to Chutz li'Zmano, and the short
verse excludes Chutz li'Mkomo from Kares - perhaps it is
just the contrary!
i. Regarding Nosar, it says "V'Ochlav Avono Yisa
(...v'Nichresah)" - one who eat Nosar gets
Kares, not one who eats (a Korban slaughtered)
3. Question: Why not say oppositely, this is Mechayev
Kares for Chutz li'Zmano, and exempts Nosar from
4. Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #1: (Background - no
verse about Chutz li'Zmano mentions Kares; we have a
Gezerah Shavah "Avon-Avon" to learn Chutz li'Zmano
either from the short verse (which is Mechayev
Kares), or from eating Tamei Kodshim (which is only
a Lav) - it is preferable to learn the former.)
i. It is preferable to explain that the short
verse is Mechayev Kares for Nosar, for then we
can learn the Gezerah Shavah from Nosar, for
they are similar regarding ZaV (an acronym -
*Z*eman (both depend on time, and both apply to
a) *B*amah), these do not apply to eating Tamei
Kodshim. (Nor do they apply to Chutz li'Mkomo -
if our verse teaches about Chutz li'Mkomo, we
would learn the Gezerah Shavah from eating
5. Rejection: Just the contrary, it is preferable to
expound it to teach about Chutz li'Mkomo, then we
can learn "Avon-Avon" to Chutz li'Zmano, for they
are similar regarding MiKDaSH (both depend on
*M*achshavah (intention), intention for *K*etzas
(part of the Korban) is Posel the whole Korban, both
apply to the Avodos with the *D*am, it says
*SH*elishi by both of them). (These do not apply to
eating Tamei Kodshim, nor to Nosar.)
6. Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #1: (Background - the
tradition from Sinai for the Gezerah Shavah
specified to equate the short and long verses
i. It is preferable to explain that the Gezerah
Shavah equates similar things, i.e. the short
verse refers to Nosar, this resembles Chutz
li'Zmano regarding ZaV.
7. Rejection: Just the contrary, it is better if it
refers to Chutz li'Mkomo, this resembles Chutz
li'Zmano regarding MiKDaSH! (End of Version #2)
8. Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah
Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" (that eating Nosar is Chayav
Kares) - it says here "Es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel
v'Nichrasah", and it says "Ve'Sarafta Es ha'Nosar
(...Ki Kodesh Hu)";
i. Therefore, "V'Ochlav Avono Yisa
(...v'Nichrasa)" surely refers to Nosar, and
excludes Chutz li'Mkomo.
(k) Answer #1: Presumably, the long verse refers to Chutz
li'Zmano, for this resembles Nosar regarding ZaV (Rashi -
and therefore, we can learn a Gezerah Shavah to it from
Nosar to Mechayev Kares; Tosfos - presumably, the Gezerah
Shavah equates similar things).
(l) Rejection: Just the contrary, we should say that it
refers to Chutz li'Mkomo, and the short verse refers to
1. Since Chutz li'Zmano resembles Nosar, one might have
thought to say that Kares also applies to it,
therefore the Torah had to exclude it ("V'Ochlav" -
Nosar, not Chutz li'Zmano)!
(m) Answer #2 (Rava): The long verse is Mechayev Kares for
Chutz li'Zmano, and exempts Chutz li'Mkomo (as Rabah
1. "He'achel Ye'achel" - the verse refers to two
eatings, of people and the Mizbe'ach (Pigul applies
2. "Mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" - Pigul only applies to
things like Shelamim, part of which is Mefagel
(improper intention during Avodah of the blood is
Posel the Korban) and part is Misfagel (if it
becomes Pigul, the meat and Eimurim are forbidden).
(This excludes Menachos from which a Kometz is not
taken, for one part does not permit the other.)
3. "Ha'Shelishi" - this refers to Chutz li'Zmano;
4. "Lo Yeratzeh" - becoming Pigul is like becoming
i. A Korban does not become Pigul until finishing
all the Avodos needed for a Kosher Korban to
5. "Ha'Makriv" - it becomes Pigul while it is being
offered (with improper intention), not (like the
simple understanding of the verse,) by eating it on
the third day.
6. "Oso" - the Korban becomes Pasul, not the Kohen who
7. "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pigul only if all the
Pasul intentions were Chutz li'Zmano.
8. "Pigul" - this refers to Chutz li'Mkomo;
9. "Yihyeh" - Improper intentions join together (if he
intended to eat half a k'Zayis of meat Chutz
li'Zmano and half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, this is
like intention for a k'Zayis, it is Posel);
10. "Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles *Mimenu*" - only one of
these intentions has Kares;
11. Question: Which has Kares?
12. Answer: Chutz li'Zmano, we learn "Avon-Avon" from
Nosar, which resembles it regarding ZaV.