(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 100

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) Rav Mari establishes Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa (who includes Pesachim in the prohibition of Onan) literally. He reconciles it with the Mishnah in Pesachim, where the same Rebbi Shimon permits it - by establishing it when he was not only buried on the fourteenth, but also died on the fourteenth, whereas the latter speaks when he died on the thirteenth (like Rav Asi explained above to explain the discrepancy by other Korbanos).

(b) Rav Mari argues with Rav Asi - in that, according to him, Rebbi Shimon forbids an Onan to eat even the *Pesach* in the former case, whereas according to Rav Asi, he Only permits other Kodshim.

(c) Rav Ashi queried Rav Mari from Rebbi Shimon's proof (from the fact that Chazal permitted an Onan to Tovel and eat his Pesach in the evening). According to Rav Mari, he asked, Rebbi Yehudah ought to have retorted - that *he* had called the day of the deceased's death, d'Oraysa, and Rebbi Shimon should not have brought a proof from the day of his burial (which he conceded is only de'Rabbanan) to counter him.

(d) Rav Mari was unable to reply to that, so we remain with a Kashya.

(a) Abaye too, interprets 'Pesach' literally. According to him, both cases are speaking on the day the deceased died, only the Beraisa speaks when he died before midday, and the Mishnah in Pesachim, when he died after midday. What difference does it make when he died?

(b) Despite the fact that, according to Abaye, eating is not crucial to the Mitzvah of Korban Pesach, Chazal waived Aninus Laylah in face of the Korban Pesach, more than any other Korban - either because they were afraid that if he would not be permitted to eat it, he would not bother to Shecht it either, or because it would not be correct for someone to Shecht a Korban Pesach in order to render it Pasul.

(c) And he proves his point from a contradiction between two Beraisos. The first Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Kohen making himself Tamei for his unmarried sister) "Lah Yitama" - that it is a Mitzvah for a Kohen to make oneself Tamei for a deceased relative.

(d) When Yosef ha'Kohen refused to render himself Tamei for his wife who died on Erev Pesach - they forced him to do so.

(a) The second Beraisa discusses the Pasuk "le'Aviv, u'le'Imo, le'Achiv u'le'Achoso Lo Yitamo Lahem be'Mosam". The Torah is speaking about - a Nazir.

(b) In spite of having taught us 'Aviv, Imo and Achiv', the Torah needs to add 'Achoso', to teach us that even if a Nazir Kohen Gadol who is going to circumcise his son or to bring his Korban Pesach (any one of which overrides the Mitzvah of burying one's relatives), he is obligated to go and bury a Meis Mitzvah, should the need arise.

(c) This Beraisa appears to contradict the previous one - inasmuch as, according to this Tana, Pesach overrides the Mitzvah of burying one's deceased relative, whereas the previous Tana gave precedence to burying one's dead.

(d) Abaye resolves the discrepancy - by establishing the latter Beraisa when the deceased died after midday, and the former, when he died after midday.

(a) We try to refute this proof by establishing the author of the second Beraisa as Rebbi Yishmael - who learns that "Lah Yitama" by Nazir, is not an obligation, but a concession.

(b) Whereas Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that it is a Mitzvah, will hold - that the Nazir is obligated to make himself Tamei, even for a relative who died after midday.

(c) The Mitzvah of making himself Tamei would override that of bringing the Korban Pesach, in spite of the fact that it carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis - because, unlike the Mitzvah of making oneself Tamei for a relative (which cannot be supplemented), it can be brought on Pesach Sheini.

(d) We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Akiva makes a statement in the Reisha of the Beraisa, and we can therefore assume that he is also the author of the Seifa (which gives the Pesach precedence).

(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from ''Nefesh'', the prohibition of a Nazir rendering himself Tamei for close relatives, and from "Meis" - that he is forbidden to make himself Tamei for non-relatives.

(b) Even though he is forbidden to make himself Tamei for relatives, the Torah nevertheless needs to add non-relatives - because "Meis" does not inherently imply relatives. In fact, it is only because there are two Pesukim that we learn that the prohibition extends to relatives.

(c) And the reason that we Darshen relatives from "Nefesh" ... , and not first non-relatives - because "Nefesh" has slight connotations of someone close.

(d) Having written "Al Nefesh Meis Lo Yavo", the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to add ...

1. ... "Aviv" - to teach us that for a Meis Mitzvah, the Nazir is obligated to make himself Tamei (because two consecutive inclusions come to exclude).
2. ... "Imo" - that even if the Nazir is a Kohen too, he is obligated to bury the Meis Mitzvah.
3. ... "Achiv" - that even if he is a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol, and not just a Kohen Hedyot, he is still obligated to do so.
4. ... "Achoso" - that burying the Meis Mitzvah takes precedence even if, in addition to being a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol, he is also on his way to Shecht his Pesach or to circumcise his son.



