(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 97

ZEVACHIM 97-98 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff



(a) According to Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah, a pot in which one cooked at the beginning of Yom-Tov may be used without Merikah and Shetifah, until the end of Yom-Tov. The Chachamim say - only until the next meal is due.

(b) When the Mishnah describes Merikah and Shetifah as 'ki'Merikas ha'Kos' and 'ki'Shetifas ha'Kos' it means - that one is obligates to wash out the inside of the vessel and the outside, like washing out the Kos of Birchas ha'Mazon.

(c) The Tana requires both Merikah and Shetifah to be in cold water (as we explained a little earlier). As for a spit-rod and a grill - they require Hag'alah in boiling water, he says (though we will query this later).

(a) In trying to find Rebbi Tarfon's source, we learn from the Pasuk "u'Fanisa ba'Boker, ve'Halachta le'Ohalecha" - that the Torah considers all the days of Yom-Tov like one day (in which case, Merikah and Shetifah are unnecessary, as we learned in the Mishnah).

(b) We query this from Pigul and Nosar - which ought not to then not take effect the whole Yom-Tov.

(a) When Rebbi Nasan said in a Beraisa 'Lo Amar Rebbi Tarfon Ela Zu Bil'vad', he meant - that Rebbi Tarfon's Din is confined to Merikah and Shetifah, and not to anything else (such as Pigul and Nosar, corroborating our query).

(b) We finally base Rebbi Tarfon on a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who said - that each day becomes Gi'ul for the preceding one, by which he meant - that since Shelamim can be eaten for two days, the absorbed Shelamim never get a chance to become Nosar. This is because on Yom-Tov, so many Shelamim are brought, that on each subsequent day, the pot is used again, and whatever is absorbed in the walls of the pot, has been drawn out well before it becomes Nosar.

(c) That is all well and good with regard to Shelamim, which can be eaten for two days. In the event that the pot is used to cook a Chatas - the Kohanim are careful to cook a Shelamim in it on the same day.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains the Chachamim, who say 'ad Z'man Achilah' to mean - that once a pot has been used, they wait until the next meal falls due, before making Merikah u'Shetifah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Aba Yossi ban Aba learns this - from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk "Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochal Osah" to that of "u'Morak ve'Shutaf ba'Mayim".

(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa holds 'Merikah u'Shetifah be'Tzonan' (like our Mishnah). the Rabbanan say - Merikah be'Chamin, u'Shetifah be'Tzonan'.

(b) The Rabbanan's source - is 'Gi'ulei Nochrim, which are also Kashered in this way.

(c) Rebbi objects to that - on the grounds that Merikah u'Shetifah do not incorporate Hag'alah, but are performed in addition it.

(d) The Rabbanan extrapolate their ruling from the Torah's change of Lashon from "u'Morak" to "ve'Shutaf" (implying that they are different).

(a) Rebbi explains the Torah's need to change from "u'Morak" to "ve'Shutaf" - because a double Lashon ('u'Morak Morak' or 've'Shutaf Shutaf') would have implied doing twice Merikah or twice Shetifah.

(b) Despite the fact that, according to Rebbi, both are done with cold water, the Torah changes from "Morak" to "Shutaf" - to teach us that the former must be done on the inside, and the latter, on the outside.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that in a case where Kodshim and Chulin or Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim were both cooked in a pot simultaneously - if the former is 'Nosen Ta'am' (i.e. more than one in sixty), both must be eaten with all its stringencies.

(b) Assuming that the more stringent one was ...

1. ... Kodshei Kodshim, this would entail - eating it in the Azarah for one day only.
2. ... Kodshim Kalim, it would entail eating it in Yerushalayim for two days only (unless it was a Korban Todah).
(c) When the Tana adds 'Ein Poslin be'Maga' he means - that if the more stringent piece was Pasul, the more lenient one does not pass on the P'sul to whatever touches it.

(d) He also rules that, in the same circumstances as the previous case, if one hot Pasul loaf or piece of meat of Kodshim, touches another - only the part where it touched becomes Asur.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Im Yesh Bahen be'Nosen Ta'am, Harei ha'Kalim Ne'echalin ka'Chamurin'. We amend the continuation 've'Ein Te'unin Merikah u'Shetifah, ve'Einan Poslin be'Maga', by adding 'Im Yesh Bahen be'Nosen Ta'am ... u'Te'unin Merikah u'Shetifah, u'Poslin be'Maga; Ein Bahen be'Nosen Ta'am ... '.

