ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 79
ZEVACHIM 79 (29 Av) - "Mechabdo b'Chayav, Mechabdo b'Moso" (see Kidushin
31b). This Daf has been dedicated by the Trebitsch family l'Iluy Nishmas
Eliezer Shmuel Binyomin ben Mayer Trebitsch, in honor of his Yahrzeit.
(a) Rava rules - 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Ruba, Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno beTa'ama'
(merely coroborating what we learned earlier.
(b) The third item that he adds to the list - is 'Chazuta' (which sometimes
replaces 'Ta'ama', such as in the case of the Tevilah of a barrel, that we
cited earlier, too).
(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we cited Resh Lakish, who says 'Isurin Mevatlin
Zeh es Zeh'. Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He holds - that just as Mitzvos do not
negate each other, neither do Isurin.
(b) The Tana who holds 'Ein Mitzvos Mevatlos Zu es Zu' is Hillel, who
rules - that, on Seder night, one eats Pesach, Matzah and Maror together, in
the form of a sandwich (and one is Yotze the Mitzvah of Matzah [which is
basically tasteless], in spite of the strong overpowering taste of Maror).
(c) Hillel's source is - the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "al Matzos u'Merorim
(a) The Beraisa discusses a 'Charsan of a Zav and a Zavah'. A 'Charsan' is -
(b) When the Tana declares it Tamei the first two times, and Tahor the third
time, he means - that it remains Tamei after being washed twice with water
(c) ... because by the third time, the urine that is absorbed in its walls
will have become Bateil in the water.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, the Halachah will differ if, instead of
water, it was 'washed' three times with the urine of a Tahor person. in that
case, says the Tana Kama - the potty remains Tamei, because 'Miyn be'Miyno
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees with the Tana Kama. According to
him - the Halachah in the latter case is the same as in the first (because
he holds 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil').
(c) The Tana Kama - is Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) Another Beraisa declares flax that was spun by a Nidah and that someone
subsequently moved, to be Tahor (despite the fact that presumably, she spat
on the flax whilst spinning it) - because dry spit is not Metamei.
(b) The Tana Kama holds, that if the spit is still wet - the person who
moves it renders it Tamei.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah is even more stringent. According to him - even if the
flax is wet due to having been washed with water, it becomes Tamei when
someone subsequently moves it.
(d) His words imply that this is the Halachah even if the flax was washed
many times. We reconcile this with the previous Beraisa, where even Rebbi
Yehudah agrees that by the third washing, the Tamei urine has all been
exuded - by confining that ruling to urine, which does not become as deeply
absorbed in the K'li as spit does in the flax.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'be'Dam ha'Tazmtzis Yishafech le'Amah; Rebbi
Eliezer Machshir'. According to Rebbi Z'vid, they are arguing over whether,
on principle, the Chachamim will issue a decree in the Beis-Hamikdash (the
Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Eliezer). Really, we ought to go after the Rov,
which is Dam ha'Nefesh, only the Rabbanan decreed because of where the Dam
ha'Tamtzis was in the majority.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer's reason is - on account of 'Hefsed Kodshim' (to stop
Kodshim from becoming Pasul).
(c) The Machlokes is not therefore, confined to Dam ha'Tamtzis - but extends
to the previous case in the Mishnah (where the Tana Kama said 'Nis'arev
be'Dam Pesulin, Yishafesh le'Amah' as well.
(a) According to Rav Papa - the Chachamim sometimes decreed in the
Beis-Hamikdash too ...
(b) ... and the reason that Rebbi Eliezer declares the blood Kasher, in
spite of the Dam ha'Tamtzis is - due to the rarity of the Dam ha'Tamtzis
exceeding that of the Dam ha'Nefesh.
(c) Consequently, the Machlokes - does not extend to the blood of Pasul
Korbanos, according to Rebbi Papa, because in the realm of Kodshim, it is
not uncommon for Pasul blood to exceed Kasher blood.
(d) We now ask on Rav Z'vid - why the Tana presents Dam Pesulim and Dam
ha'Tamtzis independently, when really, seeing as Rebbi Eliezer and the
Rabbanan argue in both cases, he ought to have presented them together. The
Kashya remains unanswered.
(a) 'Dam Temimim be'Dam Ba'alei-Mumin Yishafech le'Amah'. Where it was cups
of blood that became mixed up - Rebbi Eliezer rules that once one of those
cups has been sprinkled, all the others may be sprinkled, too.
(b) He does not dispute the Mishnah's ruling however - because it is common
for the blood of Ba'alei-Mumin to get mixed-up with that of Temimim.
(c) The Chachamim counter Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - with their own, that even
if all the cups have been sprinkled except for the last one, it goes to the
(a) Rebbi Eliezer rules that 'Nitnin le'Ma'alah she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin
le'Matah - Yitein Lema'alah'.
(b) And he justifies sprinkling the blood that belongs Lematah, Lema'alah -
by considering it as if it was water.
(c) He does not say 'Yiten Lematah ... ' - because one always gives
precedence to the Matanos Lema'alah (as we shall see).
(d) The Rabbanan rule ...
1. ... Lechatchilah - 'Yishafech le'Amah'.
2. ... that if Bedieved, the Kohen followed Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - the
Korbanos are Kasher.
(a) Our Mishnah rules 'ha'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin
be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matanah Achas'. The case is - where the blood
of a Bechor became mixed up with that of Ma'aser Beheimah.
(b) ' ... Matan Arba be'Matan Arba, Yinasnu be'Matan Arba'. The case is -
where the blood of a Shelamim became mixed up with an Olah or with an Asham,
all of which require sprinkling on all four Yesodos (by means of 'Sh'tayim
(c) 'Matan Arba be'Matanah Achas' says Rebbi Eliezer, 'Yinasnu be'Matan
Arba'. On the assumption that the Tana is referring to Ta'aroves Dam (where
the blood of two Korbanos became mixed up in one cup), we will need to apply
the principle 'Yesh Bilah' (meaning that we consider the two sets of blood
as being totally integrated, and each particle of the two sets of blood
contains a little of each.
(d) Alternatively, we might interpret the Mishnah to mean - that the cups of
blood became mixed up, in which case 'Matanah Achas' means one Matanah from
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the Kohen performs only one Matanah and we
have already learned that Bedieved - Korbanos that require 'four' Matanos
are valid with only one.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer objects to Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling - on the basis that it
involves the La'av of 'bal Tigra'.
(c) Rebbi ...
1. ... Eliezer counters Rebbi Yehoshua's assertion, that by performing four
Matanos, one transgresses 'bal Tosif' - by restricting 'bal-Tosif' to where
the object is on its own, but not to cases such as ours, where it is mixed
with something else ...
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua's final argument, taking both arguments into account is -
that if one weighs up 'bal Tosif' against 'bal Tigra', it is better to
transgress negatively than transgressing positively ('Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh,
2. ... and that is exactly how Rebbi Yehoshua counters Rebbi Eliezer's
assertion, that by performing one Matanah, one transgresses 'bal Tigra'.