ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 23
ZEVACHIM 21-23 - 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) The only two Korbanos that are disqualified when the owner becomes Tamei
are - the Korban Pesach (which can only be brought by someone who can eat
it) and the Korban Nazir (who must begin his Nezirus all over again once he
(b) The Beraisa rules that the Tzitz ...
1. ... atones for a Nazir and someone bringing his Pesach, if the blood
became Tamei ...
(c) According to the Ziknei Darom, the Beraisa cannot be referring to where
the owner was a Tamei Sheretz - because they hold 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin al
Tamei Sheretz' (in which case he does require a Kaparah).
2. ... but not if the owner became Tamei.
(d) If, on the other hand, the Tana is talking about where he was a Tamei
Meis - we have a proof that 'Ein Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Meis' (a Kashya
on the Ziknei Darom).
(a) We answer that the owner was neither the one, nor the other, and the
Tana is speaking - when it was the Kohen who was Tamei Sheretz.
(b) The Tana nevertheless mentions specifically a Nazir and someone who is
bringing his Korban Pesach (even though the Kohen is Pasul from bringing
*any* Korban Yachid) - because of the Seifa, where he talks about Tum'as
ha'Tehom, which only affects Nazir and Oseh Pesach).
(c) The problem with the Seifa 'Nitma Tum'as ha'Tehom, ha'Tzitz Meratzeh' is
the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya 'Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela le'Meis Bil'vad' -
which implies 'but not Tum'as Sheretz', in which case the Reisha cannot be
speaking about Tum'as Sheretz either.
(d) We cannot learn Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from
Meis (since it does require Haza'ah like a Tamei Meis, as we explained
earlier) - because one cannot learn a 'Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai (which Tumas ha'Tehom is).
(a) If the Beraisa does not come to preclude Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz from
Ritzuy Tzitz (because that would create a problem with the Ziknei Darom, as
we just explained) it comes to preclude - Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Zivah (which is
precluded from the leniency because it concerns an internal Tum'ah that
comes from the body).
(b) Tum'as ha'Tehom is a general term which incorporates Safek Tum'ah -
which pertains to every Tum'ah according to its specifications. With regard
to Zivah, it means that the 'Zav' saw Zivus for the duration of
Bein-ha'Shemashos, which might be all night or all day, in which he case he
only saw one day (and is not a Zav), or it might be half day and half night,
in which case he saw on two consecutive days, and is a Zav.
(c) Rami bar Chama asks - whether a Kohen who is bringing the Korbanos of a
Nazir or of someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach, is subject to Ritzuy
(d) We cannot resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the Beraisa 've'Ein
ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Tum'as ha'Guf', according to the Ziknei Darom, as we
just explained - because Rami bar Chama disagrees with them, establishing
the Beraisa by Tum'as Meis of the owner, and he holds 'Ein Yachid Tamei Meis
(a) The Tzitz cannot come to atone for the sin of Pigul, the Beraisa
explains, because the Torah writes there "Lo Yeratzeh", or for the sin of
Nosar, where it writes "Lo Yechashev". When the Tana refers to ...
1. ... 'Pigul' in this context - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo'.
(b) The problem with our text, which pairs 'Pigul' with "Lo Yechashev", and
Nosar with "Lo Yeratzeh" is - that seeing as elsewhere, we establish the
Pasuk of "Lo Yechashev" by Pigul ('Chutz li'Zemano'), Nosar in connection
with "Lo Yeratzeh" must mean literally Nosar (and not a Machsheves Pigul),
in which case, there would be no reason to invalidate the rest of the
2. ... 'Nosar' - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano.
(c) In that case, the Tana concludes, the Tzitz must come to atone for the
sin of Tum'ah, because it possesses the leniency that it becomes permitted
be'Tzibur. Initially, we reject the suggestion that the Tana is speaking
about Tum'as Sheretz - because (seeing as a Yachid is not Nidcheh) it does
not possess a Heter by a Tzibur.
(d) So it must be speaking about Tum'as Meis. Seeing as it does not pertain
to where the owner was a Nazir, because he is obligated to begin his Nezirus
all over again (and has therefore no justification to bring his final
Korbanos), it must therefore pertain to - a Tamei who sent his Korban Pesach
to the Beis-Hamikdash, a Kashya on Rami bar Chama.
(a) So we establish the Beraisa by a Tamei Sheretz after all, and we
reconcile this with the statement 'she'Hutrah mi'Chelalah be'Tzibur' - with
'Shem Tum'ah ba'Olam' (i.e. what the Beraisa means is that we establish
Ritzuy Tzitz by Tumah (of a Sheretz), because Tumah (albeit of a Meis) is
permitted by Tzibur.
(b) In the second Lashon, we ask from the inference ' "Avon ha'Kodshim" In,
Avon ha'Makdishim, Lo'! - by which we mean that we follow through the same
arguments as we did in the first Lashon, arriving at the initial conclusion
that the Tzitz must atone for the sin of Tum'as Kodshim of a Korban Pesach,
but not if the owner became Tamei, because 'Tamei Meis Eino Meshale'ach
Korbenosav', a Kashya on the Ziknei Darom.
(c) And we answer like we did in the first Lashon, that the Tana is speaking
about Tum'as Sheretz 've'Shem Tum'ah ba'Olam'.
(a) Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk in "La'amod Le'shareis" - that a Kohen
is obligated to perform the Avodah standing.
(b) The Beraisa quotes this Pasuk, too. And from the Pasuk "ha'Omdim Sham",
the Tana learns - that he also desecrates the Avodah.
(c) The Beraisa rules that 'Areil, Tamei, Yoshev and Onan' - are all subject
to Malkos, but not to Misah.
(d) Based on his assumption that Yoshev is considered a Zar, Rava asked -
why a Kohen who serves sitting should not be Chayav Misah too (like a Zar).
(a) Rav Nachman answered Rava by citing the Halachah by a Mechusar Begadim
and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - both of whom the Torah sentences to
Misah, and we apply the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein
Melamdin'' (when the Torah issues the same ruling in two places, we cannot
extend it to any other cases.
(b) We might need to add a Kohen who drunk wine - to fall in line with those
who say that 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ... Melamdin', but who agree that 'Sheloshah
Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin'.
(c) We have two problems with this Sugya however. Seeing as we consider
Yoshev a Zar ...
1. ... we ought not to need to learn the Chiyuv Misah from Mechusar Begadim
and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - seeing as the Torah writes it
explicitly by a Zar (which is in fact, the source of Chiyuv Misah by a
2. ... he ought not to descrate the Avodah either - because in that regard
too, there are a number of Pesukim (just like there are by the Chiyuv Misah
[see Tosfos DH 'Eima']).