(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 19

ZEVACHIM 19 (28 Sivan) - dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev [ben Rav Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman ZT'L (author of "Kuntresei Shi'urim" and renowned Dayan of pre and post-war Vilna) on his Yahrzeit, by a number of students who merited to study under him: Harav Eliezer Stern and Harav Zalman Stern of Brooklyn; Yechiel Wachtel and Michoel Starr of Yerushalayim.



(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Eruvin that a Kohen who has a wound on his finger may (even should because of Kavod ha'Mikdash) wind a Gemi (a reed-grass used as a plaster) on Shabbos, in the Beis-Hamikdash, but not elsewhere - because putting on a plaster (to protect the wound or to help it heal) is only an Isur de'Rabbanan, and we apply the principle 'Ein Sh'vus ba'Mikdash' (Isurim de'Rabbanan do not generally apply in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(b) The Tana goes on to forbid it even in the Beis-Hamikdash however - if his intention is to draw out the blood (which is an Isur d'Oraysa).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya restricts this Halachah to a Gemi, but forbids using a Tziltzul Katan (a tiny belt) - because he considers it an extra garment.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya - on the grounds that wearing an extra garment, in his opinion, only applies to a location on the body where clothes are normally worn, but not for example, to a finger.

(a) To circumvent the problem of Chatzitzah, we establish the Mishnah - by the left hand or on a part of the body which is not used in the Avodah (such as a finger).

(b) Rava Amar Rav Chisda rules that on a location on the body which is covered by clothes, even one strand is a Chatzitzah. With regard to a location which is not, he says - a plaster of three by three finger-breadths is Chotzetz.

(c) By 'Chotzetz', he means - that it is forbidden because it is an extra garment (and he only uses that word in the Seifa to balance the Reisha).

(a) Rava argues with - Rebbi Yochanan, who categorically permits wearing a plaster on a location where clothes are not usually worn (provided it is not a Chatzitzah).

(b) We reconcile Rava's ruling with Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rav Chiya, who forbids a tiny belt, even though it is less than three finger-breadths by three finger-breadths - because the latter is used as an ornament and is therefore Chashuv.

(c) In the second Lashon, we amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement to read - 'Lo Amru Chatzitzah be'Pachos mi'Shalosh al Shalosh Ela be'Makom Begadim Aval she'Lo be'Makom Begadim, Shalosh al Shalosh Chotzetzos' (like Rava).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan cannot possibly concede that a Tziltzul Katan is forbidden (even though it is less than three by three) because it is Chashuv - since initially, he comes to argue with Rebbi Yehudah the son of Rebbi, who forbids specifically a Tziltzul Katan.

(e) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana mentions specifically a Gemi (and not a Tziltzul Katan) - to teach us that a Gemi heals, in spite of which, it is permitted on Shabbos.

(a) Rava asks whether if a wind blows and puffs out the Kohen's clothes (during the Avodah), it is considered a Chatzitzah. His She'eilah is - what the Torah mean when it writes "Yilbash al Besaro". Whether it comes to preclude a regular Chatzitzah, or whether it must be taken literally to mean that the garments must actually be touching his flesh.

(b) He also asks whether a live louse is a Chatzitzah - since a dead one certainly is.

(c) It might ...

1. ... not be considered a Chatzitzah - because since the louse comes and goes, it is considered part of his body.
2. ... nevertheless be considered a Chatzitzah - since he is fussy about it being there.
(d) Assuming that a louse is considered a Chatzitzah, Rava asks about a bit of 'Afar' on the Kohen's skin - by which he means a speck of dust (and not of sand, which is definitely considered a Chatzitzah).
(a) When Rava asked whether ...
1. ... the arm-pit is a Chatzitzah or not, he meant to ask whether the space that normally exists between the arm-pit and the sleeve is considered a Chatzitzah (since the Torah writes "Yilbash al Besaro", (as we explained earlier [in which case the Kohen would have to wear tight sleeves]) or not (since the space there is normal practice).
2. ... the Kohen's own hand is a Chatzitzah or not, he meant to ask whether, if he placed his hand inside his shirt, his own flesh is considered a Chatzitzah or not.
3. ... a Nima (a strand of hair) is Chotzetz - he meant a strand that came loose from one of the garments that he was wearing, but which was not completely detached.
(b) Rava cannot possibly have meant 'Nima' literally - because if we took 'Nima' to mean a loose hair from his head, it would obviously be Chotzetz.

(c) Based on the assumption that the Kohen's hand is not considered a Chatzitzah, Mar bar Ashi asks whether a hair from his beard that entered between his shirt and his flesh is considered a Chatzitzah or not - because even if flesh on flesh is not a Chatzitzah, maybe hair on flesh is.

