ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 80
ZEVACHIM 80 (30 Av) - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther
Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom
Kevurah, by her daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther
Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of
herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.
Rebbi Elazar again restricts Rebbi Eliezer's ruling ('Im Kareiv Kos Achas
... ') to bringing two cups at a time, and Rebbi Ya'akov establishes the
Seifa 'Afilu Karvu Kulan Chutz me'Echad' to mean 'Zug Echad'. Having taught
us the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim with regard to ...
1. ... 'Eivarim', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it with
regard to 'Kosos' - because otherwise, we might have confined Rebbi
Eliezer's ruling ('Yikrevu Kol ha'Roshim') to 'Eivarim', where the main
Kaparah has already been achieved be'Hechsher, but not to 'Kosos', which
entails now achieving the Kaparah in a way that is not quite Kasher.
2. ... 'Kosos', the Tana needs to repeat it with regard to 'Eivarim' - to
teach us that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer even where the main
Kaparah has already been achieved be'Hechsher.
(a) The Mishnah in Parah discusses a case where water falls into a jar
containing Mei Chatas. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yazeh Sh'tei Haza'os' - by which
he means that the Kohen should sprinkle the Tamei Meis with Mei Chatas
(b) The Chachamim - invalidate the Mei Chatas.
(c) Assuming that the latter hold 'Yesh Bilah' (as we learned in our
Mishnah), they will have to hold ...
1. ... 'Haza'ah Tzerichah Shiur'.
2. ... 'Ein Mitztarfin Haza'os'.
(a) We initially assume that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yesh Bilah' - because
otherwise, what would be the point of sprinkling the Tamei Meis twice
(perhaps both times it was the ordinary water that he sprinkled)?
(b) And we know that he holds 'Haza'ah Tzerichah Shiur' - because otherwise,
why would the Kohen need to sprinkle the him twice? Why will once not
(c) He argues with the Chachamim - in that he holds 'Haza'os Mitztarfin'.
(d) The problem that remains is - that even if he does sprinkle twice, what
guarantee is there that he will have sprinkled the full Shiur, and that both
Haza'os were not from the ordinary water?
(a) Resh Lakish declares 'Hacha be'Mai Askinan, she'Nis'arvu Achas
be'Achas', by which he means - that one Shi'ur Haza'ah of ordinary water
became mixed up with one Shi'ur of Mei Haza'ah, in which case one of the two
Haza'os must have been Mei Chatas.
(b) Rava maintains that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Haza'ah Ein Tzerichah Shi'ur',
and the second Haza'ah - is a K'nas (to deprive the Kohen of the pleasure of
sprinkling with a lot of water).
(a) According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ein Bilah' - and 'Haza'ah
Einah Tzerichah Shiur' (like Rava).
(b) And he argues with Rava - inasmuch as he doesn't hold of the K'nas.
(c) He does not emulate Resh Lakish, and establish the case 'she'Nis'arvu
Achas be'Achas' - because that conforms with Resh Lakish's opinion that
Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur', which he rejects, as we just
(d) And we know, according to Rav Ashi, that the Tamei was actually
sprinkled with the Mei Chatas - because seeing as only a Kol she'Hu of water
fell into the Mei Chatas (as the Mishnah in Parah explicitly states), it is
impossible that one of the Haza'os does not include the Mei Chatas.
(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa states that according to Rebbi Eliezer - who requires
two Haza'os, 'Haza'ah Kol-she'Hu Metaheres'.
(b) The basis of Rebbi's statement is - the principle that 'Haza'ah Einah
(c) When Rebbi says 'Haza'ah Mechtzah Kasher, u'Mechtzah Pasul', he means -
that not only does Haza'ah not require a Shiur, according to Rebbi Eliezer,
but it doesn't even matter if it is mixed with something that is Pasul.
(d) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish - who holds that, according
to Rebbi Eliezer, 'Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur'.
(a) In another Beraisa, in connection with 'Nitnin Lema'alah she'Nis'arvu
be'Nitnin Lematah' (e.g. the blood of a Chatas with the blood of an Olah),
Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yiten Lema'alah, ve'Ro'in ... ve'ha'Tachtonim Alu Lo'
(the excerpts from Beraisa, which we are about to quote, section by section,
runs parallel with our Mishnah. See Tosfos DH 've'Od'). The last statement
means - that when he places the Shirayim Lematah (as Shirayim of the
Chatas), he will automatically be Yotze the Matanos of the Olah.