(b) Abaye interprets 'Ein Te'unin Merikah u'Shetifah' to mean like Kodshei Kodshim, but like Kodshim Kalim it does. Rava establishes the Mishnah - like Rebbi Shimon, who exempts Kodshim Kalim from Merikah u'Shetifah, in which case, it does not require Merikah u'Shetifah at all.

(c) Abaye's explanation poses the Kashya why our Mishnah needs to mention both cases 'Kodshim ve'Chulin' and 'Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim'. There is no problem according to Rava - since in the first case, the pot requires Merikah u'Shetifah like Chulin, whereas in the second, it does not.

(d) Despite the fact that, according to Abaye, either way, the pot requires Merikah u'Shetifah like the more lenient one, nevertheless, having taught us the Din by ...

1. ... Kodshim and Chulin, the Tana finds it necessary to add the case of Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim - to teach us that even Kodshim have the power to negate Kodshim (even though they are to a point, the same species).
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim, the Tana finds it necessary to add the case of Kodshim and Chulin, to teach us - that even Chulin have the power to negate Kodshim.



(a) Based on the Pasuk "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah", the Beraisa learns from the word ...
1. ... "bi'Vesarah" - that the Basar only renders Pasul food that actually absorbs some of it (but not what merely touches it).
2. ... "Yiga" - that only the area that is touched by it becomes Pasul, but not the rest.
(b) The Pasuk is referring to a case - where one melted some fat of a Chatas and smeared it on a piece of Shelamim meat.

(c) In such a case, one would be obligated - to cut out the area that was smeared.

(d) One does not however - need to cut away any nerves, bones, horns or hooves in that vicinity.

(a) The important principle that we learn from 'ad she'Yivla' is - 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Kodshim (since the actual Isur is only a minimal amount, and requires the Heter to supplement the Shi'ur of Nosen Ta'am.

(b) We cannot however, learn 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' from there - because the melted fat is real substance and not just taste.

(c) We just learned that if the more stringent Korban is Pasul, the more lenient Korban becomes Pasul too, and may not be eaten - because someone who eats it contravenes the La'av of "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah", from which we learn 'Kol she'ba'Kodesh Pasul, Ba ha'Kasuv Litein Lo Sa'aseh al Achilaso' (anyone who eats Kodshim Pesulim, contravenes a La'av).

(d) We query this however, from the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'. The Asei in question is - the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "ve'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem".

(a) In our first answer, we explain that the current La'av is different than most other La'avin, and cannot be overridden by an Asei - because it is a La'av that pertains to the Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) We base this answer on the La'av of "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo", according to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya, who says - that the La'av applies even to bones which contain marrow ...

(c) ... and which ought then to be permitted because of the Asei "ve'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" (a proof that an Asei does not override a Lo Sa'aseh in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(d) Rav Ashi, who disagrees with that, answers the Kashya, by quoting the Pasuk 'Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah *Yikdash*" - turning the prohibition of eating Pasul Kodshim into a La'av plus an Asei, which a plain Asei can not override under any circumstances.

(a) Until now, we have been discussing a Chatas Pasul, since that is what the Torah is talking about. We apply it to other Kodshim - from the Hekesh in Parshas Tzav "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ... , which compares all Kodshim to one another.

(b) The Hekesh actually incorporates all types of Korbanos. We learn from Olah that all Korbanos require a K'li. This cannot be referring to bowls for receiving the blood - since the same is also written in connection with 'Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur' (that are brought on Shavu'os).

(c) It is referring to - male Kohanim exclusively being permitted to eat them.

(d) We know that an Olah requires ...

1. ... a knife to Shecht - from the Pasuk by the Akeidah "Va'yikach es ha'Ma'acheles" (which the Torah specifically refers to as an Olah). This precludes a a sharp rock or cane (which are not K'lei Shareis).
2. ... a bowl to receive the blood - from the Pasuk by Matan Torah "Va'yasem ba'Aganos".
(a) Besides Minchah, the Torah writes in Tzav "Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochlenah" - by Chatas and Asham.

(b) Seeing as we already know that these two Korbanos can only be eaten by male Kohanim, we learn from "ve'la'Minchah" - that the same applies to Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur

(c) We reconcile this with the Drashah from the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchah, the Chatas and the Asham) "ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Tochlenu ... Kol Zachar Yochal Osah", from which we learn the same thing - by making this a Machlokes Tana'im (one learns it from the one, and one, from the other).

(a) And from "Chatas" we learn - the current Halachah ('Mah Chatas Mekadeshes be'Balu'a').

(b) We cannot learn it from Minchah, where the Torah also writes "Kol Asher Yiga Bah Yikdash" - because the Minchah is softer than other Korbanos, in which case we would not have extended 'Balu'a' to other, harder Korbanos.

Next daf


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