(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 30

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) Rebbi Meir learns in a Mishnah in Temurah 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim, Harei Zu Temuras Olah' - where someone has in front of him an animal of Chulin besides one of Olah and one of Shelamim.

(b) The reason for Rebbi Meir's ruling is - because he holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'.

(c) Rebbi Yossi agrees in a case where the owner specifically changed his mind. In a case where he didn't, he holds that - seeing as he meant both Kedushos to take effect, only he was unable to declare them both at the same time, the animal in fact, adopts both Kedushos.

(d) It is therefore sent into a field to graze until it becomes blemished, when it is sold, half the proceeds going towards an Olah, and the other half, towards a Shelamim.

(a) We ask what the Din will be, according to Rebbi Meir, if the owner said 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah u'Shelamim'. Rebbi Meir might concede to Rebbi Yossi here - because, unlike the previous case, one 'Temuras' covers both the Olah and the Shelamim.

(b) On the assumption that he does not, we ask further - what Rebbi Meir will hold in a case where he said 'Harei Beheimah Zu La'chtzos le'Olah u'li'Shelamim'.

(c) The animal might be an Olah according to Rebbi Meir, even in this case - because as soon as the first half becomes an Olah, the Kedushas Olah spreads to the other half, before the Kedushas Shelamim has a chance to take effect.

(d) According to Abaye, Rebbi Meir will agree by 'La'chtzos'. Rava maintains - that he argues there too.

(a) Rava asks on Abaye from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah - where Rebbi Yehudah holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' even in a case of two different k'Zeisim (which is definitely not a matter of retracting, and) which is therefore similar to 'La'chtzos'?

(b) And we will shortly establish Rebbi Meir in Temurah like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah.

(c) Abaye answers with the principle 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ad Sof' - and Rebbi Yehudah speaks when he Shechted the first Si'man 'Chutz li'Zemano', and the second Si'man 'Chutz li'Mekomo', in which case, the Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano took effect first ...

(d) ... and Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' (that Pigul takes effect with a Machshavah on half the Matir [i.e. one Si'man]).

(a) We ask Abaye further from the first Perek of Menachos, where Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan repeat the same Machlokes with regard to a Kohen who does the Avodas ha'Minchah with the intention of eating a k'Zayis tomorrow and a k'Zayis outside the Mechitzah. Abaye establishes the case - where the Kohen burned the Kometz Chutz li'Zemano and the Levonah Chutz li'Mekomo (which is again not comparable to 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah u'Shelamim').

(b) The Machlokes must then be restricted to the burning (or the Holachah) of the Kometz, and not to the actual Avodah of the Kemitzah - because the Levonah is not included in that Avodah.

(c) When they asked him from the Kometz of a Minchas Chotei, which does not include Levonah, yet Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan also argue there - he replied that that is simply not true, and that Rebbi Yehudah concedes there that the Minchah is Pasul, but not Pigul.

(d) When Rav Ashi (or Rav Asi) says that it is possible for them to argue even there, and the Machlokes will then be over 'Pesi'os', he is referring to a case - where the Kohen had a Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano during the first step towards the Mizbe'ach, and a Mechsheves she'Lo bi'Mekomo during the second.

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi learns the She'eilah of 'La'chtzos' like Abaye. Rav Huna bar Nasan learns - like Rava.

(b) When Rav Dimi came, he established Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Temurah like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah by which he means - that, like Rebbi Yehudah, he holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' (and that consequently, he will hold like him by Shechitah as well).

(c) Abaye cited Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan who said that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi do not argue - by which he meant they only argue in the actual case which they present, which has Nothing to do with 'T'fos Lashon Rishon', but not in other cases, as we shall see.

(d) And he was therefore telling Rav Dimi - that in fact, Rebbi Meir does not hold like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Shechitah).




(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef states (regarding the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi) that in a case where the owner said ...
1. ... 'Tachol Zu va'Achar-Kach Tachol Zu' (meaning that first the one should take effect and then the other) - even Rebbi Yossi will agree that it is a Temuras Olah (and not a Temuras Shelamim).
2. ... 'Tachol Zu Ela-im-Kein Chalah Zu' - even Rebbi Meir will agree that both Kedushos take effect.
(b) And they argue in a case where he said Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim'. Rebbi ...
1. ... Meir then holds 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah' - because the fact that he did not say 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim indicates that he has retracted (which legally, he is unable to do).
2. ... Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Meir. In his opinion - the owner wants both to take effect, only thinks that whereas if he were to say 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim', half the animal would be Olah and half, Shelamim (in the way that we explained above), so he said 'Temuras' by both, so that the entire Kedushah of each animal takes effect simultaneously, enabling him to actually bring it on the Mizbe'ach (although in reality, this is not possible).
(c) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah, in a case of 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah u'Shelamim', Rebbi Meir would hold - that both Kedushos would take effect (not like Rebbi Yehudah, a Kashya on Rav Dimi).

(d) Rav Dimi answered Abaye - that even though Rabah bar bar Chanah holds that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi do not argue over 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim', he argues with him.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah argue in a case where the Kohen had in mind to eat 'K'zayis be'Chutz, k'Zayis le'Machar'. Based on a Safek that he had concerning this point, Ula (or Rav Oshaya) ask his Babylonian colleagues to ascertain - whether the correct version ought not to be 'K'zayis be'Chutz, u'k'Zayis le'Machar'.

(b) If the correct version is the one in our Mishnah, then in the case of 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis' - even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that both Kedushos take effect (which the Sugya refers to as 'K'lala').

