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 105
ZEVACHIM 105 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED "YETZI'AH"?
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna explained that R. Elazar's question
concerned people engaged in burning the Par:
2) "SOFO LITAMEI TUM'AH CHAMURAH"
1. Question: If five people were carrying the Par out,
and three of them left and two are still inside
(Rambam - half the Par is outside), what is the law?
(Rashi and Rambam (and perhaps Tosfos) each explain
this question like above.)
(b) Question (R. Elazar): If a Par or Se'ir ha'Nisrafim left
the Azarah and returned, what is the law?
i. Perhaps since the majority of people left, it
is as if the Par left;
ii. Or, perhaps (only) the majority of the animal
is significant, not the majority of people.
2. This question is not resolved.
1. Version #1 (Rashi): Do we say, once it left, those
who took it out became (and remain) Tamei?
(c) Answer (R. Aba bar Mamal - Mishnah): If the animal was
being carried out on poles, when the people in front have
left the Azarah but not the people in back, those in
front are Metamei Begadim, those in back are not Metamei
Begadim until they leave.
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): Do we say, once it left (even
though it returned), it is Metamei all who engage in
taking it out, even before they leave? (end of
3. Or, since it returned, it is as if it never left?
1. Version #1 (Rashi): If returning has no effect, once
the Par leaves, all of them should be Tamei!
(Rather, we must say that if it returns, it is as if
it never left, and similarly, if those carrying it
returned (and all the more so, if they did not leave
yet) they are not Metamei Begadim!
(d) Objection (Ravina): This is unreasonable - it says (he
will immerse his clothes,) "V'Achar Yavo El ha'Machaneh",
this does not apply to someone who did not leave yet!
(The Gemara cites Bamidbar (19:7), it refers to Parah
Adumah, very similar verses (Vayikra 16:26 and 28) teach
about Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and Parim and Se'irim
ha'Nisrafim; the citation to Vayikra 14 is a mistake,
that verse refers to a Metzora.)
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): If returning has no effect, all
of them should be Tamei, as if they took it out!
(e) Question: If so, Tum'as Begadim cannot apply to one who
never left - what was R. Elazar's question?
(f) Answer: He asks about someone outside the Azarah using a
stick to pull out a Par that left the Azarah and returned
(is he Metamei Begadim?)
(a) (Beraisa - R. Meir): One who takes out, sends or burns
Parim ha'Nisrafim, Parah Adumah or Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach
is Metamei Begadim, the animals themselves are not
Metamei Begadim, but they are Metamei food and drink.
(b) Chachamim say, Parah (Adumah) and Parim (ha'Nisrafim) are
Metamei food and drink, Se'ir (ha'Mishtale'ach) is not,
for it is alive, and a living animal is never Metamei.
(c) Question: We understand R. Meir - he holds like R.
1. (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Kol Zera Zeru'a (is not
Mekabel Tum'ah unless it was Huchshar)" - Hechsher
is needed only for things such as seeds, which will
never have severe Tum'ah (to Metamei people or
(d) Version #1 - Answer (Rav Dimi): They hold like R.
i. This excludes Nivlas Of Tahor, for it is
Metamei severe Tum'ah, (to one who eats it), it
does not need Hechsher.
2. But if Chachamim hold like R. Yishmael, even Se'ir
should be Metamei; if they do not hold like him,
what is their source for Parah and Parim?
1. Version #1A (Rashi): However, even though something
which will have severe Tum'ah does not need any
Hechsher, it must be Muchshar (fitting) Lekabel
Tum'ah from another source (i.e. it cannot be
(e) Version #2 - Ra'avad - Answer (Rav Dimi): They do not
hold like R. Yishmael - the Parim are Metamei only if
they were Huchshar (through water) and touched Tum'ah.
2. Version #1B (Ra'avad): However, even though
something which will have severe Tum'ah does not
need Hechsher (Sheretz, i.e. to touch Tum'ah) it
must be Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah (water must come on
(f) Question (R. Elazar): Are Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim
Metamei food and drink before leaving the Azarah, just
like after leaving?
(g) Answer (R. Elazar): Not having left is Mechushar Ma'aseh
(they are not Metamei until an act is done), therefore
they are not Metamei.
