ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 89
ZEVACHIM 89-90 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y. Mazel Tov
on the Bar Mitzvah of his son; may he grow to be a true Ben Torah and Yerei
Shamayim and bring his parents -- and all of Yisrael -- much Nachas!
***** Perek Kol ha'Tadir *****
(a) The Mishnah gives precedence to the Korban Tamid over the Korban Musaf -
because it is 'Tadir' (it occurs more frequently).
(b) We learn this from - the Pasuk in Pinchas "Mil'vad Olas ha'Boker Asher
le'Olas ha'Tamid" (implying that the Musaf follows the Tamid).
(c) The Tana also gives precedence to the Musaf of Shabbos over that of Rosh
Chodesh, and that of Rosh Chodesh over that of Rosh Hashanah - which is not
initially evident from the same Pasuk, since the Tamid is unique in that it
is brought daily (which may well be the reason why it takes precedence over
(a) Rebbi Ila'a derives the precedence of one Musaf over the other from
(written in connection with the Musaf on Pesach) "ka'Eileh Ta'asu la'Yom
Shiv'as Yamim" - which teaches us that the Din of 'Tadir' extends to one
Musaf over the other, just as it applies to the Tamid over the Musaf.
(b) When we ask that this Pasuk is needed for itself, we mean - that the
Pasuk is needed to teach us that the Musaf brought on the first day extends
to the other days of Pesach.
(c) We reject the answer that it would have sufficed for the Torah to write
''Eileh Ta'asu la'Yom Shiv'as Yamim" - on the grounds that we would then
have thought that the seven lambs mentioned on the first day must be
distributed over the seven days (though it is impossible to explain the
bulls and the ram in this way).
(d) We answer that "la'Yom" already dispenses with that problem. Perhaps, we
ask further, if not for "ka'Eileh" - the listed Korbanos would be confined
to the first day, and we would be uncertain as to how many Korbanos to bring
on the other days?
(a) We counter the query from the word "Ta'asu" - which indicates that all
the 'Asiyos' are equal (i.e. the same number of Korbanos are brought each
(b) Abaye learns from "Asher le'Olas ha'Tamid" (in the same Pasuk) - that
not only must the Tamid precede the Musaf, but that it is because it is
'Tadir', and that 'Tadir' therefore has priority in all cases.
(a) Our Mishnah gives precedence to ...
1. ... the blood of the Chatas over that of the Olah - (meaning that if both
Korbanos have been Shechted and are waiting to have their blood sprinkled,
the Kohen must sprinkle the blood of the Chatas first) because it comes to
atone (for a Chiyuv Kareis, whereas the Olah only atones for an Asei).
(b) The principle that governs the current rulings is - 'Kol ha'Mekudash
me'Chavero, Kodem es Chavero'.
2. ... the Eivarim of the Olah over the Eimurim of the Chatas - because the
former is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach (whereas the latter is mainly
eaten by Kohanim).
(c) Precedence is given to ...
1. ... the Chatas over the Asham - because its blood is sprinkled on the
four Keranos and the Shirayim poured on to the Yesod (which the blood of the
latter is not).
(d) And finally, the precedence of ...
2. ... the Asham over the Todah and the Eil Nazir - because it is Kodshei
3. ... the Todah and the Eil Nazir over the Shelamim - because they may only
eaten for one day (whereas the latter can be eaten for two).
4. ... the Shelamim over the Bechor - because (unlike the latter) it
requires a. four Matanos, and b. Semichah and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok.
1. ... a Bechor over Ma'aser Beheimah is due to the fact - that (unlike the
latter) it is both Kadosh from the moment it is born, and may be eaten only
2. ... Ma'aser Beheimah over Chatas ha'Of is due to the fact - that a. it is
Shechted in the conventional manner (whereas the latter is killed by
Melikah) which is more common, and b. part of its body (the Eimurim [as well
as well its blood]) is Kodesh Kodshim.
