ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 50
ZEVACHIM 47-50 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael asks - whether 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh,
Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av' or ''Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av'.
We now have three Pesukim which teach us Tzafon by Kodshei Kodshim. We
cannot learn ...
(b) We extrapolate from there - that he must hold 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh
(which is stronger than a 'Binyan Av'), Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer'.
Otherwise, Binyan Av would be obvious.
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah attempts to resolve the She'eilah based on the same
sources as those used by Rebbi Yochanan to prove that 'Davar ha'Lamed
be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'; namely - that if the
Torah held ' ... Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av', it would have been
unnecessary to write "Tzafonah" by Asham (since it could have learned it
from a 'Binyan Av' from Chatas).
(d) We counter that, in that case, we could certainly learn Tzafon by Asham
directly from Olah. If we don't, it must be because of a Pircha on the
latter Limud, and by the same token, there is a Pircha on the former one,
too). We cannot in fact, learn Tzafon by Asham ...
1. ... directly from Olah - because it is entirely burned.
2. ... from a Binyan Av from Chatas - because a Chatas comes to atone for
1. ... Olah from Chatas and Asham - because they both come to atone (which
an Olah does not [because an Asei, which the Olah comes to atone for, is not
considered a Kaparah when compared to them]).
2. ... Chatas from Olah and Asham - because they are both male animals
(whereas a Chatas Yachid is a female).
3. ... Asham from Olah and Chatas - because they can both be Korbanos Tzibur
as well as Korbenos Yachid (whereas an Asham can only be brought as a Korban
(a) We now ask about 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u'Melamed
be'Hekesh'. Rav Papa quotes the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras Zevach
ha'Shelamim, Im al Todah Yakrivenu". We learn there ...
1. ... that just as one can use Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase a Korban
Shelamim, so too, can one use it to purchase a Korban Todah.
2. ... from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" "Sham" from Ma'aser Sheini - that
one can use Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase a Shelamim.
1. Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari refutes the proof from there that 'Davar
ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' - on the grounds
that Ma'aser Sheini is Chulin (and not Kodshim).
2. And Ravina rejects Rav Zutra's refutation - on the grounds that even
though Ma'aser is Chulin, Shelamim (which is the 'Lameid') is Kodshim, and
that is sufficient to place it in the category of 'Lameid min ha'Lameid
(a) So 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'
remains unresolved. Rami bar Chama cites a Beraisa to try and resolve the
She'eilah whether ' ... Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' or 'Ein Chozer
u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'. Besides ten Chametz loaves - three kinds of
Matzah loaves accompanied the Todah, ten Chalos loaves, ten wafer loaves and
ten loaves that were pre-boiled.
(b) We learn from "So'les Murbeches - that the ten Murbeches loaves
consisted of So'les (fine flour), and not of Kemach (unrefined flour).
(c) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah ...
1. ..."Chalos" "Chalos" from Murbeches - that the same applies to the
(d) Assuming that the second Limud is from Chalos, Rami bar Chama
extrapolated from this - that 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, Chozer
2. ... "Matzos" "Matzos" - that it applies to the wafer-Chalos, too.
(e) Ravina refuted that however - by suggesting that the second Limud is not
from Chalos, but from Minchas Ma'afeh-Tanur, where the word "Matzos" is also
used, and where "So'les" is mentioned explicitly.
(a) So Rava learns it from another source. The Beraisa which discusses the
Par Kohen Mashi'ach, learns from ...
1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Kirbo u'Firsho ... Ve'hotzi" - that the Par must be
taken outside Yerushalayim complete (uncut).
(b) And "ve'Kirbo u'Pirsho" (which is written in the same Pasuk as "ve'es Or
ha'Par ve'es Besaro") comes to teach us - that just as its dung is burned
without being taken out (since it would be disgusting to do so), so too is
the skin burned without removing it from the flesh (Hefshet), as Rav Papa
2. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Rosho al Kera'av" "Rosho al Kera'av" from Olas
Tzon - that it must be cut into pieces before being burned.
(c) In another Beraisa, Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Or u'Basar
u'Peresh" from "Or u'Basar u'Peresh" - that the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom
ha'Kipurim too must be cut into pieces without the skin being removed.
(d) Rava has proved from here - that 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah,
Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
(a) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah whether 'Davar ha'Lamed
bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' or not from 'Davar
ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' - because if 'Davar
ha'Lamed be'Hekesh' (where we say 'Eino Melamed be'Hekesh', yet 'Chozer
u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer', then 'Davar ha'Lamed b'Gezeirah-Shavah', where
we say 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh', we should certainly say 'Chozer
u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' ...
