(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 35

ZEVACHIM 35 (14 Tamuz) Dedicated by Shabsi and Celine Ledereich in honor of the marriage of Serena Morsel to Shimy Berenholtz; may theirs be a "Binyan Shel Kayama!"



(a) When Rebbi Yehudah asked the Rabbanan why, seeing as they disagree with him regarding the cupful of blood, the Kohanim would block up the exit of the Amah to prevent the blood from flowing out of the Azarah, they replied - that it was considered praiseworthy for the Kohanim to wade through the Azarah up to their knees in blood.

(b) According to the Chachamim, the blood on the Kohanim's feet did not constitute a Chatzitzah - because it was still wet.

(c) The Beraisa rules - that once blood, ink honey and milk are dry, they constitute a Chatzitzah, whereas as long as they are still wet, they do not.

(d) The other problem with the fact that, according to the Chachamim, the Kohanim had to wade through the blood is - that it would stain the Bigdei Kehunah, and as we learned in the previous Perek, stained clothes invalidate the Avodah.

(a) The Kohanim could not have simply raised the hem of their shirts (to dispense with the previous Kashya) - because as we already learned (from the word "Mido"), shortened clothes too, would invalidate the Avodah.

(b) We refute the suggestion that they were only required to wade through the blood whilst carrying the limbs on to the ramp, because it is not an Avodah - since as we already learned in the first Perek (from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol"), carrying the limbs on to the ramp is considered an Avodah.

(c) In fact, the Kohanim waded through the blood, hems raised - when carrying wood on to the Mizbe'ach (which is definitely not an Avodah).

(d) And to avoid getting their clothes blood-stained, they carried the limbs and the blood on to the Mizbe'ach - by walking along the Itzteba'os (stone colonnades built in the floor of the Azarah).

(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if someone Shechts a Korban having in mind to eat ...
1. ... part of the animal that is not normally eaten or to burn part of it that is not normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban is not Pasul.
2. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten *or* to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban is not Pasul, either.
3. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten *and* to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban is not Pasul (because Achilah and Haktarah do not combine).
(b) Rebbi Eliezer disagrees - with the first of these rulings, because, according to him, a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, even on part of the animal that is not normally eaten or burned, invalidates (as we already learned).

(c) The Tana also rules that if someone Shechts a Korban with the intention of eating a k'Zayis of the skin or the gravy Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chutz li'Mekomo - the Korban is not Pasul. Neither are they (nor the remainder of items on the list, that we are about to discuss) subject to the Din of Pigul (if the Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano on a k'Zayis Basar or Eimurin), Nosar or Tum'ah.

(d) The Tana includes the Kifah and the Elel in the list. 'Kifah' constitutes the spices and the fragments of meat at the bottom of the pot, 'Elel' is - the nerve in the neck (which is hard).

(a) The other four parts of the animal listed by the Tana are - the bones, the nerves, the horns and the hooves.

(b) All the items in the Tana's list - are not edible.

(c) If someone ...

1. ... Shechts an animal as a Korban, the unborn fetus and the placenta - are not subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo (because they are not considered part of the Korban [though according to Rebbi Elazar, the reason would appear to be a different one, as we shall see]).
2. ... (a Kohen) performs Melikah on a bird as a Korban - its egg is not subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, either, for the same reason.
(d) The milk of Mukdashin and eggs of a Kodshim pigeon - are not subject to Nosar and Tum'ah either.
(a) Rebbi Elazar holds 'Pigeil be'Zevach, Nispagel ha'Sh'lil' - because, based on the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu', he holds that the fetus is part of the mother.

(b) Nevertheless he continues 'Pigeil ba'Shelil, Lo Nispagel ha'Zevach' - because a Sh'lil is inedible (and as we learned in our Mishnah, a Machsheves Achilah on part of the animal which is inedible does not render the Korban Pigul).

(c) In the latter case - the Sh'lil itself is certainly not subject to Pigul, as we learned in the Mishnah.