(c) We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa - where Levi asked Rebbi whether Rebbi Yehudah will concede that 'Chishav Le'echol k'Zayis le'Machar ba'Chutz' - is considered 'a mixture of thoughts (both of which will therefore take effect [a 'K'lala']), or not (a 'P'rata').

(d) To which Rebbi replied - by praising his She'eilah, adding 'Eiruv Machshavos Havi' (it is a mixture of thoughts).

(a) Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi's son, commented that this is clearly indicated (by inference) in our Mishnah 'Le'echol ... k'Zayis le'Machar k'Zayis ba'Chutz ...'.

(b) Rebbi replied - that this was only the case according to the text that he cited (which was the text that he had taught them), but that according to the text that he had taught Levi ('k'Zayis u'k'Zayis'), his She'eilah was a good one.

(c) When Rebbi said 'Ledidach de'Asnisach Tarti, Lo Kashya Lach; Ledideih de'Lo Asniseih Ela Chada, (Kashya').

1. ... 'Tarti' meant - 'Le'echol k'Zayis ... le'Machar u'k'Zayis ba'Chutz ...' incorporating 'Le'echol k'Zayis ... 'k'Zayis'.
2. ... 'Chada' - 'Le'echol k'Zayis ... le'Machar 'k'Zayis ba'Chutz ...'.
3. ... 'Ledidach de'Asnisach Tarti, Lo Kashya Lach', he meant - that according to Rebbi Shimon, whom Rebbi had taught both cases, the inference that where he said 'Le'echol k'Zayis ba'Chutz le'Machar', Rebbi Yehudah would agree, is clear.
4. ... 'Ledideih de'Lo Asniseih Ela Chada, Kashya' -that according to Levi, whom he had taught only 'Le'echol ... k'Zayis le'Machar k'Zayis ba'Chutz ...' - there was indeed room for doubt what Rebbi Yehudah would hold in the case of 'k'Zayis Machar ba'Chutz'.
(a) And Levi's basic Safek was - which version was the correct one, the one he had been taught or that of Rebbi Shimon and his colleagues.

(b) He would assume, if ...

1. ... his version was the right one - that both other cases were really a mixture of thoughts (where Rebbi Yehudah would agree with the Tana Kama), and it was Rebbi Shimon and his colleagues who had erroneously added the case of 'k'Zayis 'u'k'Zayis' of their own accord.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon's version was the right one - that Rebbi Yehudah also argued by 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis', and Rebbi had simply omitted the case of 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis', when he had taught him.
(c) The difference between the two possibilities is - that according to the first possibility, Rebbi taught him the only case where Rebbi Yehudah actually applies 'T'fos Lashon Rishon', and the animal is an Olah (which means that Rebbi Shimon erred in adding 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis' to Rebbi's statement). Whereas according to the second possibility, Rebbi omitted ''k'Zayis u'k'Zayis' from the version that he taught *him*, in which case he likely omitted 'k'Zayis Machar ba'Chutz' from the version that he taught Rebbi Shimon and his colleagues.

(d) We know that the case that Rebbi taught Levi was 'k'Zayis le'Machar, k'Zayis ba'Chutz', and the case that he omitted was 'k'Zayis 'u'k'Zayis', and not vice-versa - because k'Zayis ba'Chutz 'k'Zayis le'Machar' would not classify as an omission, inasmuch as if Rebbi Yehudah held 'Harei Zu Olah' by 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis', then 'k'Zayis ba'Chutz 'k'Zayis le'Machar' would be a 'Kol she'Kein'.

(a) The problem with Levi's She'eilah by 'k'Zayis le'Machar ba'Chutz' is - why he did not rather ask what the Din will be by 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis' (which Rebbi omitted to tell him).

(b) We solve this problem by establishing that in fact, Levi asked Rebbi one She'eilah incorporating two (Rebbi's reply would automatically answer both She'eilos) - because whatever Rebbi's reply, Levi would also know what the Din will be by 'k'Zayis k'Zayis', as we shall see.

(c) Had he asked him the Din by 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis', this would not have been the case - because assuming that he replied that it is a 'P'rat' ('Harei Zu Olah', like 'k'Zayis ba'Chutz 'k'Zayis le'Machar'), he would still have been forced to ask him what Rebbi Yehudah will hold in a case of 'k'Zayis Machar ba'Chutz' (where Rebbi Yehudah might well concede to the Tana Kama).

(d) We cannot say, even now that he asked him 'k'Zayis ba'Chutz u'k'Zayis le'Machar', that if Rebbi would answer him that it is a 'K'lal' ('Eiruv Machshavos Havi' [which he did]), he would still have need to ask him what Rebbi Yehudah will hold in a case of ' ... 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis' (where Rebbi Yehudah might still hold 'Harei Zu Olah') because he would know from Rebbi's tone of voice what he holds there'; if he would answer gently, then it is clear that the latter case is a 'K'lal' ('Harei Zu Olah'), whereas if he holds that that too, it is a 'P'rat', then he will answer in an agitated tone of voice, as if to say 'now that 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis is a 'K'lal', how much more so 'k'Zayis le'Machar ba'Chutz!' (so what was the point in asking?).

(a) Since Rebbi answered Levi gently ('Zu She'eilah, Eiruv Machshavos Havi') - it is clear that he holds that 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis' has the same Din as k'Zayis k'Zayis'. Perhaps, at this stage, 'Zu She'eilah' even implies that.

(b) That explains why we say in Kidushin - that Rebbi is the one who holds that 'k'Zayis u'k'Zayis', like 'k'Zayis k'Zayis', is a 'P'rat.

Next daf


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