(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Zevachim 5

ZEVACHIM 5 - l'Iluy Nishmas Dina bas Reb Menachem Arye Bodner, dedicated in loving memory by her son and daughter in law, Naftoli (Tuli) and Alice Bodner of Queens, NY.



(a) Resh Lakish's problem with Korbanos that are Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo, that are sacrificed but whose owners are not Yotze was - that 'Mah Nafshach' if they are Kasher, why do they not atone for the owners, and if they do not atone for their owners, what point is there in bringing them?

(b) He presented this problem 'al Ma'ohi' meaning -whilst lying on his stomach.

(c) Rebbi Elazar cited him a Mishnah in Kinin. The Tana says there that if a Yoledes died after having brought ...

1. ... her Chatas - her heirs bring her Olah.
2. ... her Olah - they do not bring her Chatas (because a Chatas whose owner has died, must die).
(d) Rebbi Elazar cited this Mishnah - as a precedent that sometimes, one brings a Korban, even though the owner, for some reason or other, does not receive a Kaparah.
(a) Resh Lakish replied that he had no problem with an Olah, which is Kasher she'Lo li'Shemah, just as it is brought after the owner's death (as we just learned). He *did* have a problem though - with an Asham, which is not brought (directly) after the owner's death.

(b) When, in support of his opinion, Rebbi Elazar quoted Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who does indeed render an Asham Pasul, like a Chatas - he expressed surprise at someone with such a reputation making such a comment. Since he was querying the Rabbanan, who render an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo, Kasher, what was the point of quoting Rebbi Eliezer?

(c) Resh Lakish quoted the Pasuk "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah" - to prove that it was a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' to bring the Korban, even though the owner would not be Yotze.

(d) Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba were surprised at Resh Lakish's conclusion - since the Pasuk might well refer to those Korbanos that can be brought as a Neder and a Nedavah, but not to an Asham (like the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer).

(a) Abaye, who was sitting with Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba at the time, replied that Resh Lakish first learned from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Osah le'Chatas" - which he Darshened "Osah" li'Shemah Kesheirah, she'Lo li'Shemah Pesulah, Ha Sha'ar Kodshim she'Lo li'Sheman Kesheirim.

(b) And it is to counter the suggestion that perhaps other Korbanos render their owners Yotze - that Resh Lakish quoted the Pasuk "Motze Sefasecha ... Ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah", as we already explained.

(c) We suggest that the Pasuk by Chatas precludes Asham from the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah, whereas that of Neder and Nedavah precludes Asham from the Din of the owner not being Yotze. Abaye refutes this suggestion however - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Olah (which *does not come to atone*, yet the owner is not Yotze, how much more so an Asham, which does).

(d) We counter the Kashya ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Olah she'Kein Kalil' with - 'Shelamim Yochichu'.
2. ... 'Mah li'Shelamim she'Kein Te'unin Nesachim u'Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok' with - 'Olah Yochi'ach'.
(a) We do not include Semichah in the previous Kashya (together with Nesachim u'Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok') - because an Asham requires Semichah (as we explained earlier).

(b) We currently conclude - that Asham, like Olah and Shelamim, is Kasher she'Lo li'Shemo, but the owner is not Yotze.

(c) We ask on the this 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' that whereas they are applicable to a Tzibur, an Asham is not. We therefore add - to the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' a Korban Todah, which is not applicable to the Tzibur either, yet it is subject to the Din of she'Lo li'Shemah.

(d) We ask a Pircha on the Todah too - 'Mah le'Todah she'Kein Ta'un Lechem', which we counter with 'Olah u'Shelamim Yochichu'.




(a) We ask on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' - that all three (Olah, Shelamim and Todah) can be brought as a Neder or a Nedavah, whereas an Asham cannot.

(b) Rava ultimately the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah - by Asham from the Hekesh in Tzav "Zos ha'Torah ... ", which compares all the Kodshim (as we learned on the previous Amud).

(c) In spite of the principle of ' ... le'Chumra Makshinan' (whenever there is an option, we compare le'Chumra), we do not learn Asham from Chatas le'Chumra, which is mentioned in the same Pasuk - because of the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Osah le'Chatas" (which precludes all other Korbanos from the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah), as we explained on the previous Amud).

