ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 10
ZEVACHIM 10 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yirmiyah's
support of Rebbi Yochanan ('Mecheshvin me'Avodah la'Avodah') on the one
hand, and Rebbi Ila's support of Resh Lakish ('Ein Mechashvin ... ') on the
other. In support of Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yirmiyah initially learned a
'Kal-va'Chomer - that if Shechitah Chutz li'Zemano does not invalidate the
Korban, yet Shachto al-M'nas Li'zerok Damo Chutz li'Zemano does, she'Lo
li'Shemo which does invalidate the Korban, should certainly invalidate it if
one Shechted the Korban al-M'nas Li'zerok she'Lo li'Shemah.
(b) Rava bar Ahila'i asks on this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, on the grounds -
that one is Chayav Kareis for eating she'Lo bi'Zemano (i.e. Pigul [even if
one eats it immediately]), which is not the case by someone who eats she'Lo
(c) So Rava bar Ahila'i amends the 'Kal-va'Chomer to Chutz li'Mekomo
(instead of Chutz li'Zemano), answering the Kashya from Kareis - by virtue
of the fact that the P'sul of Chutz li'Mekomo is precluded from the Kareis
of Chutz li'Zemano (as we shall see in the second Perek).
(d) Rav Ashi asks on this 'Kal-va'Chomer' however - in that Chutz li'Mekomo
applies to all Korbanos, in which case one cannot learn from it that of
she'Lo li'Shemo, which is confined to Pesach and Chatas.
(a) So Rav Ashi finally cites Rebbi Yirmiyah's proof for Rebbi Yochanan from
a 'Kal va'Chomer' based on the distinction between 'Hareini Shochet she'Lo
le'Shem P'loni' (which is Kasher) and 'Hareini Zorek she'Lo le'Shem P'loni'
(which is Pasul) - because the P'sul of Shinuy Ba'alim is confined to the
Kaparah (and is therefore unaffected by the Shechitah.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah proves Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from there - because
bearing in mind that if someone says 'Hareini Shochet she'Lo li'Shemo,
Pasul', how much more so should the Korban be Pasul, if he Shechts li'Shemo
in order to sprinkle it she'Lo li'Shemo.
(c) And Rebbi Ila proves Resh Lakish's opinion from the fact that the Torah
requires a Pasuk to teach us Shinuy Kodesh by Zerikah (as we learned
earlier). We might otherwise have learned it from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from
Shechitah and Kabalah.
(d) The Torah writes it - to teach us that only if one actually sprinkles
the blood she'Lo li'Shemo is the Korban Pasul, but not if he Shechts having
in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemo.
(a) Rav Papa asks why we cannot say the exact opposite - meaning that the
Torah writes Shinuy Kodesh by Zerikah to teach us that the Korban is even
Pasul if he had in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemah at the time
of Shechitah (which would then be a proof for Rebbi Yochanan).
(b) If it was not to preclude 'Mechashvin me'Avdah la'Avodah', we answer -
the Torah should have omitted Zerikah altogether, and we would have learned
it from Shachitah and Kabalah (as we explained).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan will counter this proof, by asking a 'Pircha' on the 'Kal
va'Chomer', from the fact that Shechitah and Kabalah are different. The
Chumra that they have over Zerikah, besides the fact that they require
'Tzafon' is - that they also pertain to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (which Zerikah
does not, as we explained earlier).
(d) Resh Lakish however, is not perturbed by this Kashya - because the
Machshavah of she'Lo li'Shemo is written by Shelamim (to which neither
(a) In an independant Machlokes, in a case where the Shochet Shechted
li'Shemah having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemah, Rav Nachman
invalidates the Korban (like Rebbi Yochanan). Rabah validates it (like Resh
(b) Rabah retracts however - due to the 'Kal va'Chomer' of Rav Ashi (which
follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.
(a) The Chut ha'Sikra - was the red thread that surrounded the Mizbe'ach, to
mark the halfway mark.
(b) When Rebbi Eliezer ...
1. ... tried to learn that an Asham should be Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah from a
'Mah Matzinu' from a Chatas - Rebbi Yehoshua countered that a Chatas is more
stringent, because its blood is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (which an
Asham is not).
(c) The only other Korban, besides a Chatas Beheimah, whose blood is
sprinkled above the red thread is - an Olas ha'Of.
2. ... replied 'Pesach Yochi'ach' - he asked that Pesach is more stringent,
inasmuch as it has a fixed time (which an Asham has not).
(d) So Rebbi Eliezer attempts to learn the P'sul of an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo
from a new source. He learns from the fact that the Torah writes the word
"Hi/Hu" by the Chatas, the Pesach and the Asham - that all three are Pasul
she'Lo li'Shemo (as we explained earlier).
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua rejects Rebbi Eliezer's proof, due to the fact - that
"Hu" by the Asham is written - after the Haktaras Eimurin ...
(b) ... which refutes Rebbi Eliezer's proof - because even if the Eimurin
are not burned at all, the Korban is Kasher (so how can the fact that it is
burned she'Lo li'Shemo render the Korban Pasul).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer's final proof is from the Pasuk "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" -
comparing an Asham to a Chatas ...
