ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 99
ZEVACHIM 99-100 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "ha'Kohen Ha'mechatei Osah
Yochlenah" - that only a Kohen who performs the Avodah is permitted to eat
(b) He reconciles this with the fact that even though only one Kohen
sprinkles the blood of a Korban, all the Kohanim of that Mishmar eat it - by
amending his statement to a Kohen who is fit to perform the Avodah (even
though he does not actually perform it).
(c) What nevertheless forces us to interpret "Yochlenah" to 'Yechalkenah'
(receives a portion) - is the fact that a Kohen Katan is permitted to eat
Kodshim, even though he is not fit to perform the Avodah ...
(d) ... which we know from the fact that he is permitted to eat Kodshei
Kodshim - either because the Torah finds it necessary to preclude him from
the distribution ("Ish ke'Achiv") or because of the Pasuk we are about to
qote "Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochal Osah" (in spite of the fact that in that
context, it does not pertain to eating).
(a) In spite of what we just concluded, a Ba'al-Mum receives a portion of
Kodshim, even though he is unfit to bring it - due to a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'
(the Pasuk in Tzav "*Kol Zachar* ba'Kohanim Yochal Osah").
(b) We prefer to include a Ba'al-Mum from "Kol Zachar" rather than a
T'vul-Yom - because he is already permitted to eat Kodshim (which a
T'vul-Yom is not).
(c) We reject the suggestion that we ought to include a T'vul-Yom, because
at nightfall, he will automatically become fit to receive a portion - on the
grounds that, when all's said and done, he is not fit now.
(d) Rav Yosef learns this from the word "Yochlenah" - which (bearing in mind
that we have interpreted it to mean 'Yechalkenah') hints that we are
including someone who is already permitted to eat Kodshim.
(a) Resh Lakish asks whether a Kohen Ba'al-Mum who is Tamei received a
portion of Kodshim. We might that he ...
1. ... does - because he is not worse that a plain Ba'al-Mum, who is not fit
to bring Korbanos anyway.
(b) Rabah resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa concerning a Kohen Gadol
Onan, who brings Korbanos, but who may not eat them. The Tana rules there -
that he does not receive a portion (a proof that it is the Kohen's right to
eat Kodshim that entitles him to receive a portion, not his right to perform
2. ... does not - because unlike a plain Ba'al-Mum, he is not permitted to
eat Kodshim (which is perhaps the criterion for receiving a portion).
(a) Rav Oshaya asks whether a Tamei Kohen receives a portion of Korbenos
Tzibur. This must be speaking about a Korban that is brought when most of
the Tzibur is Tahor - because a Korban Tzibur is brought be'Tum'ah, but
(b) He might receive a portion even though he was not fit to eat it -
because (if it was brought be'Tum'ah, he would be eligible to bring it).
(c) We resolve the She'eilah - in the same way as we resolved the previous
one (that receiving a portion is linked with being fit to eat it [at the
time of the Zerikas ha'Dam]).
(a) The Mishnah in Chagigah requires a Kohen Onan and a Kohen Mechusar
Kipurim to Tovel for Kodesh. Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan reconciles this
with our Mishnah, which permits an Onan to touch Kodshim - by establishing
the latter when he has already Toveled.
(b) And the reason that he does not require Ha'arev Shemesh (to wait for
nightfall) as well is - because the Tevilah is only a 'Ma'alah de'Rabbanan'
(a Rabbinical Chumra connected with Kodshim), which does not require Ha'arev
(c) We reconcile this with Rabah bar Rav Huna, who maintains that once the
Kohen Tovels, his Aninus returns - by answering instead that the Mishnah in
Chagigah speaks when there was 'Hesech ha'Da'as (i.e. the Kohen, in the
knowledge that he is forbidden to eat Kodshim anyway, was no longer careful
to guard himself against Tum'ah), whereas our Mishnah speaks when there was
(a) The problem with establishing the Mishnah in Chagigah by 'Hesech
ha'Da'as' is - the statement of Rebbi Yustai b'Rebbi Masun Amar Rebbi
Yochanan, that Hesech ha'Da'as requires sprinkling with th Eifer ha'Parah on
the third and seventh days.
(b) Nor will establishing the Mishnah by Hesech ha'Da'as from Tum'as Sheretz
only, solve the problem - because he will still require 'Ha'arev Shemesh'.
(c) And besides - in that case, he ought also to require Tevilah for
Terumah, so why does the Tana there obligate Tevilah for Kodesh but not for
(d) To dispense with all these Kashyos, Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the
Mishnah in Chagigah when the Kohen was careful to avoid all things that
might render him Tamei d'Oraysa (which require Ha'arev Shemesh), but not
Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan (which don't) See Shitah Mekubetzes.