(a) He continues 'Pigeil be'Elel, Nispagel ha'Mura'ah' (its crop), but not vice-versa, because the Mura'ah is not edible. The reason for the first ruling is - because the Elel of a bird which is soft, is edible (and when in our Mishnah, we described Elel as inedible, that was referring to the Elel of an animal, which is hard).

(b) Rebbi Elazar continues 'Pigeil be'Eimurim, Nispaglu Parim; be'Parim, Lo Nispaglu Eimurim'. 'Parim' refers to - Parim ha'Nisrafin, which are entirely burned outside Yerushalayim.

(c) The reason for the latter ruling is - because the Basar of the Parim is not fit to eat, in which case it is not considered a Machsheves P'sul.

(d) We can extrapolate from Rebbi Elazar's dual rulings regarding the Sh'lil, the Mura'ah and the Basar Parim - that even though something cannot render Pigul, it can nevertheless become Pigul.

(a) Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue in Perek T'vul-Yom whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to Pigul at all. The Beraisa rules in a case where the Kohen sprinkled the blood with the intention of eating the Basar or burning the Eimurim Chutz li'Zemano - that even according to the Rabbanan, whether the Kohen thinks to eat the Parim after the allotted time or to burn the Eimurim after their allotted time, the Korban remains Kasher.

(b) What we learned in the previous Perek 'Chishav she'Tochleihu Eish le'Machar, Pigul' - was only if he thought that the Mizbe'ach will eat the Eimurim after their time (which is not applicable to Parim ha'Nisrafim, which are not burned on the Mizbe'ach), as we explained there.

(c) According to the Rabbanan, Pigul will apply to Parim ha'Nisrafin - if the Kohen has the Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemano during the Sereifas ha'Eimurin.

(d) We try to infer from the Lashon of the Beraisa 've'Shavin she'Im Chishav ba'Achilas Parim, u'vi'Sereifasan Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum' - Ha Chishav be'Eimirin, Nispaglu Parim' (even though the Parim cannot not make Pigul, a proof for Rebbi Elazar).

(e) We refute this proof - by applying the inference as 'Ha Cohesive be'Eimirin, Nispaglu ha'Eimurim Atzman'.




(a) The Beraisa discusses Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin. They become
1. ... subject to Me'ilah - the moment they are sanctified.
2. ... Pasul through being touched by a T'vul-Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim and subject to Linah - from after the Shechitah.
(b) We again attempt to prove Rebbi Elazar right from here - because we assume that 'Linah' refers to the Basar, and just as Linas Basar invalidates the Basar, so too, will Machsheves Linas Basar (Chutz li'Zemano) invalidate it.

(c) According to the Seifa of the Beraisa, they are subject to Me'ilah - up until the Basar is completely burned.

(d) The Seifa create a problem with our suggestion that Linah in the Reisha refers to Linas Eimurim (and not Basar) - because since the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, we think, is the Seifa.

(e) We repudiate this Kashya however - with 'Ha ke'd'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'd'Iysa' (the Reisha speaks about the Eimurim, and the Seifa, about the Basar (and we remain without a proof for Rebbi Elazar).

(a) The Beraisa, discussing the things that are neither Mefagel nor Mispagel, lists all the items in our Mishnah. The Tana finds it necessary to add specifically the wool of the head and the hair of the goat's beard - because we might otherwise have thought that it must be burned on the Mizbe'ach together with the skin, which is also not normally included in the Haktarah, but which is in the case of the head (due to a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).

(b) Besides that of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, the Tana also exempts them from the La'av of 'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz' (sacrificing them outside the Beis-Hamikdash).

(c) Rabah asks on Rebbi Elazar from 've'Eilu she'Ein Mefaglin ve'Ein Mispaglin' - which he assumes to mean 'Lo Mefaglin ha'Zevach, ve'Lo Mispaglin Machmas ha'Zevach'.

(d) And we answer - that the Tana really means 'Lo Mefaglin es ha'Zevach ve'Lo Mispaglin Machmas Atzman' (but 'Machmas ha'Zevach', they would be Pigul, like Rebbi Elazar).

(a) Rabah's proof is based on the Seifa 'Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo Mispaglin' - which (according to our interpretation of the Reisha) seems to be merely repeating it.

