ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 39
ZEVACHIM 36-40 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) We reconcile the current Beraisa (Damim ha'Te'unin Yesod ... Te'unin
Kibus ... ') with another Beraisa, which precludes Shirayim and Haktaras
Eimurim from Machsheves P'sul - by establishing it by the three Matanos of a
(b) And we amend the Tana's statement 'Te'unin Yesod' - to 'Nit'anin Yesod',
meaning that the Shirayim will be poured on to the Yesod (though it is not
clear why the Tana did not then say 'Te'unin Keren').
(c) However, seeing as Rav Papa ruled before (regarding those three Matanos)
'Lo Sharya, ve'Lo Mefagla ve'Lo Ayla le'Gava'i ke'Sofan' - we re-establish
the earlier Beraisa by the blood of a Chatas P'nimi (where all four Matanos
(d) The problem with the Seifa 've'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah Ein Te'unin
Kibus, ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles Bahen, ve'ha'Ma'aleh Bahen ba'Chutz Patur'
is - why the Tana jumped to 'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah', rather than the
last three Matanos of the Chatas Chitzonah.
(a) We answer by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Nechemyah,
who holds 'Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz Chayav' in which case,
according to the suggestion, the Seifa would not have balanced the Reisha -
since he could only have mentioned two of the three Dinim in the Reisha
(i.e. 'Ein Te'unin Kibus ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles Bahen'), whereas by
'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah' he is able to mention all three.
(b) Going back to the Mishnah in Dam Chatas, 'min ha'Keren u'min ha'Yesod
Eino Ta'un Kibus' (from which Rav Papa extrapolated 'Ha min ha'Ra'uy
le'Keren, Ta'un Kibus'), on which we asked from 'min ha'Yesod ... ', where
we cannot make the same inference. To answer this Kashya, Ravina establishes
'min ha'Yesod ... ' - as 'min ha'Ra'uy li'Yesod'.
(c) Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza asked Ravina why we cannot interpret the Reisha
too, to mean 'Ra'uy le'Keren' (like the Seifa means 'Ra'uy li'Yesod') -
refuting Rav Papa's inference-based proof altogether.
(d) To which Ravina replied - that having taught 'min ha'Ra'uy le'Keren,
Eino Ta'un Kibus', the Tana would not then have needed to add 'min ha'Ra'uy
li'Yesod', which is obvious (finally vindicating Rav Papa).
(a) The Torah writes in Parshas Vayikra (in connection with the Par He'elam
Davar shel Tzibur) "Ve'asah la'Par Kasher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas". "Par
ha'Chatas" refers to - the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach.
(b) The problem with this Pasuk is - that it is superfluous in its context,
since everything that needs to be done to the Par He'elam Davar has been
specifically mentioned, except for one thing, as we shall now see.
(c) We cannot answer that the Hekesh comes to include the burning of the
lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, which the Torah does not mention by
the Par He'elam Davar - because the Torah writes Ve'chiper Aleihem", and the
'Yoseres ha'Kaveid and the Sh'tei K'layos do not impede the Kaparah.
(d) And the Torah writes "Ve'asah la'Par ... " - to teach us that all the
Matanos are crucial.
(a) We learn from "Kein Ya'aseh Lo" - that the current Chumra pertains not
only to the seven Matanos on the Paroches, but also to the four Matanos on
the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.
(b) From the word "(Kein Ya'aseh) le'Par", the Tana includes the Par (of the
Chatas ha'Tzibur) of Yom Kipur, from ...
1. ... "(Ka'asher Asah) le'Par" - he includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and
(c) The Tana incorporates the Par Kohen Mashi'ach in the current Din (of
Ikuv Matnosav) - but it comes to incorporate the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim in
the initial Din of a Chatas Penimi (regarding sprinkling the blood on the
Paroches and on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and burning it outside the three
Machanos), which is not mentioned in the Parshah itself.
2. ... "ha'Chatas" - the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim.
(d) On the other hand, from the word "(Kein Ya'aseh) Lo", he precludes - the
goats of (the Musaf) of Yom-tov and Rosh Chodesh, from the Dinim of Chatas
(a) The Tana includes Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim, and precludes the Se'irei
Yom-Tov and Rosh Chodesh (and not vice-versa) - because, seeing as the Par
He'elam Davar (the source) speaks about a specific sin, it is more logical
to include a Korban that comes likewise to atone for a specific sin (rather
than one that comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, of which one
(b) The Beraisa goes on to preclude the Semichah from deterring the Korbanos
in question, from "Ve'chiper" - whereas from "Ve'nislach" he precludes the
pouring of the Shirayim on to the Yesod.
(c) We might have thought otherwise - because of the Pasuk "ve'Asah ...
(d) The Tana sees fit to include the Haza'os and to preclude Semichah and
Shirayim (and not the other way round) - because elsewhere we find that the
Haza'os are crucial, whereas Semichah and Shirayim are not (as we will