ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 73
(a) The Beraisa discusses a Litra of dried Terumah figs that the owner
pressed on top of an Igul (a large round vessel), a barrel or a beehive, but
does not know which one. Dried figs are called 'Ketzi'os' - after the knife
(Miktzo'a) with which they are cut before drying.
(b) Rebbi Meir citing Rebbi Eliezer is very lenient with regard to Bitul in
this case - actually allowing the figs lying in the bottom of the barrels to
combine with those on top (even though the Terumah figs are definitely on
top) in the hundred and one that is needed to be Mevatel the Terumah figs.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees. According to him - it is only if there are a
hundred barrels all in all (besides the one with the Terumah figs), so that
the hundred tops can be Mavatel the Terumah.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the last ruling is really that of Rebbi
Eliezer, and Rebbi Yehoshua is more stringent still. He holds that even
three hundred barrels will not be Mevatel the Terumah figs ...
(b) ... because sometimes the rings of figs are sometimes sold by number,
and 'Kol she'Darko Limanos, Lo Bateil'.
(c) The Seifa of the Beraisa discusses a case where the Terumah figs in an
Igul become Bateil, even according to Rebbi Yehoshua. That is - where the
owner doesn't remember whereabouts in the Igul he pressed the Terumah figs,
as Rav Papa explains.
(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah (where the Chatas she'Meisah is not
Bateil) even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir who, with regard to
Chavilei Tilsan, hold neither 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' nor 'es she'Darko
Limanos'. Nevertheless, the Chatas is not Bateil among the other Korbanos -
because live animals are Chashuv in their own right, and do not therefore, b
(b) We ...
1. ... ask why it is not possible to take one animal at a time and bring it
on the Mizbe'ach - on the grounds that each one comes from the Rov.
(c) To circumvent the problem of 'Kavu'a' - we could force the animals to
move around and then take them one by one as they are moving (because
whatever is moving is not considered 'Kavu'a'), based on the principle 'Kol
de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish' (whatever separates, separates from the
2. ... refute this suggestion however - because it clashes with the
principle 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' (whatever comes from its
original location is considered as having come from fifty per-cent Heter and
fifty per-cent Isur).
(d) The problem with our Mishnah is - why we then need to destroy all the
animals, when we have this simple solution?
(a) Initially, Rava answers that we are afraid that ten Kohanim may come
simultaneously and sacrifice them - meaning that they will all sprinkle the
blood and burn them on the Mizbe'ach at one and the same time, in which case
we can no longer apply 'Kol de'Parish ... '.
(b) We object to ...
1. ... this answer however - on the grounds that once the animals became
Bateil and have been Shechted one by one, how can they then become Asur once
(c) Rava finally answers 'Mishum Kavu'a', by which he means - that we are
afraid that ten Kohanim will come and take ten animals from the herd without
first moving the animals around.
2. ... the suggestion that perhaps ten Kohanim will come and take ten
animals from the moving herd and Shecht them simultaneously - because it is
unlikely for ten people to be able to take ten animals from a moving herd at
exactly the same moment ('I Efshar Letzamtzem').
(a) In a case where, following the correct procedure, a Kohen takes one of
the animals and brings it on the Mizbe'ach, Rava rules that, even Bedieved,
the Korban is Not Kasher (even though it is only a Rabbinical decree [see
Shitah Mekubetzes in Hashmatos]).
(b) According to some opinions, 'Kol Kavu'a ... ' here is not d'Oraysa -
because the Isur is not discernible (as is the Nochri in the classical case
of Kavua [where someone throws a stone into a group of people consisting of
nine Jews and one Nochri]), where he is not Chayav for murder because of
(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah queries Rava from a Beraisa, which rules that if a
Chatas got mixed up with Olos or vice-versa (even one in ten thousand) -
they must all die.
(b) We know that the Tana is speaking about birds, and not animals - because
if he was speaking about animals, the Din of 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu ... '
would apply (but it does apply to birds).
(c) The Tana goes on to say that if the Kohen took the initiative and
1. ... all the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra or below it - half the Korbanos
are Kasher (the Olos in the first case, and the Chata'os in the second).
(d) This last case poses a Kashya on Rava - in whose opinion, all the
Korbanos should be Pasul, seeing as if the Kohen had asked what to do with
them, he would have been told not to proceed in the first place.
2. ... half the birds above the Chut and half below it - all the Korbanos
are Pasul (in case all those that he brought above the Chut were the
Chata'os, and those that he brought below it, were the Olos).
(a) Rava reconciles his ruling with the Beraisa - by establishing it
according to those who hold 'Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin', whereas he
follows the opinion of those who hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin'.
(b) Shechted animals are different than live ones - in that even those
Tana'im who hold Ba'alei Chayim are not Dechuyin, concede that Shechutin
(c) In a case where the limbs of a Ba'al-Mum became mixed up with those of
unblemished Olos, Rebbi Eliezer in a Mishnah in Perek T'vul-Yom rules that
if the Kohen brought one of the heads - one may Lechatchilah proceed to
bring all the other heads, too ...
(d) ... because we assume that the head that was brought, was that of the
(a) This Mishnah creates a problem for Rava - inasmuch as if, as Rava just
explained, only those who hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin' permit an
animal that is Dachuy, and everyone holds Dachuy by Shechutin, how will we
then explain this Beraisa?
(b) We answer that Rebbi Eliezer holds like Chanan ha'Mitzri, who rules
that, in a case where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died and the blood of the
Sa'ir la'Hashem was already in the Kos (ready for sprinkling) - one only
needs to bring one goat, to replace the one that died (because he holds
'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin' (even Shechutin) ...
(c) ... whereas according to the other Tana'im - it would be necessary to
bring two goats and to start again, because the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem
became Dachuy when the Sa'ir la'Azazel died.