(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Zevachim 91

ZEVACHIM 91 (11 Elul) - dedicated by Mrs. Miriam Pogrow of Monsey, NY, l'Zecher Nishmas her mother, Malka (Manya) Milner, the daughter of HaRav Meir Ashkenazi, zt'l, the Rav of Shanghai. May all of her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren follow in her path of Yir'as Shamayim and Ahavas Chessed.



(a) The Mishnah in B'rachos gives precedence to the B'rachah over the wine of Kidush because it is Tadir. We try to prove from there - that Tadir overrides Mekudash.

(b) We repudiate that proof however (like we did the previous ones) - based on the fact that the Kedushah of Shabbos also affects the B'rachah over the wine (in which case, both equally Mekudash).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan rules like the Tana who gives precedence to Minchah over Musaf - on the basis of 'Tadir ve'she'Eino Tadir, Tadir Kodem'.

(d) We refute the proof from there that Tadir has priority over Mekudash - on the grounds that Shabbos adds Kedushah to Minchah, just as it does to Musaf (like we answered above regarding the Korbanos).

(a) From our Mishnah, which gives precedence to yesterday's Shelamim to today's Chatas ve'Asham, we infer - that if it was today's Shelamim, and not yesterday's, the Chatas and Asham would take precedence.

(b) Rava refutes the proof from there that Mekudash takes precedence over Tadir - by differentiating between Tadir (which perhaps has priority over Mekudash), and Matzuy, which doesn't.

(c) The difference between 'Tadir' and 'Matzuy' is - that whereas the former is obligatory, the latter (such as a Shelamim) is voluntary (i.e. there is no obligation to bring it then, even though by chance, it often happens that one does).

(a) What Pesach and Milah have in common, that does not apply to any other Mitzvas Asei is - the fact that they are both Chayav Kareis.

(b) The Beraisa therefore needs to preclude them - from a Korban Chatas.

(c) The Tana thinks that perhaps we only preclude Pesach (but not Milah) - because it is uncommon (whereas Milah is Tadir).

(d) We try to prove from here - that there is no difference between Tadir and Matzuy (because Milah is not an obligation with a fixed time either).

(a) When we counter 'Mai Tedirah, Tedirah be'Mitzvos', we mean - that seeing as (unlike Shelamim, which is not an obligation to bring at all) Milah is a Mitzvah that does occur regularly, and it therefore falls under the category of 'Tadir'.

(b) Alternatively, even assuming that Milah is Matzuy and not Tadir - it is so common, that it can be considered an advantage, unlike Shelamim, which is only slightly more common than a Chatas ve'Asham.

(a) We ask what the Din will be if by mistake, they Shechted the Eino Tadir before the Tadir - whether Bedieved, they conclude the Avodah of the Korban with which they began, or whether they give the blood of the Eino Tadir to someone to stir, whilst they proceed with the Shechitah of the Tadir.

(b) When Rebbi Chanina mi'Sura extrapolates from our Mishnah 'Shelamim shel Emesh, Chatas ve'Asham shel ha'Yom, Shelamim shel Emesh Kodmin', Ha 'de'Yom Dumya de'Emesh, Chatas ve'Asham Kadmi, he means - that it is only if they Shechted *yesterday's* Shelamim, that the Zerikah of the Shelamim takes precedence over the Shechitah of the Chatas and the Asham, but there where they Shechted today's Shelamim, they proceed with the Shechitah of the Chatas and the Asham (because it is Mekudash), whilst someone is given the blood of the Shelamim to stir ...

(c) ... a proof for the second Tzad of the She'eilah (since it is obvious that the same will apply to a case where they Shechted the Eino Tadir instead of the Tadir).

(a) To refute the proof, we establish both the case of Shelamim shel Emesh ve'Chatas ve'Asham shel ha'Yom, and that of 'de'Yom Dumya de'Emesh' - when they had already Shechted the Tadir or the Mekudash as well ...

(b) ... but when only the Eino Tadir or Eino Mekudash was Shechted, it remains a She'eilah.

(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah in B'rachos which gives precedence to Birchas ha'Yayin because it is Tadir. We initially think - that since when Shabbos enters, the wine had not yet arrived, it is like the case of 'Kadam ve'Shachat le'she'Eino Tadir'.

(d) We reject ...

1. ... that proof however - on the grounds that, since the wine is now brought to the table, it is comparable to where both animals had already been Shechted.
2. ... a similar proof from Rebbi Yochanan's ruling, giving precedence to Minchah over Musaf, even though the time for Musaf preceded that of Minchah - in exactly the same way; namely, that since the time for Minchah has already arrived, it too, is comparable to where both animals were already Shechted.
(a) The Beraisa rules that if they Shechted a Pesach before ...
1. ... midday - it is Pasul (because the Torah writes "Bein ha'Arbayim").
2. ... the Tamid - it is Kasher, though someone else must stir the blood until the blood of the Tamid has been sprinkled.
(b) When Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ashi asked Ravina why we cannot resolve our She'eilah from this Beraisa - he replied that the Beraisa is speaking when the Tamid has already been Shechted.

(c) And Rav Acha Saba proved this from the Lashon of the Beraisa 'vi'Yehei Acher Memares be'Damo Ve'yizrok es ha'Dam' - without mentioning 'ad she'Yishchot' (which it would have done had the Tana been referring to a case where the Shechitah had not yet taken place).

