ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 9
ZEVACHIM 9 - Today's Daf was sponsored by Avi and Lily Berger of Queens, NY,
in memory of Lily's father, Mr. Benny Krieger (Chananel Benayahu ben Harav
Yisrael Avraham Aba), Zt"l. Proud son to one of the Gedolei ha'Dor, Mr.
Krieger exemplified Ahavas Chesed, Ahavas Torah and Ahavas Eretz Yisrael.
(a) If, as we just concluded, "Zevach" is a 'Ribuy', then back comes the
question 'Let the Pesach become the Korban that one Shechts it as (an Olah
or a Chatas)'. We reject Rav Avin's answer, that since a Pesach is eaten, it
can only become a Korban that is eaten - on the grounds that a Chatas is
(b) We therefore amend Rebbi Avin's answer - to ' ... a Korban that is
eaten by anyone (a Yisrael as well as a Kohen).
(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Avin says - that Kodshim Kalim can only become
Kodshim Kalim (to preclude an Olah, a Chatas, and an Asham, which are all
(a) Why, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Avin, asks Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi
Savrin, if the Pesach was Shechted as Ma'aser Beheimah (which is Kodshim
Kalim), should it not become Ma'aser Beheimah. Besides the fact that
Ma'aser (unlike a Shelamim) does not require Nesachim - it cannot be sold,
either, even with a blemish.
(b) We answer by quoting the Pasuk "ha'Asiri Yih'yeh Kodesh" - from which we
extrapolate that only the tenth animal can be called 'Ma'aser', and no
(c) In similar vein, he asks, why, if it was Shechted as a Bechor (which is
Kodshim Kalim too), should it not become a Bechor. Besides the fact that
Ma'aser does not require Nesachim - it must also be given to a Kohen.
(d) The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avrah" "Avrah" solves the problem - because it
means that we learn Bechor ("Ve'ha'avarta Kol Peter Rechem" [in Bo']) from
Ma'aser ("Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" [in Bechukosai]) precluding
any animal other than an actual firstborn from becoming a Bechor.
(a) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hayah *Hu*
u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" - that only a genuine Temurah has the Din of a
Temurah (but not a Mosar ha'Pesach).
(b) The ramifications of the suggestion that if the Pesach was Shechted as
1. ... a Temurah, it becomes a Temurah are 1. that it cannot be sold or
redeemed; 2. that one receives Malkos for having declared it as such.
(c) We object to the answer that since the Pesach does not require loaves,
why should the Mosar Pesach - inasmuch as if that was the case, the Mosar
ha'Pesach could not become a Shelamim either (seeing as a Shelamim requires
Nesachim, whereas a Pesach does not).
2. ... a Todah, it becomes a Todah are - that one is obligated to bring the
forty loaves that accompany it.
(d) We therefore amend this answer to read - that if the Mosar Todah itself
does not require loaves, why should the Mosar Todah that comes from an
external source require them?
(a) We have so far taken for granted that "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano" refers
to Mosar Pesach (i.e. a Shelamim, which comes from Tzon). Rav Yeimar b'rei
de'Rav Hillel however, queries this. He suggests that it refers to - an
Asham which also comes from the sheep family.
(b) Rava, based, we presume, on the word "min", refutes Rav Yeimar's
suggestion - on the grounds that "min ha'Tzon" incorporates all species of
"Tzon" (sheep and goats, male or female), whereas an Asham can only be
brought from a ram.
(c) Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (or bar Kahana) queries the Limud from "min" -
which generally comes o exclude, and not to include (as Rava just
(d) Rebbi Mani answers that here too, "min" comes to exclude - a sheep that
has already entered its second year, as well as a female (which cannot be
brought as a Korban Pesach).
(e) And the source of Rava's answer is not the word "min", but - "Tzon",
which implies any member of the sheep or goat family.
(a) The problem is - that if "ve'Im min ha'Tzon" is speaking about a Mosar
ha'Pesach, as we currently maintain, why does the Torah need to continue "Im
Kesev ... ve'Im Eiz" (seeing as the Torah has already taught us (in Parshas
Bo) that the Pesach comes from these two animals?
