ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(c) It might ...
1. ... not be considered a Chatzitzah - because since the louse comes and
goes, it is considered part of his body.
(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).
2. ... nevertheless be considered a Chatzitzah - since he is fussy about it
(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).
(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.
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
(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).
(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'.
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.
(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).
(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]).
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.
(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
(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
(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
(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's source is - the Pasuk "be'Vo'am el Ohel
(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.