3. ... birds over Menachos is due to the fact - that their blood is
sprinkled (and blood is a major source of Kaparah).
4. ... a Minchas Chotei over a Minchas Nedavah is due to the fact - that it
atones for a sin (for the same reason that a Chatas Beheimah takes
precedence over an Olas Beheimah).
5. ... a Chatas ha'Of over an Olas ha'Of - is based on a Pasuk, as we shall
see later in the Sugya.
(a) Seeing as Ma'aser Beheimah takes precedence over Chatas ha'Of - 'Kal
va'Chomer does it take precedence over Olas ha'Of (seeing as Chatas ha'Of
comes before Olas ha'Of).
(b) If someone is obligated to bring both a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas ha'Of -
he first declares the Chatas ha'Of Hekdesh (just as he brings it first).
(a) The Pasuk in Beha'aloscha discusses the inauguration of the Levi'im. We
know that one of the bulls that Moshe initially took was for a Chatas and
the other, an Olah - because the Torah specifically writes "Va'asei es
ha'Echad Chatas ve'es ha'Echad Olah".
(b) This Pasuk, which implies that the Chatas precedes the Olah, appears to
contradict the Pasuk "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas" - which
implies that the Olah precedes the Chatas.
(c) We therefore reconcile them - by confining ...
1. ... "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas" to the burning of the
limbs, where the Olah takes precedence, as we explained in our Mishnah.
2. ... "va'Asei es ha'Echad Chatas ve'es ha'Echad Olah" - to the sprinkling
of the blood, as we explained there too.
(a) We suggest that only the first Matanah of the Chatas ought to precede
the Matanos of the Olah - because it is the only which is crucial to the
Avodah (as we learned in Perek Beis Shamai).
(b) In Eretz Yisrael, they replied that having begun with the Matanos of the
Chatas, it stands to reason that one completes them, before starting those
of the Olah. Ravina answered - that the Pasuk is speaking about the Chatas
of the Levi'im, which did not come to atone, yet the Torah gives the Chatas
precedence. In that case, there is no reason to differentiate between the
first Matanah and the subsequent ones.
(a) We ask which takes precedence, the Eivarim of an Olah or the blood of a
Chatas, and we try to resolve the She'eilah by citing our Mishnah 'Dam
Chatas Kodem le'Dam Olah' - by inferring 'Ha le'Evrei Olah Lo Kadim'.
(b) We refute this proof however - by making the same inference from the
Seifa 'Evrei Olah Kodmin le'Eimurei Chatas', 'Ha le'Dam Chatas Lo Kodim'
(thereby clashing the first inference).
(c) And we refute a similar proof that Eimurei Chatas take precedence over
Dam Olah via the inference from the same piece of Mishnah '*Dam Chatas*
Kodem le'Dam Olah', 'Ha Eimurei Chatas Lo Kadmi' - by making the opposite
inference from the Seifa '*Evrei Olah* Kodmin le'Eimurei Chatas', 'Ha Dam
Olah Lo Kadim'.
(d) So the outcome of the two She'eilos is 'Teiku'.
(a) We then ask which will take precedence, the blood of an Olah - which is
part of a Korban that is 'Kalil', or that of an Asham - which is Mechaper.
(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Dam Chatas Kodem
le'Dam Olah' - implying 'Dam Chatas' (which has priority over Dam Asham),
but not 'Dam Asham'.
(c) We answer that the Tana needs to mention specifically Dam Chatas because
of the Seifa 'Evrei Olah Kodmin le'Eimurei Chatas'. The Tana could not have
taught the same thing with regard to Eimurei Asham - because then we would
have extrapolated ' ... but not Eimurei Chatas (which take priority over
(d) We ...
1. ... refute the proof that Dam Chatas takes precedence over Dam Asham from
the Mishnah 'Chatas Kodem le'Asham' - by establishing it by Eimurim.
