ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 53
ZEVACHIM 53 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel
Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays
that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Our Mishnah equates Chatos ha'Tzibur ve'ha'Yachid with the Chatos
ha'Penimiyos inasmuch as both the Shechitah and the Kabalas ha'Dam require
Tzafon. The 'Chatos ha'Tzibur' comprise - the goats that are brought for the
Musaf of Yom-Tov and Rosh Chodesh.
(b) On the other hand, the Din differs from there as regards the Haza'as
ha'Dam - in that they require the southern Yesod (as opposed to the western
one of the Chatos ha'Penimiyos).
(c) The Kohen performed the four Haza'os - beginning with the south-eastern
Keren (which was the one he arrived at first after ascending the ramp and
turning right). Then, he placed the blood on the north-eastern Keren, the
north-western Keren and the south-western Keren (based on the principle that
one always moves towards the right).
(d) As he went round the Mizbe'ach to perform the Haza'os - he was walking
round the Sovev (the ledge that surrounded the Mizbe'ach three Amos from the
(a) We have already learned that the Sheyarei ha'Dam were poured on to the
southern Yesod, whereas the Basar had to be eaten - within the walls of the
Chatzer ('the curtains' is a reference to the Chatzer ha'Mishkan, which was
encircled by curtains).
(b) It was eaten - by male Kohanim.
(c) The significance of 'be'Chol Ma'achal' - is to strike a contrast between
the Korban Pesach, which had to be eaten roasted, as we shall learn shortly.
(d) We already learned in the third Perek that the Chatas, as well as the
Asham, are compared to Todah, which could only be eaten until the end of the
first day. The Tana nevertheless states 'ad Chatzos' (meaning until
midnight) - because that is when the Rabbanan decreed it must be eaten by.
(a) The Kohen would place the blood with his finger on the Keren (or on a
spot on the Mizbe'ach corresponding to the Keren). Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi
Elazar argue over the location. One of them permits the Kohen to place it on
either of the adjacent walls of the Keren. The other one requires - the
blood to be placed on the very tip of the Keren (or in a line descending
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion the blood had
to be placed on the actual Keren, both Amora'im agree - that it does need to
be placed on the tip of the Keren, but anywhere on the Keren will do.
(c) And they argue according to Rebbi who holds - that the blood may be
placed on the Mizbe'ach at a point corresponding to the Keren.
(d) The reason of the opinion that holds ...
1. ... 'a'Chudah shel Keren' is - because seeing as the blood is not placed
on the actual Keren, the rest of the Mizbe'ach cannot be categorized as
2. ... 'Nosen Amah Eilech ve'Amah Eilech' is - because he holds that any
point on the Mizbe'ach corresponding to the Keren, falls under the heading
(a) The Beraisa, describing how the Haza'ah was performed, prescribes the
Meyumenes she'bi'Yemin - which refers to the forefinger (since it is used
for many purposes, such as handing over, dipping and the likes) of the right
(b) The Kohen used - his thumb and his little finger to smear the blood
from his forefinger on to the Mizbe'ach (see Rashash).
(c) The Beraisa adds 'u'Mechatei Ve'yored *Keneged* Chudah shel Keren',
indicating that the blood is not actually on the Keren (like Rebbi), because
then the Tana would have written '*be*'Chudah shel Keren' (Shitah
(d) We reconcile the Beraisa with the opinion that holds that he may place
the blood on either wall of the Mizbe'ach, corresponding to the walls of the
Keren - by establishing the Beraisa by Lechatchilah, but Bedi'eved, if the
Kohen placed the blood on the first Amah of either wall, the Korban will
nevertheless be Kasher.
(a) Rebbi states in a Beraisa that the Damim ha'Elyonim were placed above
the Chut ha'Sikra, and the Damim ha'Tachtonim, below it. Rebbi Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon qualifies the first ruling - by confining it to the Olas
ha'Of (which is also placed above the Chut ha'Sikra), but as far as the
Chatas Beheimah is concerned, the blood must be placed on the Keren itself.
(b) Rebbi Avahu quotes the Pasuk (in connection with the Mizbe'ach)
"ve'ha'Har'el Arba Amos" as Rebbi's source. The problem with this Pasuk is -
that the Mizbe'ach was ten Amos tall, and not just four.
(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains that the Pasuk refers, not to the actual
Mizbe'ach, but to the Keranos. The problem with that is - that they only
took up two Amos on each side, and not four.
(d) So we finally explain the Pasuk according to Rebbi to mean - that the
four Amos below the Keren is considered the domain of that Keren (and one
was therefore permitted to perform the Haza'os of the Chatas there).
(a) Rav Chana bar Rav Ketina gives the source for the Chut ha'Sikra that
they girded round the Mizbe'ach as - the copper netting that adorned the
lower half of the Mizbe'ach ...
(b) ... stopping exactly half-way, four Amos from the roof of the Mizbe'ach
(five from the top of the K'ranos).
(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with the Shefichas Shirayim
of the Chata'os Chitzoniyos) "el Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach". We think that this
refers to the western Yesod - because that is where they would pour the
Shirayim of the Chata'os ha'Penimoyos, as we have already discussed, and we
have a principle 'Lamed Sasum min ha'Meforash' (we learn what the Torah has
not disclosed from what it has).
(b) We refute this suggestion however, preferring to learn 'his descent from
the Mizbe'ach from the exit from the Heichal' - meaning that just as the
Shirayim of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos were placed on the western Yesod
(because it was the one that was the closest to the point of exit from the
Heichal), so too, would they pour the Shirayim of the Chatos ha'Chitzoniyos
on to the southern Yesod (because it was the closest to the point of descent
from the Mizbe'ach).
