ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 44
ZEVACHIM 44 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) Regarding the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol
Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ... ", we learn from ...
1. ... "mi'Besar" - that Pigul applies to Korbanos that are eaten for one
day, too, and from ...
(b) Besides Ofos and Menachos, the Pasuk "Asher Heim Makdishim Li" comes to
include - the Log Shemen shel Metzora, in the Din of Tum'as Kodshim..
2. ... "Zevach" - we extend it even to Olos, that are not eaten at all.
(c) We learn Nosar from Tum'ah (to incorporate all the above) from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul" - and Pigul from Nosar from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar.
(d) Despite the fact that the Torah includes everything in the Isur of Pigul
anyway, the Pasuk in Tzav nevertheless mentions specifically Shelamim - to
teach us that whatever has a Matir, whether it permits Achilas Adam (e.g.
the Basar of Kodshim that are eaten) or Achilas Mizbe'ach (e.g. the Eimurin
of all Kodshim), is subject to Pigul.
(a) The Beraisa initially includes what is similar to Shelamim - by which
the Tana means a Bechor, which like a Shelamim, can be eaten for two days
and a night.
(b) The problem with learning Pigul by Bechor from Shelamim via a ...
1. ... 'Mah Matzinu' is that Shelamim has three Chumros that Bechor does
not, in that - it requires Semichah, Nesachim and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok.
(c) Rava, quoting the B'nei Ma'arva, solves the latter problem - by simply
considering the P'rat as if it was in between the two K'lalim.
2. ... a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' from "ve'He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach
Shelamav" is - that the two 'K'lalim' are next to each other, making it look
more like a 'K'lal u'K'lal u'P'rat.
(a) The Beraisa includes the Log Shemen shel Metzora among the Kodshim items
that are subject to Pigul. The author of this statement is - Rebbi Meir, who
holds that one is Chayav for the Log Shemen, even though it could be brought
later (because it is permitted by the Dam ha'Asham, to be placed on the
various locations on the Metzora's body, and for the Kohanim to eat).
(b) One has - ten days to bring the Log Shemen and Niskei Beheimah after
bringing the Korban which they accompany.
(c) When the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, why he included Niskei
Beheimah among the Kodshim that are subject to Pigul, seeing as the owner
had the option of bringing them up to ten days time, he replied - that he
was speaking specifically in a case where the owner brought them together
with the Korban.
(d) The problem with the Seifa of the previous Beraisa, which precludes the
Niskei Nesachim and the Dam from Pigul is - that Rebbi Meir holds the same
there as he holds by the Log Shemen (so why does the Tana preclude them
(a) Rav Yosef establishes the author of the Beraisa ('ad she'Ani Marbeh Log
Shemen shel Metzora') as Rebbi, who holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir
(that since one has the option of bringing it later, it is not permitted by
the Dam of the Asham. According to the Rabbanan in another Beraisa, the Log
Shemen shel Asham is subject to Me'ilah until the Zerikas ha'Dam of the
Asham; whereas according to Rebbi, it is - until after the seven Matanos of
the Log Shemen towards the Kodesh Kodshim.
(b) And Rebbi holds - that just as the Matanos permit the oil, they also
include it in the Din of Pigul.
(c) The Kohanim may actually eat the Sheyarei Log Shemen however- only after
the Kohen has also placed it on the thumb and big toe of the Metzora
(d) When Rebbi Yirmiyah heard Rav Yosef's answer - he expressed surprise
that a great man like Rav Yosef should say such a thing.
(a) We cited earlier Rebbi Meir who confined his ruling including the Log
Shemen shel Metzora in the Din of Pigul, to a Log Shemen which came together
with the Asham - to preclude one that was either brought later on its own,
or that came independent of a Korban.
(b) What permits the Kohanim to eat it (even according to the Rabbanan of
Rebbi) - is the Matanos.
(c) Nevertheless, it is not subject to Pigul - because, Menachos are
compared to Zevachim, and just in the latter case, only the Dam is Mefagel,
so too in the former, only the Kometz is Mefagel (an whatever is unconnected
to a Kometz, is not subject to Pigul.
(d) According to Rav Yosef, asks Rebbi Yirmiyah - everyone agrees that where
there is no other Matir that permits it to be eaten - its own Matanos
include it in the Din of Pigul.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore establishes Rebbi Meir as the author of the
current Beraisa, and he amends the Seifa 'u'Motzi Ani Minchas Nesachim
ve'ha'Dam' - by omitting 'Minchas Nesachim'.
