(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 95

ZEVACHIM 95 - These Dafim have been sponsored through a contribution by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with a year filled with Torah and Nachas!



(a) Seeing as the Torah prescribes ...
1. ... breaking the *"K'li* Cheres - the hole that one makes in it before breaking it must be no more than the size of a tiny root (or enough to let in water from the outside, in which case it is still considered a K'li for olives), so as not to negate it from its status of K'li.
2. ... Kashering the copper pot - the hole that one makes in it before Kashering it must be re-sealed (by banging it with a sledge-hammer, in which case it regains its status as a K'li).
(b) According to Resh Lakish, if the Kohen Gadol's Me'il became Tamei after being taken out of the Azarah - it must be returned to the Azarah less than three by three Etzba'os at a time and washed ...

(c) ... because the Torah forbids tearing the Me'il, in which case it cannot be returned to the Azarah in its entirety.

(a) The Mishnah in Keilim rules that soft cloths (that have not been woven, such as furs) and hard garments - are not subject to the Shi'ur of three by three Etzba'os ...

(b) ... because they are unfit to wear, only to sit on.

(c) Consequently, the Shi'ur that determines their status is - three by three Tefachim.

(a) We place the Me'il in the category of a hard garment - because each of its strands, consisting as it did of twelve strands (as we learned in Yoma), was extremely thick.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah asks from there on Resh Lakish - who requires three Etzba'os at a time to be brought into the Azarah and washed.

(c) To answer the Kashya - we explain that although a Beged of three by three Etzba'os on its own is not considered a Beged, three Etzba'os of a Beged of more than three by three Tefachim, is Chashuv as part of the Beged.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah rules that a garment that absorbed the blood of a Chatas and one that has the appearance of Tzara'as - must be washed in seven specified detergents.

(b) The problem with washing the former in the Azarah is - the fact that one of those detergents is urine, which one may not bring into the Azarah.

(c) The Kohen cannot mix ...

1. ... all seven detergents together, in which case the urine will be Bateil (see Hagahos Maharsham) - because we have learned in the Mishnah in Nidah that one must wash the garment using each of the seven detergents individually, and in the right order.
2. ... the urine with one of the detergents (i.e. in its turn, over and above washing the garment with that detergent by itself) - because the Mishnah specifically states that one is obligated to rub the garment with each detergent independently three times.
(d) We answer the Kashya, based on another statement of Resh Lakish, where he said - that each of the detergents must be applied together with 'fresh spit' (which is actually one of the seven).



(a) The Din of Merikah u'Shetifah extends to a pot in which ...
1. ... a Chatas is not actually cooked - but one into which boiling Kodshim are poured ...
2. ... Kodshim Kalim are cooked.
(b) The Torah writes "ve'Im bi'Cheli Cheres Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver". We learn that this extends to an earthenware vessel into which one merely poured Kodshim - from the juxtaposition of "Bo" to "Yishaver" (because the Pasuk could have omitted the word "Bo" altogether).
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon - Kodshim Kalim do not require 'Shetifah va'Hadachah'.

(b) Even Rebbi Shimon will agree however, that the vessels will require Hag'alah - because once they become Nosar, they will forbid whatever is subsequently cooked in them.

(c) The significance of exempting them from Shetifah and Hadachah is - that Hag'alah may be performed with diluted, or even with pure, wine.

(a) Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be if one suspended the spit-rod with the Chatas in the air of an earthenware oven without actually touching it. The She'eilah is whether the oven needs to be broken - seeing as even though there is Bishul, there is no Beli'ah (the oven does not actually absorb anything from the Chatas).

(b) Rava tried to resolve Abaye's She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Echad she'Bishel Bo, *ve'Echad she'Eirah le'Tocho Rose'ach'* - from which we see that one of the two (Be'li'ah without Bishul), also renders the oven forbidden.

(c) To which Abaye retorted - that his She'eilah was whether Bishul renders Asur without Beli'ah (not vice-versa).

(d) Beli'ah without Bishul is worse than Bishul without Beli'ah - because since the Torah has taught us that earthenware never completely exudes Isur that it has absorbed, one the oven absorbs the Isur, the fact that it was not cooked in the oven will not save the oven from having to be broken.

(a) So we try to resolve the She'eilah from Rav Nachman, who quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, states that the oven in the Azarah was made of metal - a proof that Bishul without Beli'ah must be forbidden. Otherwise, seeing as the Kohanim generally roasted the Chata'os on spit-rods, why did they not make it from earthenware?

(b) And we answer - that the oven had to be made of metal anyway, because of the Sheyarei Menachos, which entailed Bishul and Beli'ah.

(a) In the case of the oven which they smeared with fat-tail, before frying bread in it, Rabah bar Ahila'i ruled - that it was forbidden to eat any bread baked in that oven, even with meat, in case one came to eat it with milk. (and an earthenware, he maintained, cannot be Kashered). And there was no way to lift that Isur, since, he maintained, earthenware never fully exudes what it has absorbed.

(b) They queried Rabah bar Ahila'i however, from a Beraisa, which forbids ...

1. ... a dough that has been kneaded with milk to be eaten, even with milk (in case one comes to eat it with meat).
2. ... any bread that is baked in an oven that has been smeared with fat, until one re-heats the oven ...
(c) ... a Kashya on Rabah bar Ahila'i - who maintains that an earthenware oven cannot be Kashered.

(d) We are unable to answer the Kashya, and remain with a 'Teyuvta'.

(a) According to Rav, earthenware pots on Pesach - must be broken.

(b) He establishes the Beraisa that we just discussed, permitting an oven that has been re-heated - by a metal oven.

(c) Alternatively, we might resolve Rav with the Beraisa, even if the Tana is referring to an earthenware oven - by differentiating between an oven, which is heated from the inside (producing a more intense heat), and a pot, which is heated from the outside.

(d) One cannot place coals inside the pot and heat it up in the same way as the oven - because we are afraid that, in order to prevent his pot from breaking, the owner will not heat it properly.

Next daf


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