(b) And we counter this Kashya from the continuation 've'Ein Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei' - where 'Pigul' is also nothing more than a repetition of the Reisha.

(c) So we conclude - that the Tana must mean to insert 'Pigul' on account of Nosar and Tamei, and by the same token, he adds 'Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo Mispaglin' on account of 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Patur'.

(a) Bearing in mind that the Tana has just said 'Hashochet es ha'Mukdashin Le'echol Sh'lil O ha'Shilya ba'Chutz Lo Pigeil', Rava extrapolates from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Chalav ha'Mukdashin u'Beitzei Torim Ein Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei' - 'Ha Sh'lil ve'Shilya, Chayavin'.

(b) And he reconciles the apparent contradiction between the two statements - by establishing the former ruling by 'Machmas Atzman' (when he thought to eat the Sh'lil and the Shilya themselves Chutz li'Zemano), and the latter ruling by 'Machmas ha'Zevach' (when he thought to eat the Basar Chutz li'Zemano) ...

(c) ... a proof for Rebbi Elazar.

(a) The Tana Kama in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh includes Ba'alei Mumin among the Pesulin that Im Alu, Yerdu. Rebbi Akiva holds - 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan restricts Rebbi Akiva's ruling to the Mum of Dukin she'be'Ayin (eye's web) - because it is Kasher by Korban Of (which is not subject to the P'sul of Mumin).

(c) He also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the Mum - because Kedushas Mizbe'ach cannot take effect on a Ba'al Mum, only Kedushas Damim.

(d) Rebbi Akiva will concede that an Olas Nekeivah 'Im Alah Yeired' (because it is compared to an animal whose blemish preceded its Hekdesh) even though a Nekeivah is Kasher by an Olas ha'Of (and by Shalmei Beheimah).

(a) We learned in the Beraisa (that we cited earlier) 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Patur. Rebbi Zeira infers from the Beraisa 'Meihen (from the Sh'lil and the Shilya), Ha me'Iman, Chayav.' This must be talking about an Olas Nekeivah, and not for example, a Shelamim - because the Basar of a Shelamim is not fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and is therefore not subject to the La'av of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz.

(b) The author must be Rebbi Akiva - who holds 'Im Alsah Lo Teired', which explains why it is Chayav ba'Chutz.

(c) This poses a Kashya on what we just learned - that Rebbi Akiva concedes that the Basar of a Nekeivah le'Olah 'Im Alsah, Teired'.

(d) We object to the suggestion that the inference reads (not 'Ha me'Iman, Chayav', but) 'Ha me'Eimurei Iman, Chayav' - because 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen Patur' (the source of the inference) is talking about the Basar, and not the Eimurin.

(e) So to accommodate the suggestion, we amend 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Patur', to read 'ha'Ma'aleh me'Emureihen ba'Chutz, Patur'

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, if someone Shechts Kodshim having in mind to leave its blood or its Eimurin until the next day, the Korban is Pasul - strange, seeing as this is neither Achilah nor Haktarah.

(b) The Chachamim - declare the Korban, Kasher.

(c) Our Mishnah rules in a case where one Shechted the Korban having in mind ...

1. ... to place the blood on part of the Mizbe'ach where there is no Yesod, above the Chut ha'Sikra instead of below it, or vice-versa, or on the outer Mizbe'ach instead of on the inner one, or vice-versa - that the Korban is Kasher, and the same applies in a case where he had in mind ...
2. ... that Teme'im or Areilim should eat it or bring it, or ...
3. ... to break its bones (assuming it is a Korban Pesach)?
(d) The other case of Machsheves P'sul mentioned by the Tana with regard to a Korban Pesach is - if he had in mind to eat it cooked or half roasted.
(a) The Tana finally rules that if one had in mind to mix the blood with the blood of a Pasul Korban - the Korban is Kasher ...

(b) ... because a Korban only becomes Pasul or Pigul with one of three Machchovos - Chutz li'Zemano, Chutz li'Mekomo or, in the case of a Pesach or a Chatas, she'Lo Lish'mo.

Next daf


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