(b) This proves - that 'Yesh Bilah'. Otherwise, why is he Yotze either
Korban? How does he know that he is not placing the blood of the Chatas
below and that of the Olah above?
(c) ... a Kashya on Rav Ashi, in whose opinion Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ein
(d) To refute this Kashya, we establish the Beraisa when the majority of the
blood was from the Chatas, and the Kohen placed above the Chut ha'Sikra -
the Shi'ur of the Matanos of the Olah plus a Mashehu.
(a) The problem with the Seifa of the Beraisa 've'ha'Tachtonim Alu Lo' is -
that seeing as he placed the entire Shi'ur of the blood of the Olah plus a
Mashehu above the Chut ha'Sikra, how can he be Yotze the Olah with what he
subsequently places , Lematah (seeing as, in all likelihood, he placed all
the blood of the Olah above the Chut ha'Sikra)?
(b) When we answer 'le'Shem Shirayim', we mean - that 've'ha'Tachtonim Alu
Lo' is not referring to the Olah, but to the Shirayim of the Chatas.
(c) The Beraisa continues 'Nasan le'Matah ve'Lo Nimlach (without asking
advice), Rebbi Eliezer Omer Yachzor ve'Yiten Lema'alah ... '. Had the Kohen
asked, he would have been told - to place the Matanos above first (since the
Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra take precedence).
(d) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer. According to them, the
remainder of the blood must be poured into the Amah - because it is
forbidden to abuse the blood of an Olah, even if it is to accommodate
Matanos of a Chatas (by means of 'Ro'in').
(a) This Beraisa poses on Rav Ashi on Rav Ashi - in that, having sprinkled
the Matanos Lematah, placing the rest Lema'alah will only make sense if the
Tana holds 'Yesh Bilah'.
(b) We answer - like we answered in the previous case, by establishing the
Beraisa when the majority of the blood was from the Chatas, and the Kohen
subsequently placed the Shiur of blood from the Olah plus a Mashehu above
the Chut ha'Sikra.
(c) The Seifa 've'ha'Tachtonim Alu Lo' - refers (not to the blood of the
Olah, but to the Shirayim of the Chatas [as we explained above] though it is
unclear how it is possible for the Shirayim to precede the Matanos).
(a) The Beraisa continues 'Nasnan Lema'alah ... Eilu va'Eilu Modim
she'Yachzor Veyiten Lematah'. This time, even the Rabbanan (who rule in the
previous case 'Yishafech le'Amah') agree with Rebbi Eliezer - since in any
case, the remainder of the blood needs to be placed below the Chut,
irrespective of whether it is from the Olah or from the Chatas
(b) Here too, according to Rav Ashi, we establish the case where the
majority of the blood was from the Chatas ... . According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - who holds 'Ein Bilah', only the Chatas is Kasher (as
we explained earlier).
(c) And the Seifa (which does not say 'Eilu va'Eilu Modim', but) 'Eilu
va'Eilu Alu Lo' - goes according to the Rabbanan.
2. ... the Rabbanan - who hold 'Yesh Bilah', both Korbanos are Kasher.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas she'Nis'arvu
be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matanah Achas ... Matan Arba be'Matan Arba,
Yinasnu be'Matan Arba'. We know that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with these
rulings - because he speaks in the Seifa, and we can assume that, since he
makes no comment in the Reisha, he agrees with the Tana Kama.
(b) Rav Ashi, who holds 'Ein Bilah' (according to Rebbi Eliezer) explains
1. ... the Reisha - when sufficient blood for one Matanah became mixed up
with the same amount of blood.
(c) We ask the same Kashya on Rav Ashi from the Seifa 'Matan Arba be'Matan
Achas, Rebbi Eliezer Omer Yinasnu be'Matan Arba'. We suggest that maybe here
too, the Mishnah speaks 'be'Nis'arev be'Achas', by which we mean - that
sufficient blood for the one Matanah of a Bechor became mixed up with
sufficient blood for the four Matanos of an Olah or a Shelamim.
2. ... the Seifa - when sufficient blood for four became mixed up with the
same amount of blood.
(d) We reject this answer however - because if, all in all, there is only
enough blood for five Matanos, how will we explain the 'bal Tosif' of Rebbi