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked whether Tefilin are considered a Chatzitzah or not. This is not a She'eilah according to those who hold 'Laylah La'av Z'man Tefilin Hu' - because since Tefilin will then definitely be Chotzetz at night-time (since the Mitzvah cannot render them part of the body), they will also be a Chatzitzah in daytime.

(b) It is not feasible to say that they are not a Chatzitzah in the day, even though they are in the night - because that would mean that, in this regard, the Din of Avodas Laylah is more stringent than Avodas Yom, and that goes against the tradition that Avodas Yom is more stringent.

(c) The She'eilah is therefore - whether, according to those who hold 'Laylah Z'man Tefilin', a personal Mitzvah, which normally renders the object Batel to the body, is nevertheless considered an extra garment (see also Tosfos DH 'Tefilin').

(d) When the She'eilah reached the ears of Rebbi Ami - he cited an established ruling that Tefilin is indeed a Chatzitzah.

(a) The Beraisa rules that Kohanim be'ba'Avodasan, Levi'im be'Duchanan and Yisrael be'Ma'amadan - are all Patur from Tefilah and Tefilin (due to the principle 'ha'Osek ba'Mitzvah, Patur min ha'Mitzvah').

(b) By ...

1. ... 'Levi'im be'Duchanan', the Tana means - when the Levi'im sing (or play the instruments).
2. ... 'Yisrael be'Ma'amadan' - he means one of the twenty-four groups of Yisre'elim, who take turns to represent Yisrael to stand by the Korban Tzibur when it is brought each day on their behalf.
(c) We think that if the Kohanim did wear Tefilin, they would not be Chotzetz - because if they were, the Tana ought to have said (not just 'Peturin', but) 'Asurin'.
(a) To reconcile Rebbi Ami (who rules that Tefilin are 'Chotzetz') with the previous Beraisa, we therefore ascribe the Tana's use of the word 'Peturin' - to the fact that the Tana has included Levi'im and Yisre'elim in his ruling, to whom the word 'Asurin' would not be applicable.

(b) And we reconcile Rebbi Ami with a Beraisa which specifically states 'Im Hinichan, Einan Chotzetzos' - by establishing it by Tefilin shel Yad (which are worn in a location of clothes) whereas Rebbi Ami is talking about Tefilin shel Rosh (which are not).

(c) The basis for the prohibition is the Pasuk "Yilbash al Besaro" (forbidding the Kohanim to serve with a Chatzitzah between their clothes and their flesh [though according to Rashi, who learns the Sugya with regard to Yitur Begadim, the significance of this Pasuk is not clear; see Tosfos])). We initially think that it extends to the Tefilin shel Rosh - because of the Pasuk "Vesamta ha'Mitznefes al Rosho" (and the Tefilin create a Chatzitzah between the Mitznefes and the Kohen's head).

(d) We answer with a Beraisa, which dispenses with the problem - by pointing out that the Kohen's hair could be seen between the Tzitz (which lay on his forehead) and the Mitznefes (which was wound around the upper part of his head). And it was on that hair that the Kohen Gadol wore his Tefilin.




(a) Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Alehah ha'Kohen Ve'taherah" - "Ve'taherah", 'mi'Chelal she'Hi Temei'ah' (that a Mechusar Kipurim is still Tamei, and that it therefore desecrates the Avodah).

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns that a Kohen who serves without having washed his hands and feet desecrates the Avodah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chukah" "Chukah" - from a Mechusar Begadim (a Kohen who serves without wearing his four or eight garments).

(c) Another Beraisa draws a distinction between the Kohen in the previous case - *who desecrates the Avodah* and a Kohen Gadol who failed to wash his hands and feet between the five changes of clothes on Yom Kipur (assuming that he washed before he began the Avodah) - *who does not*.

(d) In fact, the Kohen Gadol needed ...

1. ... to Tovel on Yom Kipur - five times and ...
2. ... to wash his hands and feet - ten times (one Tevilah and two Kidushin) each time he changed his clothes.
(a) When based on the Pasuk in Chukas "U'leveisham", Rav Asi pointed out that the Torah writes "Chukah" by both cases of washing, and asked Rebbi Yochanan why there should be a difference, he replied - with the Pasuk "U'leveisham", 'Levishah Me'akeves ve'Ein Davar Acher Me'akev (that only changing the clothes is crucial, but nothing else).

(b) Rav Asi's face shone with pleasure at Rebbi Yochanan's answer. When Rebbi Yochanan then said to him 'Vav a'Apusa Kasvi Lach', he meant - that his answer was as effective as a 'Vav' written on a log of wood with grooves on it (which is barely discernible), because in that case, the morning Tevilah and Kidush (which was included in the five), should not be crucial either [and the Beraisa says that it is]).