(a) When Rav Huna and Rav Nachman asked why Rebbi Elazar did not answer Resh Lakish that an Asham, too, is brought after the owner's death - they were referring to the principle 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be'Asham Ro'eh', which means that the Asham is sent to graze in the field until it obtains a blemish, when it is sold and the proceeds used to purchase animals for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Nedavah shel Tzibur).

(b) Rav Sheishes, who was sitting with Rav Huna and Rav Nachman at the time, queried their Kashya from Chatas - which in a case where someone designated two Chata'os (one for Acharayus, in case the main Chatas gets lost or dies), is also sold in the same way as the Asham of which we just spoke (yet she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul).

(c) To which they replied that the Torah writes "Chatas Hu" - (in Vayikra in connection with the Chatas of a Nasi) ...

(d) Which specifically renders a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah Pasul, despite the fact that it can sometimes be sold.

(a) Rav Sheishes asked further that by Asham too, the Torah writes "Vehiktir Osam ha'Kohen ha'Mizbeichah ... Asham *Hu*". Rav Huna and Rav Nachman countered this Kashya with a Beraisa - which comments that this Pasuk is written after the burning of the fat-pieces.

(b) Consequently, "Hu" cannot possibly come to teach us that she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul (like a Chatas) - since even if the fat pieces are not burned at all, the Korban is Kasher, so how can the fact that they are brought she'Lo Lissome render it Pasul?

(c) Rav Sheishes did not query Rav Huna and Rav Nachman further from the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham) "Kodesh Kodshim *Hu*" - since we only Darshen "Hu" to invalidate she'Lo li'Shemo, when it is written together with the name of the Korban ("Chatas Hu", "Asham Hu").

(a) We therefore conclude that "Hu" (in the Pasuk "Vehiktir Osam ha'Kohen ha'Mizbeichah ... Asham Hu") comes to teach us the ruling of Rav Huna Amar Rav, with regard to an Asham that is sent to the field to graze and after obtaining a blemish, it is Shechted, which speaks - either when the owner died or because after he had brought another animal to replace it when it got lost, it was subsequently found.

(b) Rav ...

1. ... actually rules there - that if the owner Shechted the found Asham as an Olah, it is Kasher, seeing as it was anyway due to be brought as an Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.
2. ... learns from the word "Hu" - that as long as the animal has not been sent into the field to graze, it remains an Asham, and cannot be brought as an Olah.
(a) Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes referred to Rebbi Elazar's response to Resh Lakish (proving from the Beraisa that animals are sometimes brought after the owner's death, even though they do not atone for the owner [such as the Olah of a Yoledes]). When they asked why Resh Lakish did not reply that there too, her heirs should bring her Olah, and be atoned by it, Rav Ada bar Masna (who was sitting with them) countered - that seeing as it was the woman who gave birth, how could her heirs receive atonement from her Olah?

(b) Rav Ashi replied that perhaps she had committed many Mitzvos Asei - which for which an Olah appeases Hashem (even though bringing it is not obligatory).

(c) And assuming that she had (bearing in mind that there is nobody who does not sin), it can now serve as an appeasement (not for herself, but) - for the Mitzvos Asei that her heirs transgressed.

(d) An Asei appeases - for an Asei and for a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei (a La'av that can be rectified by performing an Asei [neither of which require a full atonement]).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that - two sons may bring the Minchah that their father left behind when he died.

(b) When he adds 've'Ein Bo Shutfus', he means - that they are not considered Shutfin (partners) who bring a Korban, because if they were, they would not be permitted to bring it.

(c) This is based on the Pasuk "*ve'Nefesh* Ki Sakriv Korban Minchah ... ", from which we learn that Shutfin cannot bring a Minchah.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan's ruling (which implies that the sons do not acquire their father's Korban, because if they did, why should they not be considered Shutfin?) creates a problem with that of Rav Ashi (that the deceased Yoledes' Olah will atone for her heirs' sins) - which in turn, implies that heirs *do* acquire their parents Korban (otherwise, how could the Olah of a Yoledes atone for her heirs' sins?)

Next daf


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