(b) Abaye leaves Minchas Nesachim in the Beraisa. He nevertheless explains
the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Meir - by amending the Reisha to Log Shemen
ha'Ba im ha'Asham, incorporating Minchas Nesachim ha'Ba'im im ha'Zevach, and
the Seifa to Nesachim ha'Ba'in bi'Fenei Atzman, incorporating Log Shemen
ha'Ba bi'Fenei Atzmo.
(a) The Beraisa includes Log Shemen shel Metzora in the Matnos Kehunah that
are eaten, from *"Kol* Korbanam". We need "Kol" to teach us that - since the
Torah wrote earlier "min ha'Eish" (and no part of the Log Shemen is brought
on the Mizbe'ach, we would have thought that it is not included in
(b) And from "*le'Chol* Minchasam", he includes Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas
ha'Kena'os. Based on the Pasuk "Ve'achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem", we need a
special Pasuk for ...
1. ... Minchas ha'Omer" - which does not come to atone, but to permit
(c) And we need a Pasuk to include Chatas ha'Of - because we might have
thought that, seeing as it was not Shechted (only pricked with the
thumb-nail), it is Neveilah (and therefore forbidden to eat).
2. ... Minchas ha'Kena'os - which comes to clarify the Sotah's sin.
3. ... Asham Nazir (Tamei) and Asham Metzora - which come to permit the
Nazir to recommence his Nezirus, and the Metzora to eat Kodshim.
(d) The problem with the Tana mentioning Asham Metzora is - that the Torah
specifically permits it to be eaten ('like a Chatas').
(e) So we amend the Lashon 'Asham Nazir ve'Asham Metzora' to - 'Asham Nazir
(a) The Tana learns the last of the Matnos Kehunah - Gezel ha'Ger, from
"Asher Yashivu Li".
(b) And he learns from "Lecha Hu u'le'Vanecha" - that (unlike certain areas
of Hekdesh) it is the Kohen's personal property, which he may even use to
betroth a woman.
(a) Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Yossi says in a Beraisa 'Pigeil
be'Davar ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz. Pigeil be'Davar ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim', Lo
Pigeil' - with reference to the Parim ha'Nisrafim (i.e. the Chata'os
(b) The underlying principle behind Rebbi Elazar's ruling is - that the
Avodah must take place in the Azarah, and the Machshavah must concern an
'Achilah' that takes place in the Azarah, too.
(a) If he Shechted the animal in the Azarah with the intention of sprinkling
its blood the following day, it is not Pigul - because the Machshavah
concerns an Achilah that takes place in the Heichal (where the sprinkling of
the Parim ha'Nisrafim takes place).
(b) The reverse case (that is not Pigul either) is - where the Kohen
sprinkles the blood in the Heichal with the intention of burning the
Shirayim on the following day.
(c) The case of Parim ha'Nisrafim which is Pigul is - if he Shechted them in
the Azarah having in mind to pour the Shirayim of the blood on to the Yesod
of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon the following day.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolates Rebbi Elazar's ruling from the
Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor
Zevach ha'Shelamim" - by treating this as a Hekesh (Parim ha'Nisrafin, as
well as all cases of Pigul, to Shelamim) - inasmuch as just as the Avodah by
which the Kohen is Mefagel, as well as the Machsheves Achilas Mizbe'ach of a
Shelamim, both take effect in the Azarah (ba'Chutz), so too, do they.
(b) This D'rashah is prompted by the fact - that the Pasuk is otherwise
superfluous, since all the Eimurin are already listed by the Par Kohen
Mashi'ach (where this Pasuk is written).
(a) Rava (or Rav Yosef)'s reaction to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah who
ruled like Rebbi Elazar Mishum Rebbi Yossi was - why on earth it was
necessary, considering that it would made no practical difference until
Mashi'ach comes and the Beis-Hamikdash is rebuilt.
(b) Abaye's response to Rava's Kashya (based on all of Hilchos Kodshim)
was - that in that case, one shouldn't need to learn Kodshim at all. And
just like you will answer there that one learns it anyway to receive the
reward for the learning, so too, will that apply to Rav's ruling.
(c) To which Rava replied - that he was referring, not to the study of the
Halachos, but to why Rav found it necessary to issue a ruling that has no