(d) ... which is extremely difficult to refute - on the basis of the
principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh (though we will see later, what the
Rabbanan learn from this Hekesh, despite the principle 'Ein Hekesh
(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua dismissed Rebbi Eliezer's proofs from Chatas and
from Pesach, Rebbi Eliezer declined to learn Asham from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from
the two of them - because of the obvious 'Pircha' that they are both somehow
connected with a Chiyuv Kareis (the former comes to atone for a Chiyuv
Kareis be'Shogeg, whilst the latter obligates someone who fails to bring it,
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua did not ask on Rebbi Eliezer's 'Mah Matzinu' from Chatas,
that a Chatas is different, since ...
1. ... its blood enters the Kodesh Kodshim on Yom Kipur - because Rebbi
Eliezer is talking about Chata'os ha'Chitzonos (regular Chata'os and not
that of Yom Kipur [which is a Chatas Penimi]).
(c) Neither does he ask him from the fact that the Chatas requires four
Nesinos Damim (one on each corner of the Mizbe'ach), whereas the Asham
requires only two on the two diagonally opposite corners, because he holds
like Rebbi Yishmael, who holds - that when placing the blood on the two
corners, the Kohen actually had to sprinkle the blood twice on each Keren
(one on each of the outer sides).
2. ... it is rendered Pasul by the blood entering the Kodesh - because he
holds that an Asham whose blood enters the Kodesh is Pasul, too.
3. ... it *atones for Chayvei K'riysus* - because he is talking about a
Chatas of Shemi'as Kol, which *does not*.
(a) We conclude however, that a Chatas requires three things that other
Korbanos do not. Two of them are sprinkling with the finger (as opposed to
from the bowl) and sprinkling on the 'Keranos' - the third is placing the
blood on the tip of each Keren.
(b) This distinction also applies to the Olas ha'Of - whose blood has to be
sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, but does not need to be placed on the
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua did not ask from there on Rebbi Eliezer - because he
asked one Kashya out of two or three possible Kashyos (though he might have
asked them all, had he so wished).
(a) We ask why, when Rebbi Yehoshua asked Rebbi Eliezer from the Chatas,
which is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (which an Asham is not), the
latter did not reply that the Asham too, was sprinkled above the Chut
ha'Sikra (from the same 'Mah Matzinu'). Abaye answers that Rebbi Eliezer
cannot say that - 'Kal-va'Chomer' from an Olah, *which is all burned* yet it
is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, how much more so an Asham, which is
(b) We ask on this that an Olah does not come to atone like an Asham does,
and we answer - 'Chatas ha'Of Tochi'ach' (which comes to atone, yet it is
sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra).
(c) We end up by learning Asham from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Olas Beheimah and
Chatas ha'Of (which have in common with the Asham that they are both Kodshei
Kodshim). We cannot learn it from Chatas ha'Of alone - since Chatas ha'Of is
not a Miyn Zevach (which is Shechted, like an Asham is).
(d) Rava from Parzika however, asks a 'Pircha' on the 'Mah Matzinu'. The
Chumra that an Asham has over both an Olas Beheimah and a Chatas ha'Of is -
that it has a fixed minimum price-tag (two Shekel), whereas they do not.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah" - 'Osah
Lema'alah, ve'Ein Damah shel Acher Lema'alah'.
(b) We do not also Darshen "Osah" 'li'Shemah Kesheirah ... ', Ha Sha'ar
Zevachim Bein li'Sheman Bein she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirin - because we know
that Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul (so "Osah" in that regard must be
(c) We do not, by the same token, also say that "Osah" is La'av Davka with
regard to above the Chut ha'Sikra, seeing as the Torah would have had to
preclude Olas ha'Of from the Limud - since Olas ha'Of is not a Zevach, in
which case we can learn that "Osah" precludes all Zevachim from being
sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra.
(d) Alternatively, the Tana who does not consider Olas ha'Of a Shiyur is
Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds - that a Chatas Beheimah is sprinkled
on the Keren (as we learned above), in which case "Osah" precludes even an
Olas ha'Of as well.
(e) The Rabbanan hold - that both a Chatas Beheimah and an Olas ha'Of are
sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, and not necessarily on the Keren.
(a) The Torah writes "ve'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva es Damah el ha'Kodesh
Penimah Lo Se'achel". Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa learns that this extends to
all Korbanos - from the word "ve'Chol".
(b) According to the Chachamim, it is confined to a Chatas. Rebbi Eliezer
incorporates an Asham (from the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham").
(c) The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer - from the 'Kal va'Chomer' from
Olah, as we explained above (which overrides the Hekesh).
(a) In fact, the Chachamim learn that an Asham whose blood entered the
Kodesh is Kasher from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Olah and Minchas Chotei (along
the lines that we learned that an Asham cannot be sprinkled above the Chut
ha'Sikra from Olah and Chatas ha'Of). We ask why they Chachamim learn from
Minchas Chotei and not from Olas ha'Of, which would have been preferable -
because it is mi'Miyn ha'Damim (a bird is more similar to a Zevach than a
Minchah, inasmuch as it involves Avodas ha'Dam).
(b) We answer - that whether or not one is Chayav for taking the blood of
the Olas ha'Of into the Kodesh (even according to the Chachamim) is subject
to a She'eilah of Ravin in Perek Dam Chatas.
(c) Ravin's She'eilah is - based on the fact that the blood of an Olas ha'Of
is different than of a Zevach inasmuch as it does not require Kabalah, and
is taken there whilst it is still on the neck of the bird.