(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 39

ZEVACHIM 36-40 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff


(a) Question (Tosfos - against Rav Papa; Rashi - this challenges Objection (d), it is Answer #1 for Rav Papa): Indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside - but one is also liable for offering Eimurim outside, we cannot prove that he requires washing!
(b) Answer: Indeed, we can prove this!
1. (Beraisa #1): The following apply to blood that must be put on the Yesod:
i. It must be washed, intent (Chutz) takes effect on it, one is liable for it outside.
2. None of these apply to blood that is poured into the Amah.
3. Conclusion: The Beraisa must be R. Nechemyah, for he is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, and it says that Shirayim must be washed and intent takes effect on them.
(c) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The law of Shirayim and Eimurim is different (than blood that is Mechaper) - since they are not Me'akev Kaparah, intent does not take effect on them.
(d) Answer (and rejection of Answer (b)): Beraisa #1 refers to blood of the last three Matanos of a Chatas.
(Therefore, we have no source that R. Nechemyah obligates washing Shirayim.)
(e) Objection: The last three Matanos are put on the Keranos, the Beraisa (#1) says that they are put on the Yesod!
(f) Answer: It means, what remains of them is put on the Yesod.
(g) Question (against Rav Papa): The Beraisa says that intent takes effect on the three Matanos - but Rav Papa says that they do not permit anything, intent does not Mefagel, if the blood entered the Heichal it is not Posel!
(h) Answer: The Beraisa refers to the last three Matanos of inner Chata'os.
(i) Inference: One is exempt for offering the last three Matanos of outer Chata'os outside the Mikdash, it need not be washed.
(j) Question: If so, why did the Beraisa distinguish between (blood put on) the Yesod and (blood poured into) the Amah - it should have distinguished between inner and outer Chata'os!
(k) Answer: The Beraisa is R. Nechemyah, he is Mechayav for Shirayim outside;
1. He distinguished between the Yesod and the Amah, for these differ in all three respects (washing, intent and outside) - had he distinguished between Shirayim of inner and outer Chata'os, they would not differ in all three respects.
(l) Answer #2 (to Question 2:d (38B) - Ravina): The Mishnah said 'If blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod'...- this means, blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood *Ra'uy for* the Yesod.
(m) Question (Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza): You should (be consistent and) say that it refers to blood Ra'uy for the Keren or for the Yesod!
(n) Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah would not need to teach both of them - if blood Ra'uy for the Keren need not be washed, all the more so blood Ra'uy for the Yesod!
(a) (Beraisa): "V'Asa (he will offer Par He'elam Davar) ka'Asher Asa (like the Chatas of a Kohen Mashu'ach)" - this is a second command to perform all the Matanos, therefore, all are Me'akev, if one was omitted the Par did not atone at all.
(b) Suggestion: Perhaps this only applies to the seven Haza'os (on the Paroches), for seven Haza'os are always Me'akev - what is the source that the four Matanos (on the Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach) are Me'akev?
(c) Answer: "Ken Ya'aseh". (The Beraisa proceeds to expound the entire verse.)

(d) "La'Par" refers to the Par of Yom Kipur (that atones for the Kohanim); "Ka'Asher Asa *la'Par*" refers to the Par Chatas of a Mashu'ach (for transgressing through his own mistaken Hora'ah); "Ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah Zarah (brought if most of Yisrael transgressed idolatry through a mistaken Hora'ah of the Great Sanhedrin).
1. Suggestion: The Musaf of festivals and Rosh Chodesh includes a Sa'ir Chatas - perhaps it is also included (in this verse, and it is offered like an inner Chatas)!
2. Rejection: "Lo" (it, Se'ir Avodah Zarah, not other Se'irim).
3. Question: ("Ha'Chatas" and "Lo" do not connote one Sa'ir more than the other) - why do we include Se'ir Avodah Zarah and exclude Se'irim of the festivals?
4. Answer: It is more reasonable to include the former, for they atone for a known Aveirah (like Par He'elam Davar), whereas Se'irim of the festivals atone for Aveiros (of Tum'ah) which no one ever knew about.
(e) "V'Chiper" - even if the Zekenim did not do Semichah on it;
(f) "V'Nislach" - even if the Shirayim were not put on the Yesod.
(g) Question: (The verse did not specify which Avodos are Me'akev and which are not) - why do we say that Matanos are Me'akev, and Semichah and Shirayim are not?
(h) Answer: Wherever the Torah requires Haza'ah it is Me'akev, Semichah and Shirayim are (usually) not Me'akev.
Next daf


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