(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 15

ZEVACHIM 11-15 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Lo Sh'mah Holachah', on which we ask - 'Efshar Litekonah O Lo ... '?

(b) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa that we just discussed 'Kibel ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul, Yachzir le'Kasher' - suggesting that 'Efshar Litekonah (see Rashash)?

(c) We refute the proof however - by establishing the Beraisa - when the Pasul was standing further from the Mizbe'ach than the Kasher Kohen, in which case it is as if nothing at all had been done.

(d) In the second Lashon, Ula quotes Rebbi Yochanan in such a way that the She'eilah is automatically resolved, when he says - 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Pesulah' (implying that it cannot be rectified).

(a) Rav Nachman queried Ula from a Mishnah in the third Perek 'Nishpach min ha'Keli al ha'Ritzpah, ve'Asfo, Kasher' - despite the fact that some of the blood presumably splashed in the direction of the Mizbe'ach (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) Ula refuted ...

1. ... Rav Nachman's Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah in a case when all the blood splashed in one direction (away from the Mizbe'ach).
2. ... Rav Nachman's contention that the blood is unlikely to do that - by establishing the Mishnah further when the blood spilled on a slope (that led away from the Mizbe'ach).
(c) Alternatively, he established the case when the blood fell into a hole - or when the blood was thick and did not splash at all.
(a) Rav Nachman rejected Ula's answers - on the grounds that the Tana was unlikely to be speaking in any of these cases, because he would then not be teaching us anything.

(b) He finally proved him wrong from the Mishnah in Perek Sheini 'Nishpach al ha'Ritzpah Ve'asfo, Pasul. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana ought to have said (to balance the Mishnah in the third Perek) 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Yatza le'Chutz, Aval Nichnas Li'fenim, Pasul'.

(c) In fact, we have no answer to these Kashyos on Ula, and conclude with 'Tiyuvta'(though the Kashyos pertain to his interpretation of the Mishnah, not necessarily to his ruling, as we shall now see).

(a) With regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (whether Hiluch is an Avodah or not), when initially, we confine it to Holachah Zutresi - we mean Holachah she'Lo be'Regel.

(b) Rebbi Shimon will then concede - that Holachah Rabsi is considered an Avodah.

(c) The reaction of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael to this statement was - to burst out laughing.

(a) We initially think that they laughed at the statement, because it creates a problem with the Chatas ha'Of with regard to P'sul Machshavah. P'sul Machshavah is not applicable during the sprinkling ...
1. ... before the blood emerges - because since the Avodah (which takes place right beside the Mizbe'ach) is a form of Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, P'sul Machshavah does not apply to it (according to our current understanding of Rebbi Shimon).
2. ... after the blood emerges - because the Mitzvah is already finished.
(b) The problem is - that according to Rebbi Shimon, how will Holachah of a Chatas ha'Of be subject to P'sul Machshavah (which we know there is, as we will prove in Perek Kodshei Kodashim).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan however, who ruled earlier that 'Holachah be'Regel Lo Sh'mah Holachah' will have no problem with this Sugya - because he concedes that even by a Korban Beheimah, if the Kohen is already standing beside the Mizbe'ach, or by a Chatas ha'Of, which Lechatchilah is 'pinched' (Melikah, which is the equivalent of Shechitah by a Korban Beheimah) next to the Mizbe'ach, the Holachah she'Lo be'Regel is considered an Avodah.

(a) We resolve the B'nei Eretz Yisrael's problem - by establishing the P'sul of Holachah between the time that the blood emerges and the time that it hits the Mizbe'ach (which is when the Avodah of Haza'ah ends, not as soon as the blood emerges, like the B'nei Ma'arva thought).

(b) And we derive this from a She'eilah of Rebbi Yirmiyah, who asked Rebbi Zeira whether if a Kohen's hand became severed after he had sprinkled the blood of a Chatas ha'Of, but before the blood had reached the Mizbe'ach - the Zerikah is valid or not.

(c) To which Rebbi Zeira replied - that it is not ...

(d) ... because we need "Ve'hizah ve'nasan" (the sprinkling and the blood reaching the Mizbe'ach) be'Kashrus, a proof that the Avodah does not end until the blood hits the Mizbe'ach.

(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua ascribe the B'nei Ma'arva's laughter to the statement that Rebbi and the Rabbanan do not argue by Holachah Rabsi, when that is precisely what they are arguing about - seeing as Rebbi Shimon gives his reason as the fact that Holachah is dispensable (which Holachah Zutresi is not).

(b) Regarding a Machshavah Pesulah by Holachah Zutresi, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan both agree, though there are two versions as to what they say. The reason of those who say that it is ...

1. ... Pasul is -the fact that it is indispensable.
2. ... Kasher is - because it is not an Avodah.
(a) The B'nei Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yanai argue over whether, if a Zar performed Holachah, and a Kohen took the blood back, the Korban is Kasher - because 'Efshar li'Tekonah', or not - (because 'Lo Efshar li'Tekonah').

(b) They only argue over Holachah, and not over ...

1. ... Shechitah and Zerikah - neither of which can be withdrawn factually.
2. ... Kabalas ha'Dam - because 'Mah Nafshach', if there is no blood left in the neck, then it cannot be withdrawn either, whereas if there is, then it is obvious that the Kohen sprinkles it and the Korban is Kasher (as we will learn in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin).
(c) Rav Shimi bar Ashi says that in the reverse case (where a Kohen performed the Holachah, and a Yisrael took it back) - they simply reverse their opinions (the one who goes after the first one and is Machshir, goes after the first one here too, and declares the Korban Pasul, and vice-versa).