(a) We object to Rebbi Yirmiyah's explanation on the grounds - that it does
not seem logical to guard oneself from one thing and not from the other.
(b) We overrule this objection however, with a Beraisa, which states that if
someone who is walking with a basket (in which there is a metal shovel) on
his head claims that he was careful about Tum'ah that renders the basket
Tamei, but not the spade - the basket is Tahor, and the spade, Tamei.
(a) The spade does not render the basket Tamei anyway - because one K'li
cannot render another K'li, Tamei (even mi'de'Rabbanan).
(b) To explain why the spade does not render Tamei the contents of the
basket - Rava establishes the case when he claims that he was careful to
guard the spade against things that would render it Tamei, but not against
things that render it Pasul ...
(c) ... a proof that people do tend to guard themselves from one thing and
not from the other.
(d) When word of this reached Rebbi Aba bar Mamal however, he put a spoke in
its wheel, by quoting Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi, who ruled - that although
one is forbidden to eat Terumah that is a Shelishi, one us permitted to
touch it ...
(e) ... a proof - that when it comes to Ma'alos de'Rabbanan, the Rabbanan
simply decreed the prohibition of eating, but not of touching (and not
because of the owner's Hesech ha'Da'as),
(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah 've'Eino Cholek Le'echol be'Kodshim' -
that should the Oman's friend invite him to eat his portion of Kodshim
together with him, he is permitted to join him.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti reconciles this with the Mishnah in Pesachim,
which permits him to eat the Korban Pesach but not Kodshim - by establishing
our Mishnah on Pesach night, when he is permitted to eat other Kodshim with
a 'Migu', since he is permitted to eat the Korban Pesach anyway); whereas
the Mishnah in Pesachim is referring to the other days of the year.
(c) Rav Asi establishes the Mishnah in Pesachim when the deceased that was
buried on the fourteenth also *died* on the fourteenth - in which case
during the day at least, he is an Onan d'Oraysa, whereas our Mishnah is
speaking when he died on the thirteenth - in which case on the day of the
fourteenth, he is only an Onan de'Rabbanan.
(d) In the former case, the Chachamim therefore differentiated between the
Korban Pesach and other Korbanos - because the Aninus of the night after the
death of the deceased is only de'Rabbanan, who were lenient with regard to
the Korban Pesach, which carries a penalty of Kareis, but not with regard to
other Korbanos (whose eating is only an Asei [since it follows the day on
which he was an Onan d'Oraysa).
(a) The author of the principle 'Aninus Laylah (the night after the death)
de'Rabbanan' - is Rebbi Shimon.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - Aninus Laylah is d'Oraysa.
(c) Rebbi Shimon's proof is - the fact that Chazal permitted an Onan to
Tovel in the day and eat his Korban Pesach by night (which would be
inconceivable if Aninus Laylah were de'Rabanan).
(d) And we confine the Beraisa where Rebbi Shimon forbids an Onan to send
his Korban through a Sheli'ach - to other Korbanos, but not the Korban
(a) Rebbi Shimon in another Beraisa, forbids a Kohen Onan to bring a Todah
as well as a Shelamim. He needs to include an Olah in the prohibition
independently, because, unlike Shelamim and Todah - it cannot be brought as
a Shalmei Simchah on Yom-Tov.
(b) We know that one can fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah with ...
1. ... a Shelamim - because of the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Ve'zavachta Shelamim
Ve'achalta Sham, Ve'samachta".
(c) Once we know Olah, we would not automatically include in the prohibition
2. ... a Todah - because a Todah is basically a Shelamim.
1. ... Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach - because they cannot be brought as a
(d) We learn all of these from the word - "Zevach" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra
"Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano"), which incorporates all Korbenos Beheimah..
2. ... Chatas ve'Asham (even after we know Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach as
well) - because they come to atone for a sin.
(a) From the Pasuk "ve'Im Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano", we still incorporate
in the prohibition - Ofos, Menachos, Yayin, Eitzim and Levonah.
(b) The problem this Beraisa now creates with our interpretation of Rebbi
Shimon's previous ruling 'Onan Eino Meshale'ach Korbenosav' is - that we
established it by all Korbenos other that the Korban Pesach, whereas the
latter Beraisa seems to incorporate the Korban Pesach with the other
(c) Rav Chisda answers 'Pesach K'dei Nasvah' (the Tana mentions Pesach
together Bechor and Ma'aser, even though it is not really compatible with
them). Rav Sheishes answers the Kashya, by interpreting 'Pesach' to mean -
Shalmei Pesach (i.e. the Chagigah which is a Shelamim, and] which a large
group brings with the Pesach).
(d) Having already mentioned 'Shelamim', the Tana nevertheless finds it
necessary to add it - because we would otherwise have thought that since it
is brought together with the Pesach, it has the same Din as it.