(h) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): According to R. Meir, does a
k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor impart Tum'ah (to food and
1. Clearly, if it is on the ground, it is not Metamei
(it is not destined for Tum'ah Chamurah (Tum'as
Begadim of one who eats it), perhaps no one will eat
2. Clearly, if it is in a Yisrael's mouth, it is
Metamei (other food and drink in his mouth, surely
it will be swallowed and Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah.)
3. The question is, if it is in a Yisrael's hand - is
Mechushar Kereivah (he must put it in his mouth)
like Mechushar Ma'aseh (so it is not Metamei), or
(i) Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): Mechushar Kereivah is not like
Mechushar Ma'aseh (it is Tamei immediately.)
3) TAKING THE "PARIM" OUTSIDE THE "MACHANEH"
(j) Question (Mishnah): There are 13 laws of Nivlas Of Tahor
- it requires intent (to eat it, to join with other food
to comprise a Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlim), it does not
require Hechsher, an egg's worth is Metamei Tum'as
1. Suggestion: The Mishnah is like R. Meir.
(k) Answer: No, it is like Chachamim.
(l) Question: But the Reisha says, intent is needed, Hechsher
is not needed - this is like R. Meir;
1. Since the Reisha is R. Meir, also the Seifa!
(m) Answer: No, the Reisha is like R. Meir, but the Seifa is
(n) Question: But the Seifa says, slaughter or Melikah of a
Treifah is Metaher it from becoming a Neveilah;
1. This is like R. Meir - can you say that the Reisha
and Seifa are R. Meir, and the middle is Chachamim?!
(o) Answer: Yes, the Reisha and Seifa are R. Meir, the middle
(p) Question (Rav Hamnuna): According to R. Meir, if Nivlas
Of Tahor was Metamei a food, do we count degrees of
Tum'ah (to call that food a Rishon, and what it touches
is a Sheni...), or not (what it touches does not Metamei
(q) Answer (R. Zeira): We count degrees of Tum'ah for
precisely those Tum'os which Metamei a person through
touching (Nivlas Of Tahor is not included.)
(r) Question (R. Zeira - Mishnah): If foods (that are Avos
ha'Tum'ah, e.g. Neveilos) are joined through liquids,
they are considered joined (to complete the Shi'ur) to
Metamei food and drink, but not for Tum'ah Chamurah
(Letamei people and vessels.)
1. Do we count degrees of Tum'ah?
(s) Answer (R. Ami bar Chiya): We count degrees of Tum'ah for
precisely those Tum'os which Metamei a person through
touching (and foods joined through liquids do not join.)
(a) (Mishnah): When all have left, (all are Metamei Begadim.)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa) Question: The Torah teaches that Parim
(of He'elam Davar or Chatas Kohen Gadol) are burned
outside of three Machanos - but it mentions burning and
Tum'as Begadim of Par Yom Kipur after leaving one
Machaneh (and we know that all are burned in the same
1. Answer: This teaches that Tum'as Begadim applies
after leaving one Machaneh (the Azarah, but all the
Parim are burned outside of three Machanos.)
(d) Question: According to R. Shimon (Tum'as Begadim does not
take effect (after leaving one Machaneh, rather,) until
the animal catches fire -) how can we answer Question
2. Question: What is the source that Parim are burned
outside of three Machanos?
3. Answer: "V'Hotzi Es Kol ha'Par (of a Kohen Gadol) El
mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - outside of three Machanos.
i. Suggestion: Perhaps it means, outside of one
ii. Rejection: Regarding Par He'elam Davar it says
"Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - we already knew this,
for it says "Ka'Asher Saraf Es ha'Par
iii. Rather, the repetition teaches that Parim are
burned outside a second Machaneh.
iv. Question: Regarding removing the ashes from the
Mizbe'ach, it says "Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - we
already knew this, for that is where the Parim
are burned - "Al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref"!
v. Answer: The repetition teaches that Parim are
burned outside three Machanos.
(e) Answer: It teaches R. Eliezer's law.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): It says here (regarding Par
Yom Kipur) "Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", like it says
there (regarding Parah Adumah) - just like here it
is burned outside of three Machanos, also there.
(f) Question: According to Chachamim (who do not use
"Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" for a Gezerah Shavah), where are
Parim ha'Nisrafim burned?
2. Just like there it is burned to the east of
Yerushalayim (for it faces Pesach Ohel Mo'ed), also
here (also the other Parim ha'Nisrafim are like Par
(g) Answer: They are burned to the north of Yerushalayim (for
Avodas Chatas is in the north), outside of three