(d) Rava holds that even the one who holds Pasul in the previous case, will hold Pasul here too - since the Kohen has to return the blood ('Tzarich le'Amtuyei'), and it is therefore necessary (and considered an Avodah).




(a) Ravina quoting Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, told Rav Ashi that 'Tzarich le'Amtuyei' is a Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Rabbanan.

(b) Rebbi Elazar makes a distinction between 'Holachah be'Makom she'Hu Tzarich Le'halech' and a 'Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech'. According to Rava, everyone holds that ...

1. ... 'Kiblo ba'Chutz ve'Ve'hichniso bi'Fenim' - is considered 'Makom she'Hu Tzarich Le'halech' and is therefore subject to P'sul Machshavah.
2. ... 'Kiblo bi'Fenim ve'Hotzi'o la'Chutz' - is considered 'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech', and is therefore not.
(c) 'ba'Chutz' means - at a distance from the Mizbe'ach, and bi'Fenim' - close to it.
(a) And they argue, he says, in a case - where the Kohen took the blood 'in' and then took it 'out' again.

(b) Rebbi Elazar says Chayav - because of the 'S'vara' Tzarich le'Amtuyi.

(c) The Rabbanan say Patur - because they hold that this is not a regular Hiluch that comes as part of the Avodah, but in order to rectify the fault.

(a) Abaye queried Rava's statement from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar himself explained ...
1. ... 'Holachah be'Makom she'Tzarich Le'halech' to mean - 'Kiblo ba'Chutz ve'Ve'hichniso bi'Fenim'.
2. ... 'Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech' - 'Kiblo bi'Fenim ve'Hotzi'o la'Chutz'
(b) According to this, Rebbi Elazar is coming to argue (not with the Chachamim, but) with - Rebbi Shimon [his father, in which case Rebbi Elazar throughout the Sugya must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, see Hagahos ha'Bach on the Mishnah 13a), who holds that Holachah is not subject to P'sul Machshavah at all.

(c) Rava reacted with the words -'I Tanya, Tanya' (retracting from his initial statement).

***** Hadran Alach Kol ha'Zevachim *****

***** Perek ha'Zevachim *****


(a) Among the Pesulim with regards to Kabalas ha'Dam, our Mishnah lists - Zar, Onan, T'vul-Yom Mechusar Kaparah and Mechusar Begadim.
1. An Onan is - an Aveil, before his deceased relative has been buried.
2. A Mechusar Kipurim - is either a Zav or a Metzora who after Toveling on the seventh day, waited for nightfall but has yet to bring his Korban on the eighth
(b) And it also includes 'Areil, Tamei and Yoshev. An Areil is - a Kohen who is uncircumcised (even if it is on account of two brothers died on account of it).

(c) The three cases of Omed that close the Tana's list are - standing on vessels, on an animal or on another Kohen's foot, and they invalidate the Avodah - because they comprise a Chatzitzah (an interruption between the Kohen's foot and the floor of the Azarah).

(d) The Tana Kama also disqualifies Kabalah with the left hand. Rebbi Shimon - validates it.

(a) Levi in a Beraisa discusses the Pasuk (in connection with bringing Korbanos be'Tum'ah) "Daber el Aharon ve'el Banav Leimor Ve'yinazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael, ve'Lo Yechalelu", from which we extrapolate - 'Ha Im Avdu, Yechalelu' (that if they serve be'Tum'ah, they will desecrate the Korban).

(b) "B'nei Yisrael" cannot come to preclude the Korban of ...

1. ... women - because why would we even think that a Kohen should be permitted to bring a woman's Korban be'Tum'ah, any more than a man's?
2. ... Nochrim - because, based on Mar, who said that the Tzitz (which appeases for Korbanos that are brought be'Tum'ah) does not atone for Nochrim whose Korban is brought be'Tum'ah (i.e. the blood or the Cheilev that is Tamei), it is inconceivable that the Kohanim should be permitted to bring it be'Tum'as ha'Guf.
(c) We therefore conclude that the Pasuk is teaching us a dual Limud: 1. "Ve'yinazru mi'Kodshei" (that the Kohanim should separate from Tum'ah regarding everybody'll Korban), and 2. "B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechalelu" (that a Yisrael who brings Korbanos desecrates the Korban).
(a) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns Zar from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ba'al Mum. He asks on the Limud from Ba'al Mum however - 'she'Kein Asah Bo Karen ke'Makriv' (that the P'sul pertains to the Korban as much as it does to the Kohen who brings it), a Chumra which does not pertain to a Zar.

(b) We answer 'Tamei Yochi'ach'. And we answer the Pircha 'Mah le'Tamei she'Kein Metamei' - with 'Ba'al Mum Yochi'ach'.

(c) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' - that if a Zar performs the Avodah, he renders it Pasul.

(d) We learn the prohibition of a Tamei from "vi'Yenazaru" and of a Ba'al Mum from "Lo Yigash" and that of a Zar - from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Zar Lo Yikrav Aleichem".

(e) We cannot however, learn it from "B'nei Yisrael Vi'yenazru" - because then we would also 'Chilul' from there too.

Next daf


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