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, if, one evening, you saw oil being ...
1. ... distributed to the Kohanim in the Azarah, you would assume it to be either the remainder of the Log Shemen shel Metzora - or the remainder of the oil that was used for the wafers of a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur, on which the oil was smeared.
2. ... burned on the Mizbe'ach, you would assume it to be either the wafers of the Minchas Kohanim (which was completely burned) - or the remainder of the oil from the Chavitei Kohen Gadol.
(b) There would inevitably be leftover oil from the Minchas Chavitin - because a. a lot of oil was used for it (three Lugin per Isaron) and, b. it came already baked, it which case it would absorb very little oil.

(c) It would certainly not be oil that had been donated as a Nedavah - because oil alone cannot be donated as a Nedavah.

(d) Rebbi Shimon says - that it can.




(a) According to Shmuel, Rebbi Tarfon learns from the word "Korban" (in the Pasuk "Ki Sakriv *Korban* Minchah") - that one can donate oil as a Korban.

(b) He also learns from there - that (after taking a Kometz from it), the rest is eaten by the Kohanim (like a Korban Minchah).

(c) Rebbi Zeira supports Shmuel from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'Im Ra'isa Shemen she'Mischalek ba'Azarah ... she'Ein Misnadvin Shemen' - implying that according to whoever holds 'Misnadvin' (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon), the oil is indeed distributed to the Kohanim to eat.

(d) Abaye counters from the Seifa 'Im Ra'isa Shemen she'Nitan al-Gabei Mizbe'ach ... she'Ein Misnadvin Shemen' - that according to whoever holds 'Misnadvin', the oil is burned on the Mizbe'ach, and not eaten.

(a) Rebbi Zeira deal with the apparent contradiction - by establishing the Reisha by the Shirayim, whereas the Seifa is referring to the Kometz.

(b) Abaye (who disagrees with Shmuel) resolves the contradiction - by taking the Seifa as the main statement (which therefore lends itself to above inference); whereas the Tana only mentions the Reisha to balance the Seifa (and is not therefore subject to inferences).

(c) It is acceptable to learn the Reisha because of the Seifa - as they explicitly stated in Eretz Yisrael.

(d) According to Rebbi Zeira, 'Yayin ke'Divrei Rebbi Akiva le'Sapalim' - refers to all the wine, whereas 'Shemen ke'Divrei Rebbi Tarfon le'Ishim' (which appears to support Abaye) - refers only to the Kometz ('Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa').

(a) According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, the minimum amount of oil that one can donate is a Log. According to Rebbi - it is three Lugin.

(b) The Rabbanan sitting before Rav Papas explained the basis of the Machlokes as to whether we say 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' - meaning that when we learn a. from b. by means of a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' or a 'Hekesh', we learn everything from it; or 'Don Miynah, ve'Ukei be'Asrah' - by which we mean that we learn only the basic Halachah from it, but other branches of the Halachah, we learn from a side-branch of the Halachah concerned, to which it is more similar.

(c) 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' teaches us that just as a Minchah can be donated, so too, can oil. The Rabbanan learn from 'u'Miynah' - that just as a Minchas Nedavah consists of one Lug, and requires a Kemitzah which permits it to be eaten, so too, does a Nidvas Shemen.

(a) Rebbi on the other hand applies 've'Ukei be'Asra' with regard to these two issues - in that he learns from Minchas Nesachim (flour mixed with oil and wine that are brought together with a Korban), that the minimum amount of oil is three Lugin of wine, which is all poured into the bowls (next to the Keranos) without Kemitzah.

(b) Three Lugin - is in fact the smallest of the Minchos Nesachim (a quarter of a Hin that accompanies a lamb).

(c) According to Rebbi, the Kohen pours the oil - on to the Ishim (i.e. the Ma'arachah).

(a) Rav Papa objected to the Rabbanan's explanation, because, he argued, if Rebbi learned the Din of Shemen from Minchah - he too would hold 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' (like the Rabbanan).

(b) According to Rav Papa therefore, Rebbi learns Shemen from "Kol *ha'Ezrach* Ya'aseh Kachah" (in Korach) - which teaches us that, like Minchas Nesachim, oil can be donated on its own, and that when it is, it must consist of at least three Lugin.

(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua queries Rav Papa from a Beraisa, which cites the source for the Nidvas Shemen (which, he says, must comprise at least three Lugin) - as "Korban Minchah" (like Shmuel and Rebbi Zeira).

(b) The author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi - because he is the one who requires three Lugin.

(c) Rav Papa responded - with the words 'I Tanya Tanya' (meaning that if it is a Beraisa, then he has no option but to accept it).

(a) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "ve'Yayin Takriv la'Nesech Chatzi ha'Hin, Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem" - that a Nidvas Yayin must be poured on to the Ma'arachah.

(b) The problem with that is - the Isur of Kibuy (extinguishing the fire on the Mizbe'ach).

(c) If, as we suggest, the prohibition is confined to extinguishing the fire completely, but does not apply to 'Kibuy be'Miktzas', then Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who declares Chayav a Kohen who takes one coal down from the Mizbe'ach and extinguishes it must be referring to - the last burning coal on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) Alternatively, we refute the Kashya from Kibuy - by differentiating between Kibuy of Reshus (which the Torah forbids) and Kibuy for a Mitzvah (which is what Shmuel permits).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa - prohibits extinguishing coals in order to perform the Mitzvah of Terumas ha'Deshen.

(c) Shmuel, who permits Kibuy for the sake of a Mitzvah - will concede in this latter case that it is forbidden, since the Kohen has the option of waiting until the coal goes out by itself.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,