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


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Zevachim 34

ZEVACHIM 34 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for the Torah and for those who study it.


(a) Question: Reish Lakish needs the verse to teach about a Tamei who ate Kodesh before Zerikah!
1. (Reish Lakish): If a Tamei ate Kodesh before Zerikah, he is lashed;
i. He learns from "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" - before or after Zerikah;
2. (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed;
i. (Bardela - Beraisa): We learn "Tum'aso- Tum'aso" from a Tamei who entered the Mikdash - just as that is Chayavei Kerisus and a verse forbids it, also a Tamei who eats Kodesh;
ii. We learn about eating Kodesh *after* Zerikah, for that is Chayavei Kerisus, like entering the Mikdash.
(b) Answer: If it said 'B'Kodesh Lo Siga...", Reish Lakish would only learn after Zerikah;
1. Rather, it says "B'Chol Kodesh...", to include before Zerikah.
(c) (Abaye): Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan argue about Tum'as Guf (a Tamei who ate Kodshim), but they agree that he is lashed for Tum'as Basar (if the Kodesh is Tamei);
1. (Beraisa): "Veha'Basar" - this includes wood and frankincense (even though they are not foods, Chibas ha'Kodesh causes them to be Mekabel Tum'ah, one who eats them when they are Tamei is liable - all the more so, one who eats Tamei meat before Zerikah is liable)!
(d) (Rava): They argue about Tum'as Guf, but they agree that he is exempt for Tum'as Basar;
1. Since "(Veha'Nefesh Asher Tochal)...v'Tumaso Alav v'Nichresah" does not apply before Zerikah (there is no Kares), also "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" does not apply.
(e) Question (Beraisa): "Veha'Basar" includes wood and frankincense!
(f) Answer: The case is, it was Mekudash in a vessel, this is like offering all the Matirim:
1. (Mishnah): Something which becomes permitted through offering Matirim (e.g. Zerikas Dam permits eating the meat), one is liable for eating it b'Tum'ah after the Matirim are offered;
2. Something which has no Matirim (e.g. Kometz or frankincense) one is liable for eating it b'Tum'ah after it is Mekudash by putting it in a Kli Shares.
(a) Version #1 (Reish Lakish): If one offers limbs of a Tamei animal on the Mizbe'ach, he is lashed;
1. It is an Ase to offer Tahor animals, from this we infer a Lav not to offer Tamei animals - one is lashed for a Lav inferred from an Ase.
(b) (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed;
1. He holds that one is not lashed for a Lav inferred from an Ase.
(c) Question (against Reish Lakish - R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): "Osah (an animal with split hooves that chews the cud) Tochelu" - but not other animals;
(d) Version #2 (Yakov): Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan agree that one is not lashed for offering limbs of a Tamei animal;
1. They argue about offering a Chayah:
2. (R. Yochanan): One who offers a Chayah transgresses an Ase;
3. It is an Ase to offer Behemos, we infer a prohibition (Isur Ase) not to offer Chayos;
4. (Reish Lakish): He does not transgress anything;
i. It is a Mitzvah to offer Behemos, it is Reshus (neither a Mitzvah nor an Aveirah) to offer Chayos.
(e) Question (Rava - Beraisa): Had it said 'Korban la'Sh-m Behemah', this would include Chayos;
1. We find that "Behemah" includes Chayos - "Zos ha'Behemah...wild goat and deer...";
2. Therefore, it says "Bakar" and "Tzon", to exclude Chayos.
3. Suggestion: Perhaps one should not bring, but if he did, it is Kosher!
i. This is like a Talmid whose Rebbi told him 'Bring to me wheat', and he brought wheat and barley - he did not transgress the command, he added to it;
4. Rejection: "Bakar" and "Tzon" are repeated, to exclude a Chayah (even b'Diavad, it is Pasul);
i. This is like a Rebbi who said 'Bring to me *only* wheat', and the Talmid brought wheat and barley - he did not add to the command, he transgressed it.

