ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 27
ZEVACHIM 26-30 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) The last statement in the Beraisa ('le'Machar, Pasul') poses a Kashya
on Shmuel, because if the Tana held she'Lo bi'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami' - why
is it not Pigul?
(b) Mar Zutra answers - with the principle that Pigul does not apply to any
Zerikah that does not permit the Korban to be eaten.
(c) When Rav Ashi asked Mar Zutra for his source for this ruling, he quoted
the Pasuk "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav, Pigul
Yih'yeh" - implying that it is rendered inedible solely on account of the
Pigul, and not for any additional reason (such as the Machsheves she'Lo
bi'Mekomo in our case).
(d) And when he asked why, in that case, it is even Pasul, Rav Nachman bar
Yitzchak replied - that it is not worse than a Machsheves Hinu'ach, which is
Pasul too, according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (as we just explained).
(a) Resh Lakish disagrees with Shmuel, in that when our Mishnah says
'Pasul', it means even to the point of not atoning for the owner - but he
agrees with his interpretation of the Pasuk "va'Ani Nasativ Lachem al
ha'Mizbe'ach Le'chaper", from which he too, extrapolates 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo
(b) In view of the Pasuk, he establishes our Mishnah - when the Kohen also
had a Machshavah of she'Lo bi'Zemano ('La'av bi'Shesikah').
(c) Resh Lakish answers all the Kashyos in the Sugya (on 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo
ki'Mekomo Dami') like Shmuel. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with both Shmuel
and Resh Lakish in that he holds - 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo La'av ki'Mekomo Dami'.
(d) According to him, our Mishnah speaks bi'Shesikah (without a Machsheves
Chutz li'Zemano), and he reconciles it with the Mishnah in the next Perek
'Nasno al ha'Kevesh she'Lo Keneged ha'Yesod' (which offers a Takanah, to
make Kabalah and Zerikah again) - by establishing it when there was no blood
left in the animal's neck.
(a) The ruling of our Mishnah 'Pasul ve'Ein Bo Kareis' poses a Kashya on
Rebbi Yochanan - because it is totally superfluous, since there is not the
least reason to think that there should be Kareis.
(b) Shmuel (who also establishes our Mishnah bi'Shesikah) will explain it by
adding - 've'Im Nasan be'Machshavah' ...
(c) ... but that is only because he holds 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami';
whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds ' ... La'av ki'Mekomo Dami' -
it is as if the Kohen had poured the blood on the floor, so why might there
be a Chiyuv Kareis on it?
(a) We ask why, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Kohen cannot gather the
blood from the floor beside the Mizbe'ach and sprinkle it again - because,
seeing as he holds ' ... La'av ki'Mekomo Dami', it is as if the blood
spilled directly from the animal's neck on to the floor, in which case this
is permitted (as we learned earlier).
(b) This is not a problem, according to Shmuel and Resh Lakish - who hold
'ki'Mekomo Dami', in which case it has already atoned, and it is obvious
that it cannot atone again.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan answers - by establishing our Mishnah like the Tana who
holds that one may not gather blood from the Mizbe'ach (whether it has
atoned or not), as we shall now explain.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan's answer is based on another statement of his, where he
discusses a Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon. He explained
that where the blood was correctly placed above or below the Chut ha'Sikra -
both Tana'im agree that the Kohen can no longer gather it ...
(b) ... and they argue - where it was placed below the Chut ha'Sikra
instead of above it, or vice-versa ...
(c) ... Rebbi Yossi says 'Lo Ya'asfenu'. whereas according to Rebbi Shimon -
(a) According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon agree that the
Kohen may not gather blood that was placed above the Chut ha'Sikra instead
of below it, 'Kal ve'Chomer' blood that was placed below it instead of above
it - since blood that is placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, is anyway bound to
dribble down until it reaches below it.
(b) And they argue in a case - where the blood was placed on the Mizbe'ach
ha'Olah instead of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, or vice-versa ('Rebbi Yossi Omer,
Lo Ya'asfenu, Rebbi Shimon Omer Ya'asfenu').
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether this falls under the category
of 'Kalteih Mizbe'ach (Rebbi Shimon) or not (Rebbi Yossi).
(a) Most Pesulin that are brought on the Mizbe'ach - 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah Darshens in a Mishnah in the ninth Perek, that "*Zos* ...
*Hi* *ha*'Olah" (in the Pasuk which serves as the source of this
Halachah) -actually constitute three 'Mi'utin' (preclusions).
(c) From two of these 'Mi'utin' we learn that a Korban that is Shechted at
night-time or whose blood spills, must come down from the Mizbe'ach. The
third Mi'ut is - where the blood was taken out of the Azarah. Note, that we
will see in the ninth Perek why Rebbi Yehudah precludes specifically these
(d) Based on the Pasuk "Zos *Toras* ha'Olah" - Rebbi Shimon - includes
these three cases in a list of Pesulin where he holds 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu'.
