(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 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 ki'Mekomo Dami'.

(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 - 'Ya'asfenu'.




(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 three.

(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, Yerdu'.

(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 designated.

(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 applicable.

(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 does.

(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 ha'Penimi).

(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 of ...

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 ...
2. ... eat all or a k'Zayis of its Basar or of the skin of its fat-tail outside Yerushalayim.
(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.

(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.

Next daf


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