2. ... prove that, in fact, the Tana must be talking about Eimurim (and not
Dam) - from the Lashon 'Mipnei she'Damah Nitein (and not 'Mipnei she'Nitnis
... ) al Arba Keranos'.
(a) We suggest that an Asham ought perhaps to take precedence over a Chatas
'she'Kein Yesh Lo Kitzvah' - meaning that it has a minimum price-tag (of two
[olden-day] Shekalim [whereas a Chatas does not]).
(b) And we counter this suggestion - with a statement that 'Ribuy
de'Mizbe'ach (as explained in the Mishnah) overrides that Chumra.
(c) The Tana gives an Asham precedence over a Todah because it is Kodshei
Kodshim, and a Todah precedence over a Shelamim because it can be eaten for
only one day. We suggest that perhaps ...
1. ... a Todah and an Eil Nazir ought to take precedence over an Asham -
because they both require loaves.
2. ... a Shelamim ought to take precedence over a Todah, because it has the
'advantage' that on one occasion (on Shavu'os), it is brought as a Korban
(a) We ask which takes precedence, Todah or Eil Nazir. The criterion that
makes each one a candidate is - that whereas the former requires four kinds
of loaves (as against the other's two), the latter is brought together with
(b) The answer lies in a Beraisa - which gives the Todah precedence, because
it requires four kinds of loaves (as opposed to the other's two).
(c) Our Mishnah has already given a Shelamim priority over a Bechor.
Nevertheless, we suggest that perhaps the reverse ought to be the case -
because the latter is holy from birth and can be eaten only by Kohanim.
(d) However, these two Chumros do override the advantage that Ma'aser has
over Bechor - that it has the power to sanctify the animal before and after
it (i.e. the ninth and the eleventh animal in the pen, should the counter
confuse the three animals whilst counting them).
(a) The Tana gives precedence to Ma'aser over Ofos, for the two reasons
specified in the Mishnah. We might however, have said otherwise - because
Ofos are Kodshei Kodshim (whilst Ma'aser is basically Kodshim Kalim).
(b) Ravina bar Shilo rules that Eimurei Kodshim Kalim that are taken out of
the Azarah before the Zerikas Dam - are Pasul.
(c) We might have thought otherwise - because they are not subject to
Me'ilah until after the Zerikah.
(d) In support of Ravina bar Shilo, we cite our Mishnah (with regard to
Ma'aser's precedence over Ofos) 'Mipnei she'Hu Zevach, ve'Yeshno Kodshei
Kodshim Damav ve'Eimurav'. The problem with the Tana's insertion of 'Damav'
is - that the blood of Ofos is Kodshei Kodshim, too.
(a) We answer that the Tana inserts 'Damav' in order to compare 'Eimurav' to
'Damav' - in that it too, is Kodshei Kodshim ...
(b) ... in which case it is subject to the P'sul of Yotzei like it (a proof
for Ravina bar Shiloh).
(a) If Basar is taken out of the Azarah before the Zerikah ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan rules that it is Kasher - because it is due to be
taken outside the Azarah anyway.
(b) We try to extrapolate from here - that when it comes to 'Eimurin
she'Yatz'u ... ', which are not due to be taken out, even Rebbi Yochanan
will agree that they are Pasul.
2. ... Resh Lakish rules that it is Pasul - because the time for that is not
(c) We reject this proof however, on the grounds that they argue by Eimurin
she'Yatz'u as well (in which case Rebbi Yochanan will disagree with Ravina
bar Shiloh). And the reason that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish choose to
argue by Basar - is to teach us the extent of Resh Lakish's ruling (that
they are Pasul in spite of the fact that they are due to be taken out
(d) And it is not Rebbi Yochanan who gives the reason as 'Ho'il ve'Sofo
Latzeis' - but those who quoted the Machlokes (in its context, though it is
not really Rebbi Yochanan's reason at all).