(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the word "Zos" - that with regard to another
list of Pesulim ('Rove'a, Nirva ... T'reifah and Yotzei Dofen) 'Im Alu,
(b) We need a Pasuk to preclude a Rove'a and a Nirva - in a case where there
was only one witness to that effect, in which case they are not put to death
and are even permitted to a Hedyot.
(c) The list also includes Muktzah, Ne'evad, Kil'ayim ... and Yotze Dofen.
'Muktzah' refers to - an animal that has been designated for idolatrous
purposes (even though it has not yet been worshipped), whereas 'Ne'evad'
refers to - an animal that has been worshipped, but which was not
(d) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the eligibility
of animals for Korbanos) ...
1. ... "Shor Os Kesev" - that an animal that is Kil'ayim (a child born of
two different parents) is disqualified from the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... "Ki Yivaled" - that a Yotzei Dofen (that is born by means of
cesarean birth) is Pasul too.
(a) Rebbi Shimon rules 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' by the first list, and ' ...
Yerdu' by the second - in view of the fact that the first list incorporates
animals that are Pesulan ba'Kodesh (which can only become Pasul after they
have entered the Azarah), whereas the second list incorporates those Pesulin
that are not 'Pesulan ba'Kodesh'.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak proves from the fact that even Rebbi Yehudah
agrees with Rebbi Shimon that 'ha'Nitnin bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz (and
vice-versa) im Alu Lo Yardu' - that the Mizbe'ach sanctifies whatever comes
on it, at least to the point that 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu' ('de'Kalteih Mizbe'ach
[which is synonymous with 'Lo Ya'asfenu']) even if the Tana holds 'she'Lo
bi'Mekomo La'av ki'Mekomo Dami'.
(c) The reason cannot be because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo
ki'Mekomo Dami' - because it is compared to the other Pesulim listed by
Rebbi Shimon (with which Rebbi Yehudah agrees), where this S'vara is not
(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak does not prove that from Rebbi Shimon - because
his reason is probably rooted in "Toras" (which is the source of his
D'rashah), and not because of the S'vara 'de'Kalteih Mizbe'ach'.
(a) Rebbi Elazar rules - that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi sanctifies Pesulin
(she'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu).
(b) We need Rebbi Elazar to teach us that, despite the Mishnah that we just
cited, which specifically states 'ha'Nitnim ba'Chutz, bi'Fenim ... Im Alu Lo
Yerdu' - because that might otherwise apply exclusively to something that is
fit for it (such as blood that does, on certain occasions, go on the
Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi), and Rebbi Elazar extends it to a Kometz, which never
(c) The Beraisa says that Ketores Zarah she'Alah Legabei Mizbe'ach - Teired.
(d) We extrapolate from the continuation of the Beraisa 'she'Ein Lecha
Mekadesh Pesulin Ela Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon ha'Ra'uy Lah' - 'Chitzon In,
Penimi Lo' (and the Mizbe'ach in the Reisha refers to the Mizbe'ach
(a) We would think that the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is Mekadesh whatever goes
on it, but not the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi - because the source Pasuk ("Zos
Toras ha'Olah" refers directly to the former, but not to the latter.
(b) We amend the Beraisa 'Ketores Zarah she'Alsah Legabei Mizbe'ach ...
Teired' - to 'le'Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon' ...
(c) ... with reference to the Kometz which was not sanctified in a K'li?
(d) And we now extrapolate from the Beraisa - 've'ha'Penimi Bein Ra'uy Lo
Bein she'Ein Ra'uy Lo (Mekadesh)', because whereas the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi
was anointed, and therefore has the Din of a K'li Shareis, which is Mekadesh
any species that is fit to become Kodesh, the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, which is
only a stone structure, was not, and it therefore has no more sanctity than
the floor of the Azarah, which only sanctifies what is fit to go on it.
(a) A Zevach is - any Korban which is (at least partially) eaten.
(b) Our Mishnah rules - that someone who Shechts a Zevach with the intention
1. ... sprinkling all or part of its blood outside the Azarah or to burn all
or part of its Emurim outside the Azarah - the Korban is Pasul, but someone
who eats it is not subject to Kareis. And the same will apply if he
intended to ...
(c) In a case however, where the Shochet Shechted the animal with the
intention of performing any of the above the next day - not only is the
Korban Pasul, but whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.
2. ... eat all or a k'Zayis of its Basar or of the skin of its fat-tail
(d) The Tana must be referring to - a Todah, a Chatas or an Asham. It cannot
be referring to a Shelamim, which can be eaten for two days.