(b) ... though this will only work according to Rav Papa - who goes after
the Lameid, because according to those who go after the Melamed (Rav Zutra
b'rei de'Rav Mari), we concluded 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Eino
Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh').
(c) We finally resolve the She'eilah from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Davar
ha'Lamed be'Hekesh', where we say 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' - even
though we hold 'Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' (like itself), then 'Davar
ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', where we say 'Chozer u'Melamed
bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' (like itself), we should certainly say 'Chozer u'Melamed
(d) We ask whether 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u'Melamed
be'Binyan Av' or not, and we remain with - 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos
(a) We ask whether 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer Chozer u'Melamed
be'Hekesh' or not and we remain with 'Teiku'. We resolve it according to Rav
Papa from 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah she'Einah Lemeidah min
ha'Hekesh' like Rebbi Yochanan - yet we hold 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'
(like Rav Papa), then 'Kal-va'Chomer 'Davar ha'Lamed min ha'Hekesh', should
certainly be 'Melamed be'Hekesh'.
(b) We resolve the She'eilah whether Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer
1. ... bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Ge'zeirah-Shavah
she'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' - even though it is 'Eino Chozer u'Melamed
be'Hekesh', then 'Kal-va'Chomer, ha'Lamed be'Hekesh' should certainly be
2. ... be'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Gezeirah-Shavah' she'Melamed
bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' - even though it is not Lameid from a Hekesh, a
'Kal-va'Chomer', which is Lameid from a Hekesh, should certainly be Melamed
(a) When we refer to this is a 'Kal-va'Chomer ben Kal-va'Chomer', we mean
that we learn this 'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Gezeirah-Shavah ha'Melamed
Kal-va'Chomer', which is itself learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' (as we just
(b) And when we query that on the grounds that it is not a 'ben
Kal-va'Chomer', but a 'ben b'no shel 'Kal va'Chomer', we mean - that even if
we were to learn it from something that was not learned from a
'Kal-va'Chomer', it would be a 'ben Kal-va'Chomer' (seeing as it is to begin
with, a 'Ka'l-va'Chomer' that is learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer').
Consequently, now that it is learned from something that *is* learned from a
'Kal-va'Chomer', it is a 'ben b'no shel Kal-va'Chomer'.
(c) So we learn it instead from a 'Hekesh she'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' -
even though it is not 'Lameid from a Hekesh', a 'Kal-'va'Chomer', which is
Lameid from a Hekesh, should cetainly be 'Melamed a Kal-va'Chomer'.
(d) This is not a 'ben b'no shel 'Kal va'Chomer' - because 'Hekesh Melamed
be'Kal-va'Chomer' is learned, not from a 'Kal-va'Chomer', but from Tana
de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.
(a) We now discuss whether a 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer
u'Melamed be'Binyan-Av'. Nivlas Of Tahor - only makes the person who eats it
Tamei (Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah [but not by touching, like other Tum'os]).
(b) Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Yirmiyah, rules that if a bird
turns out to be T'reifah after the Kohen performed Melikah - it is *not
Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah*.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah rules ...
1. ... in that case - that it *is* (because Melikas T'reifah does not remove
the Tum'as Neveilah, and the same will apply ...
2. ... to a Chulin bird that one Shechted which then turned out to be a
(a) Rebbi Meir Darshens a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah
that turned out to be T'reifah after it was Shechted, yet the Shechitah
removed the Tum'as Neveilah - then the Shechitah of a T'reifah Of Tahor
which is not Metamei be'Maga u've'Masa like a Nivlas Beheimah) should
certainly remove the Tum'as Neveilah.
(b) And he then learns the Melikah of Of Kodshim - via a 'Binyan-Av' from
the Shechitah of Of Chulin, since the former, like the latter, permits the
bird to be eaten.
(c) Rebbi Yossi, who concedes to Rebbi Meir that the Shechitah of a T'reifah
Of Chulin removes the Tum'as Neveilah - argues by the Melikah of a T'reifah
Of Kodshim, because, he says, we cannot learn Melikah from Shechitah.
(d) We are trying to prove from Rebbi Meir - that 'Davar ha'Lamed
be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melamed be'Bimyan-Av'.
(a) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that Rebbi Meir really
derives his ruling from a 'Hekesh' - from the Pasuk in Shemini "Zos Toras
ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of", comparing all birds to animals.
(b) And even if he learns it from a 'Binyan-Av' (as the Beraisa states), we
do not have not an absolute proof that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer,
Chozer u'Melamed be'Bimyan-Av' (bearing in mind that his source is Shechitah
of Chulin) - because, according to those who argue with Rav Papa (and go
after the Melamed), this will fall under the category of 'Lamed min ha'Lamed