(b) If the Torah was not talking about a Mosar ha'Pesach, it would be coming
to teach us - that someone who brings a Shelamim, has the choice of bringing
either a sheep or a goat (and has nothing to do with a Mosar ha'Pesach at
(c) We answer that the Pasuk is indeed talking about a Mosar Pesach, and
that the Beraisa explains "Im Kesev ... ve'Im Eiz". The Tana learns from ...
1. ... "Kesev" - that the fat-tail of the Korban Pesach must be brought on
the Mizbe'ach together with the fat-pieces (like that of a regular
(d) Shelamim ha'Ba'in Machmas ha'Pesach refers to - the Chagigah that was
brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to supplement the Pesach when necessary.
2. ... "*Im* Kesev" - that a Pesach which has entered its second year, and
Shelamim ha'Ba'im Machmas ha'Pesach, are subject to Semichah, Nesachim and
the waving of the Chazeh ve'Shok (just like a regular Shelamim).
(e) And the Tana learns from "ve'Im Eiz" - that the tail of the goat is not
brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) We ask from Shmuel's father, who learned above that Mosar Pesach is
brought as a Shelamim from "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano le'Zevach Shelamim" on
the Beraisa that we just learned - which learns the same thing with regard
to a Pesach which has entered its second year (which is synonymous with
'Mosar ha'Pesach') from "*Im* Kesev".
(b) And Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learns from the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta
Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha *Tzon u'Vakar*" - that Mosar ha'Pesach becomes a
(c) To reconcile all three Pesukim - we explain that all three are
necessary. Had there been only one Pasuk - we would have applied it to after
Pesach, a lamb that has entered its second year (when the animal is no
longer eligible to be brought as a Pesach).
(d) We would have not known from there a Mosar Pesach after Pesach, but that
is still less than one year old - because it is still eligible to be brought
as a Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheini.
(e) And we still need a Pasuk to teach us that the same applies to a Mosar
Pesach before Pesach - which is even eligible to be brought as a Pesach on
(a) Rav in the name of Mavog rules that a Chatas which is Shechted as a
Chatas Nachshon (the Chatas in the first set of Korbanos brought by the
Princes of the tribes in the desert, to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach).
(b) He learns this from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - which implies that
all Chata'os fall under on category.
(c) Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa that if a Kohen took a Kemitzah from a
Minchas Marcheshes (in a pot) having in mind a Minchah al ha'Machavas
(cooked in a flat pan [or vice-versa]); or a Minchah mingled with oil,
having in mind a dry one (or vice-versa) - the Minchah is Kasher ...
(d) ... because everyone can see what sort of Minchah it really is
(rendering void any intentions that run contrary to that).
(a) Rav Mesharshaya extrapolates from Rebbi Shimon that, assuming the
distinction was not noticeable - his thoughts would invalidate the Minchah
(b) ... even though there too, the Torah writes "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" (a
Kashya on Rav quoting Mavog).
(c) We cannot ask the same Kashya on Rava (whom we will quote shortly and)
who learned earlier 'Chatas Cheilev she'Shechtah le'Shem Chatas Dam,
Kesheirah' - because he will explain all Chata'os that atone for Kareis are
called Chata'os, whereas a Minchas Marcheshes is not the same as a Minchah
(d) We therefore amend Rav's statement to 'Chatas she'Nishchatah al-M'nas
she'Yiskaper Bah Nachshon, Kesheirah' - because this is a case of Shinuy
Ba'alim, and a deceased person is not subject to the Kaparah of a Korban.
(a) Rav refers specifically to Chatas Nachshon, and not just the Chatas of
any deceased person - in order to teach by implication that in the case of a
live person similar to Nachshon (such as if one Shechts the Chatas for the
sake of someone who is Chayav a Chatas Nazir or Metzora, the Korban would be
(b) We ask on this however 'Hani Olos Ninhu' - meaning - that since a Chatas
Nazir and a Chatas Metzora do not come to atone, they are like 'Olos' ...