(f) This refutes Reish Lakish.
(a) (Mishnah): If any of these Pesulim was Mekabel...
(b) Version #1 - Question (Reish Lakish): If a Pasul did Zerikah, does he make (the remaining blood in the animal) Shirayim (i.e. useless, for the Korban became Pasul)?
(c) Answer (R. Yochanan): He makes Shirayim only if he was Zorek with intention Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, since this takes effect to make the Korban Pigul or Pasul.
(d) Version #2 (Rav Zevid) Question (Reish Lakish): If a bucket of blood became Pasul (e.g. it left the Azarah), if it is Nizrak, does it make Shirayim?
(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): This has the same law as a Pasul who was Zorek - if one makes Shirayim, also the other.
(f) Version #3 (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti) Question (Abaye): If blood was Niskabel into two buckets, if one of them is Nizrak, does it make the other Shirayim (and it is poured on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach), or does it make it Dachuy (unfit even for the Yesod, it must be spilled into the Amah (a channel that leaves the Azarah)?
(g) Answer (Rabah): R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Chachamim argue about this.
1. (Beraisa): It says "V'Es Damo Yishpoch", and it says "V'Es *Kol* Damah Yishpoch";
i. If Kabalah of blood of a Chatas was done in four buckets, and blood from each of them was put on a Keren of the Mizbe'ach, the remaining blood in all the buckets is poured on the Yesod - "V'Es Kol Damah Yishpoch";
ii. Suggestion: If the blood was received in four buckets, and blood was put on all the Keranos from one of them, perhaps all the remaining blood is poured on the Yesod!
iii. Rejection: "V'Es Damo Yishpoch" (not all the blood) - the remaining blood from the one bucket (from which blood was put) is poured on the Yesod, the others are poured into the Amah.
2. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, even in the latter case, all the remaining blood is poured on the Yesod - V'Es Kol Damah Yishpoch";
3. Question: What does he learn from "V'Es Damo Yishpoch"?
4. Answer (Rav Ashi): The remaining blood in the animal is not poured on the Yesod.
(a) (Mishnah): If a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul...
(b) The Mishnah must teach all three cases.
1. If it only taught giving it to a Pasul, one might have thought that this refers only to a Tamei, for he is Kosher for Avodas Tzibur (if no Tahor Kohen is available), but if it was transferred to the left hand, the Korban is Pasul;
2. If it only taught transferring to the left hand, one might have thought that this can be fixed because the left hand is used for Avodah on Yom Kipur, but if it was put into a Chulin vessel, the Korban is Pasul;
3. If it only taught putting into a Chulin vessel, one might have thought that this can be fixed because one could Makdish the vessel, but other Pesulim (which cannot be fixed) would Posel the Korban.
(c) Question: We should say that Dichuy applies (since the blood could not be offered while the Pasul (or left hand or Chulin vessel) was holding it!)
(d) Answer #1 (Ravina citing Rava): Our Mishnah is like Chanan ha'Mitzri, who says that Dichuy does not apply even to a slaughtered animal.
1. (Beraisa - Chanan ha'Mitzri): If the goat sent to Azazel (on Yom Kipur) died after slaughtering the goat selected for Hash-m, we find another goat to send to Azazel.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): (All agree with our Mishnah -) whenever we can (Tosfos - should) remedy the situation, Dichuy does not apply.
(f) Support (Rav Shiya): R. Yehudah says that Dichuy applies...(this will be continued)
1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If the goat selected for Hash-m was slaughtered and the blood spilled, the goat selected for Azazel must die (and two new goats are taken); if the goat selected for Azazel died, we spill the blood of the slaughtered goat.
(g) (Continuation of support): Even R. Yehudah agrees that when Dichuy can be fixed, it does not apply!
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (After the Korbanos Pesach were offered,) they would gather a bucket from the blood on the floor from all the Korbanos and throw it on the Mizbe'ach, to Machshir a Korban (in case its blood spilled).
2. Chachamim: The blood (fell straight from the animal, it) was never received in a vessel (it does not help to gather it from the floor)!
3. Question: How do Chachamim know this?!
4. Correction - Chachamim: Perhaps the blood was never received in a vessel!
5. R. Yehudah: We do this because (at least some of) the blood was received in a vessel (and later spilled).
6. Question: How does R. Yehudah know this?!
7. Answer: Kohanim are zealous. (Surely they received it.)
8. (Text of Shitah Mekubetzes - Question: If so, why did it spill?
9. Answer: Because they are zealous,) they work quickly, therefore it spilled.
Next daf


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