(c) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, learns that both lots of Shirayim were
poured on to the southern Yesod. According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai -
'Zeh ve'Zeh Yesod Deromi'.
(d) It is easy to understand Rebbi Yishmael's opinion - because it is based
on the principle 'Lameid Sasum min ha'Meforash', but not Rebbi Shimon's -
which seems to negate the Pasuk in connection with the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos
"el Yesod Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" (referring to the western Yesod).
(a) Rebbi Asi answers that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the north - in which
case the Kohen exiting, just like the Kohen descending, would first come
upon the southern Yesod.
(b) The second Lashon says that - the entire entrance of the Heichal was
south of the Mizbe'ach (which is another way of saying the same thing).
(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael cites Rebbi Shimon as saying 'Zeh ve'Zeh
Yesod Ma'aravi' (like Rebbi Yishmael').
(d) The Si'man we give to remember who changed who's text is - 'Mashchu
Gavri le'Gavra', meaning that the men (the Talmidim of Rebbi Yishmael)
convinced the man (Rebbi Shimon), to hold like their Rebbe.
(a) Our Mishnah refers to the Olah as Kodshei Kodashim. This means that if,
after it has been Shechted, it is taken outside the Azarah, it becomes Pasul
(be'Yotzei), that it is Pasul by contact with both a T'vul-Yom - and a
Mechusar Kipurim, and that it is subject to Me'ilah.
(b) The blood of an Olah must also be received in a K'li Shareis in the
Tzafon. The significance of the 'Sh'tei Matanos she'Hein Arba' that comprise
the Matanos Dam of the Olah is - that by sprinkling it on two diagonally
opposite corners, the blood will end up being on all four sides, therefore
fulfilling the concept of "Saviv".
(c) The Sheyarei ha'Dam - were poured on to the southern Yesod.
(d) Before being burned on the Mizbe'ach, the Olah requires Hefshet
ve'Nitu'ach (skinning and cutting into pieces).
(a) Even though the Tana did not find it necessary to refer to the Chatas
and the Asham specifically as 'Kodesh Kodshim', he did do so with regard to
the Olah - because the Torah does not refer to it as such.
(b) On the other hand, it is obvious that it is - because even the Eivarim
and the Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim are considered Kodesh Kodshim, because they
are burned in the Mizbe'ach, how much more so the Olah.
(c) According to Rav, the Kohen sprinkles (directly from the bowl) first on
one side of the Mizbe'ach (corresponding to the Keren), and then on the
other. Shmuel says 'Matanah Achas Nosen 'ke'Miyn Gam', which means - that
he merely throws the blood once on to the corner, so that the blood spreads
on to both sides of the Keren, forming the shape of a Greek 'Gamma' (which
is similar to our final 'Kaf'.
(a) The Machlokes between Rav and Sh'muel is also a Machlokes Tana'im. The
problem the Beraisa has with the dual Lashon "Ve'zarku" and "Saviv" (written
in connection with the Olah, the Shelamim and the Asham) is - that "Saviv"
implies that the blood must encircle the Mizbe'ach, whereas "Ve'zarku"
requires the Kohen to throw the blood directly from the bowl, in which case
there would never be sufficient blood to do so.
(b) The Tana reconciles the two terms - by interpreting "Saviv" to mean that
the blood must be on all four sides of the Mizbe'ach (without actually going
all the way round).
(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Saviv" "Saviv" from
the Chatas - that the Olah (the Shelamim and the Asham), like the Chatas,
must be sprinkled four separate times (and not just two, like the Tana Kama)
on the two K'ranos.
(d) We cannot however, learn from there that it must also be sprinkled on
all four corners (like it) - because as we learned earlier, all the Korbenos
Beheimah besides the Chatas, require Yesod, and the south-eastern corner did
not possess a Yesod.
(a) Rebbi Elazar explains that the south-eastern corner did not have a
Yesod, because it was not built in the portion of the Toref - referring to
Binyamin, about whom Ya'akov wrote in Vayechi "Binyamin Ze'ev Yitraf".
(b) The basis for the ruling is the Pasuk (presenting Binyamin's B'rachah)
"ba'Boker Yochal Ad" - which Unklus translates as - 'in his portion, the
Beis-Hamikdash will be built'.
(c) When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah says that the Mizbe'ach 'consumed' one Amah
of Yehudah's territory, he means - that Binyamin's territory took up one
Amah on the north-eastern tip of the Mizbe'ach, and one Amah on the
south-western tip (of an area that otherwise belonged to Yehudah).
(d) The Yesod encircled - the entire north and west sides of the Mizbe'ach,
plus one Amah on the east (on the north-eastern corner) and one Amah on the
south (on the south-western corner).
(a) Yehudah's territory comprised the eastern section of the
Beis-Hamikdash - including the eastern half (including the entrance of) the
Har ha'Bayis as well as any rooms that were built there, the Ezras Nashim,
and the twenty-two Amos in the main Azarah (incorporating the eleven Amos
where Yisrael were permitted to walk, and the eleven Amos where only Kohanim
(b) Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina said about the strip of land from Yehudah
that jutted into Binyamin's territory just where part of the Mizbe'ach was
built - that Binyamin ha'Tzadik was eternally troubled, due to the fact that
this deprived him of almost two sides of the Mizbe'ach being built in his
(c) When the Pasuk then writes ...
1. ... "Chofef Alav Kol ha'Yom", it means - that Binyamin scratched his head
in exasperation at the loss.
2. ... "u'Vein Keseifav Shachein" - that that was why he merited to have the
Shechinah dwelling in his portion (see Agados Maharsha).