(c) ... and we learned earlier that if one Shechts a Chatas for someone who
is Chayav an Olah, it remains Kasher.
(d) So we amend Rav's statement once again to read - 'Chatas she'Shachtah al
Mi she'Mechuyav Chatas ke'Nachshon, Kesheirah, Chatas Nachshon Olah Hi'.
(a) Others amend Rav's statement to 'Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Chatas
Nachshon, Pesulah' - because a Chatas in the name of an Olah is Shinuy
Kodesh from a Chatas to an Olah (as we just explained), and is therefore
(b) The reason that Rav in the name of Mavog presented the case of Chatas
Nachshon, and not of a Chatas Nazir or Metzora is - because it was the first
recorded case of a Chatas Yachad.
(a) Rava rules that a Chatas Cheilev that was Shechted ...
1. ... as a Chatas Dam or a Chatas Avodas-Kochavim is - Kasher (the latter
in spite of the fact that it requires a Se'irah, as opposed to a Chatas
Cheilev, which may also be a Kisbah).
(b) ... because the first is a case Chatas le'Shem Chatas, whereas the
second is one of Chatas le'Shem Olah (as we explained).
2. ... as a Chatas Nazir or a Chatas Metzora is - Pasul ...
(c) Rava asked what the Din will be if one Shechted a Chatas Cheilev as a
Chatas Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, which might be ...
1. ... Kasher - because, on the one hand, like a Chatas Cheilev, it comes to
atone for a Chiyuv Kareis.
2. ... Pasul - because, on the other, unlike a Chatas Cheilev, it is not a
fixed Korban (since it is a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava maintains that all the current cases are Pasul.
He Darshens the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Osah le'Chatas" to mean - that the Shochet
must have in mind the Chatas that he is Shechting. Consequently, a Chatas
Cheilev that is Shechted as a Chatas Nachshon, Nazir, Metzora, or even
Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, is Pasul.
(b) When Rav Ashi asked him how he presented his father (Rava)'s She'eilah,
he replied that Rava was talking about Shinuy Ba'alim (and not Shinuy
Kodesh, as we explained initially). He ruled ...
1. ... Pasul - in a case where a Chatas Cheilev is Shechted in the name of
someone who is Chayav a Chatas Dam or Avodas-Kochavim.
(c) Whereas his Safek entailed a case - where a Chatas Cheilev was Shechted
in the name of someone who was Chayav a Chatas Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.
2. ... Kasher - in a case where it was Shechted in the name of someone who
is Chayav a Chatas Nazir or Metzora.
(a) If one Shechts a Korban li'Shemah but has in mind to sprinkle its blood
she'Lo li'Shemah, Rebbi Yochanan holds Pasul - Resh Lakish, Kasher.
(b) The ...
1. ... principle on which their Machlokes is based is - 'Mechashvin
me'Avodah la'Avodah (by a Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemo)'.
(c) Resh Lakish declines to learn P'sul Kodesh from Pigul - because Pigul,
by definition, entails performing one Avodah, in order to perform another
Avodah that enables the Korban to be eaten (either by the owner or by the
Mizbe'ach) outside its specified time.
2. ... the source of their Machlokes is - whether we learn Machsheves she'Lo
li'Shemo from Pigul (Rebbi Yochanan) or not (Resh Lakish).
(a) They also indulge in a similar Machlokes in a case where someone Shechts
a Chulin animal - in order to sprinkle its blood in honor of
(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules that it is Pasul, because he learns - 'Chutz
(c) The ramifications of that Machlokes are - whether the animal becomes
Asur be'Hana'ah (Rebbi Yochanan) or whether he may even eat it (Resh
(d) We would have thought with regard to ...
1. ... the first case, had they only presented the second Machlokes - that
Resh Lakish will concede that we learn P'nim from P'nim.
2. ... the second case, had they only presented the first Machlokes - that
Rebbi Yochanan will concede that we do not learn Chutz from P'nim.