(c) Chizkiyah learns the distinction from the Pasuk "Ve'haysah Lahem Chok Olam *Lo u'le'Zar'o* u'le'Dorosam", and Rebbi Yonasan from the Pasuk "Ve'rachatzu Mimenu Moshe, *Aharon u'Vanav*" - both of which imply that those washings that are crucial by Aharon's sons (Kohanim Hedyotos) are crucial to Aharon (the Kohen Gadol) too, implying that those that are not (i.e. the Tevilos and Kidushin on Yom Kipur), are not.


1. Rebbi Yonasan declines to learn it from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa - which comes to teach us that washing the hands extends to future generations too (and we cannot therefore learn a Hekesh from it).
2. Chizkiyah declines to learn from the Pasuk in Pikudei - because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who learns from there that unless the Kiyor contains sufficient water four at least four Kohanim to wash, it is forbidden to use it for Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim.
(e) The four Kohanim were - Aharon, Elazar, Isamar and Moshe (who served as Kohen during the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im [see Shitah Mekubetzes]).
(a) According to the Tana Kama, the Kohen performs Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim - by placing his right hand on his right foot, his left hand on his left foot, and washing all four simultaneously.

(b) We learn that he had to wash his hands and feet simultaneously - from the Pasuk "Ve'rachatzu Aharon u'Vanav es Yedeihem ve'es Ragleihem", which implies one washing for both hands and feet.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - he had to place one hand on top of the other and the two hands on his two feet, which were also placed one on top of the other, and wash them all at the same time.

(d) The Chachamim asked - how he could possibly do that without toppling over.

(a) Rav Yosef therefore explains - that, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, other Kohanim supported him, so that he should not fall.

(b) According to Abaye, the Rabbanan disagree with him - because they hold that if someone can only stand by being supported by others, it is not called standing.

(c) Rav Sama b'rei de'Rav Ashi asked Ravina why the Kohen could not sit down and wash (thereby answering the Rabbanan's Kashya on Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah. He answered - that seeing as the Torah in Ki Sisa refers to Kidush Yadayim ... as 'Sheirus', it must be performed standing (since the Torah writes in Shoftim "La'amod Le'shareis").

(a) A Kohen is not obligated to wash his hands and feet at night, even if he already washed them in the morning. Note that with regard to the Avodah, the day begins in the morning.

(b) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, he is not obligated to wash them in the morning either, even if he washed them at night. When Rebbi says that 'Linah' applies to Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim, he means - that he is obligated to wash them each morning.

(c) In a second Beraisa, Rebbi repeats his previous ruling, but in a case where the Kohen had been all night on the Mizbe'ach performing the Avodah when dawn broke. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says - that even if he performs the Avodah for ten consecutive days, he does not need to wash, because the criterion for Kidush, according to him, is 'Hesech ha'Da'as' (taking his mind off the Avodah).

(d) Both Beraisos are necessary, to teach us - that according to Rebbi, the Kohen has to wash, even if he performed the Avodah all night, and that according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, he does not need to wash, even if he did not.

(a) Rebbi's opinion is based on the Pasuk "O ve'Gishtam el ha'Mizbe'ach Le'shareis" - and each morning, after the new arrangement of wood is placed on the Mizbe'ach, it is considered a fresh 'Gishah ... ' (approaching the Mizbe'ach).

(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's source is - the Pasuk "be'Vo'am el Ohel Mo'ed".

(c) The Torah nevertheless needs to write "be'Vo'am el Ohel Mo'ed", according to Rebbi - to preclude from the notion that the Kohen needs to wash each time he approaches the Mizbe'ach.

(d) And according to both Tana'im, does the Torah needs to write ...

1. ... "Leshareis" - to teach us that he is only required to wash if he approaches the Mizbe'ach or enters the Heichal for the purpose of performing an Avodah, but not otherwise.
2. ... "Le'haktir Isheh la'Hashem" - to obligate the Kohen to wash even for an Avodah that is not crucial.
(a) The Torah writes "O ve'Gishtam", according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, to teach us the ruling of Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, regarding the second Kidush of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur - which refers to the Kidush *after* each Tevilah (as opposed to the one that preceded it).

(b) The Tana'im argue with regard to the first Kidush. According to the Rabbanan, the Kohen Gadol washed before undressing for the Tevilah - whereas according to Rebbi Meir, he undressed for the Tevilah first.

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov now extrapolates from "O ve'Gishtam" - that when it comes to the second Tevilah, even Rebbi Meir agrees that the Kidush precedes the undressing, as the Pasuk implies that the Kohen should be able to apply 'Gishah' immediately, and not have to dress first.

Next daf


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