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 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!
1) "HAKTARAH" OF "CHASER"
(a) Answer #4 (Rava): The case is, the full Shi'ur was put in
a Kli Shares;
2) OFFERING A "KOMETZ"
1. R. Elazar holds that this is Kove'a (anything less
than this is not Haktarah), Chachamim hold that it
is not Kove'a (a k'Zayis is still considered
(b) (Rava):According to Chachamim, who hold that a Kli Shares
is not Kove'a, if six Lugim of wine were put in a Kli
(for the Nisuch of a Par) and four of them were offered
outside, he is liable, for this is the Nisuch for a ram;
1. If four Lugim were put in a Kli (for a ram) and
three were offered outside, he is liable, for this
is the Nisuch for a lamb;
(c) Defense (of Answer #3 - Rav Ashi): Chachamim do not learn
Nisuch from Haktarah, even though both of them are Chutz;
2. If less than three were offered outside, he is
1. Chachamim do learn Haktarah from Haktarah, even
Panim from Chutz.
(d) (Mishnah): If any of them became Chaser (before Haktarah,
he is exempt for Ha'alas Chutz.)
(e) Question: If the full Shi'ur was taken outside and became
Chaser there, what is the law?
1. Do we say, taking it outside was Posel (yet one is
liable), an additional Pesul of Chaser does not
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): He is exempt,
unless he offered all of it.
2. Or, perhaps Ha'alas Chutz only applies when the full
Shi'ur is intact?
1. Objection (Rabah bar Rav Chanan): (R. Eliezer surely
exempts, the question is according to Chachamim -)
how can you learn from R. Elazar to Chachamim?!
(g) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If it became Chaser and the rest was
offered outside, he is exempt.
2. Answer (Abaye): Rabah explicitly said, Chachamim
only argue when the Kodesh is intact - if it is
Chaser, they also exempt.
i. Suggestion: This is true even if it became
3. Rejection: No, it is only if it became Chaser
1. Suggestion: This is true even if it became Chaser
(h) Rejection: No, it is only if it became Chaser inside.
(i) (Mishnah): If one offered Kodshim with the Eimurim
attached, he is liable.
(j) Question: Why is he liable - the meat is a Chatzizah
(between the Eimurim and the Ma'arachah!)
(k) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, he turned the meat over
(so that the Eimurim touch the wood.)
(l) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon,
who says that Ha'alas Chutz is liable, even on a rock.
(We do not learn from Avodas ha'Mikdash that a Mizbe'ach
is required - likewise, we do not learn that the Kodesh
must touch the wood.)
(m) Answer #3 (Rav): Min b'Mino (the Eimurim are also meat)
is not a Chatzizah.
(a) (Mishnah): If a Minchah was offered outside and Kemitzah
was never done, he is exempt (for it was not Kosher to
3) THE PROHIBITION OF "NISUCH B'CHUTZ"
(b) If a Kometz was taken and it returned to the Shirayim and
they were offered outside, he is liable.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why is he liable? The Kometz should be
Batul to the Shirayim, one is exempt for offering
Shirayim (they are not offered inside!)
(d) Answer (R. Zeira): It says "Haktarah" regarding the
Kometz and regarding Shirayim - just as Komtzim do not
Mevatel Komtzim (we learn from the blood of the Par and
Sa'ir that Olim do not Mevatel each other), also Shirayim
do not Mevatel Komtzim.
(e) (Mishnah): If either the Kometz or Levonah of a Minchah
was offered outside, he is liable;
(f) R. Elazar exempts, unless he offers both.
1. If he offered one of them inside and the other
outside, he is liable.
(g) If one of the two spoons of Levonah (of Lechem ha'Panim)
was offered outside, he is liable;
(h) R. Elazar exempts, unless he offers both.
1. If he offered one inside and the other outside, he
(i) (Gemara) Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): Does offering a
Kometz permit half of the Shirayim (since it is one of
the two Matirim)?
1. Does it permit half (Rashi - to be eaten; Tosfos -
even if it permits half, we may not eat half, we do
not know which half! The point of the question is,
if it permits half, the other half remains fully
forbidden, one who eats all the Shirayim is lashed
for eating Kodshim before its Matirim)?
(j) Question: According to which opinion is this question?
2. Or, does it weaken the prohibition on all the
Shirayim (and one is not lashed for eating them)?
1. It cannot be according to R. Meir - he says that
intent in one of the Matirim is Mefagel, surely he
holds that it permits half!
(k) Answer #1: It is according to R. Elazar.
2. It cannot be according to Chachamim (that argue with
R. Meir) - they say that intent in one Matir is not
Mefagel, perhaps offering it neither permits nor
weakens the prohibition!
(l) Rejection: He exempts for partial Haktarah, surely he
holds like the Chachamim of R. Meir (perhaps it neither
permits nor weakens!)
(m) Answer #2: It is according to Chachamim of R. Elazar -
does offering a Kometz permit half of the Shirayim, or
weaken the prohibition on all them?
(n) This question is not resolved.
(a) (Mishnah): If one threw some of the blood b'Chutz, he is
(b) R. Elazar says, even one who is Menasech (b'Chutz) Mei
ha'Chag (Nisuch ha'Mayim) on Sukos is liable.
(c) R. Nechemyah says, one who offers Shirayim of blood
b'Chutz is liable.
(d) (Gemara - Rava): R. Elazar agrees regarding blood (that
one is liable for partial Zerikah outside, for partial
Zerikah inside in valid):
1. (Mishnah - R. Elazar and R. Shimon): (If the blood
of an inner Chatas spilled in the middle of the
Haza'os, those that were done are valid -) another
Chatas is slaughtered, we use its blood for the
(e) (Mishnah - R. Elazar): Even one who is Menasech Mei
ha'Chag on Sukos is liable.
(f) (R. Yochanan citing R. Menachem Yudfa'ah): R. Elazar
holds like his Rebbi, R. Akiva, who says that Nisuch
ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa.
1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "U'Nsacheha" (plural) - the
verse discusses two Nesachim, of water and wine.
(Since water is offered in the Mikdash on Sukos, one
is liable for it outside on Sukos.)
(g) Questions (Reish Lakish): If R. Elazar learns like R.
Akiva, since the Torah teaches both Nesachim together,
they should be the same!
1. Nisuch of water should be three Lugim, just like
Nisuch of wine - but R. Elazar said Nisuch ha'Mayim
(he did not fix the Shi'ur - presumably, he means
that the Chiyuv b'Chutz is like the Mitzvah,) and
one opinion says that this is one Log!
(h) Answer: R. Menachem (Rashi; Tosfos - Reish Lakish) did
not know R. Asi''s teaching:
2. The Chiyuv for water b'Chutz should be every day of
the year, just like that of wine (since Nisuch of
wine applies every day) - but R. Elazar said (only)
1. (R. Asi): The following are traditions from Moshe
i. Ten saplings (even though mid'Oraisa, one must
add to Shemitah and cease working the land
before Shemitah, if 10 saplings are evenly
spaced over a square of 50 Amos by 50 Amos, the
entire field may be plowed in Erev Shemitah
until Rosh Hashanah);
ii. Taking an Aravah (in the Mikdash on Sukos,
aside from the four species);
iii. Nisuch ha'Mayim. (Tosfos - R. Menachem meant,
R. Elazar holds like R. Akiva that Nisuch
ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa, but he knows this from
tradition (unlike R. Akiva who expounded it),
therefore it need not resemble Nisuch of wine.
Rashi - R. Menachem erred, R. Elazar relies on
the tradition, therefore it need not resemble
Nisuch of wine.)