(a) According to Rava, even if the relative died after midday, the Onan is only permitted to Tovel and eat his Pesach after nightfall - provided the Korban has already been Shechted and the Zerikah has taken place.

(b) When Rav Ada bar Masna queried Rava 'Mai de'Havah Havah', he meant - that since he has already fulfilled the Mitzvah of Korban Pesach, why would the Rabbanan waive the Isur of Aninus Laylah to enable the owner to eat the Korban Pesach more than any other Korban?

(c) He did not ask the same Kashya on Abaye - because, seeing as, according to him, the Korban has not yet been Shechted, they were afraid that if the owner is not allowed to eat it, he will refrain from Shechting it.

(d) Ravina replied - that eating the Pesach is an intrinsic part of the Mitzvah of Pesach (as we shall now see).

(e) Rava commented to Rav Ada bar Masna - that he should take note of what his Rebbe (Ravina) had said.

(a) Ravina actually based his answer on a statement of Rabah bar Rav Huna with reference to a Beraisa. The Tana there gives Yom Shemu'ah the Din of Yom Kevurah with regard to Shiv'ah and Sheloshim. Yom Shemu'ah in this case - means 'Shemu'ah Kerovah' (within thirty days of his relative's death.

(b) And he compares Yom Shemu'ah with regard to the Korban Pesach - to Yom Likut Atzamos (the day when he collects his relative's bones for re-burial) where the Din is 'Tovel ve'Ochel Kodshim la'Erev'.

(c) The Tana mentioned Korban Pesach (even though it applies to all Kodshim) - to hint that the prohibition of Yom Kevurah applies even to Pesachim.

(d) In the case of Likut Atzamos - someone else must have collected the bones on his behalf (otherwise, he would require Haza'ah on the third and seventh days).

(a) When the Tana concludes 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh Tovel ve'Ochel Kodshim la'Erev', he means - both the day of burial and the day when he collects the bones.

(b) This creates a discrepancy in the Beraisa - since, here the Tana is equating Yom Kevurah with Yom Likut Atzmos, to permit Leil Kevurah (eating Kodshim the night after the Kevurah), whereas in the Reisha, the Tana equated Yom Shemu'ah with Yom Likut Atzamos, implying that Leil Kevurah is forbidden.

(c) Rav Chisda establishes a Machlokes Tana'im - whether Leil Kevurah is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan or not

(d) The Chachamim made no distinction between other Kodshim and the Korban Pesach, because, in the opinion of Rav Chisda, Achilas Pesachim is not crucial to the Mitzvah.

(a) Rabah bar Avuhah answers that the Seifa speaks about a Shemu'ah, Likut Atzamos, and Kevurah which took place before Sheki'as ha'Chamah, and the Tana permits even Achilas Kodshim in such a case - because in his opinion, Leil Kevurah is not even Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) Whereas the Reisha speaks when they took place after Sheki'as ha'Chamah, where the Tana gives Yom Shemu'ah the Din of Yom Likut Atzamos, but not of Yom Kevurah is - that on the former, they forbade Kodshim but permitted Pesachim, whereas on the latter, they even forbade Pesachim too.

(c) The Chachamim differentiate between Achilas Kodshim and Achilas Pesachim on Yom Shemu'ah and Yom Likut Atzamos - because they hold that Achilas Pesachim is obligatory.

(d) And the reason that they are nevertheless stringent with regard to Leil Kevurah (even though it too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan) is - because the day of Kevurah usually takes place on the day of death, and we are afraid that people will therefore come to be lenient even on the day of death, which is definitely mi'd'Oraysa.

(a) Rav Ashi explains 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh, Tovel ve'Ochel Kodshim la'Erev' to refer to - both Yom Shemu'ah and Yom Likut Atzamos ...

(b) ... dispensing with the discrepancy, since it does not refer to Yom Kevurah.

(c) We dismiss Rav Ashi's explanation as a joke however - because, according to him, the Tana ought to have said (not 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh ... ', seeing as we have just equated Yom Shemu'ah with Yom Likut Atzamos, but) 'Zeh ve'Zeh Tovel ve'Ochel Kodshim la'Erev').

(a) Rav Chisda presents Leil Kevurah as a Machlokes. The Tana Kama in a Beraisa gives the time period for Aninus as the entire day of death. The ramifications of Aninus are - the prohibition of eating Kodshim.

(b) The problem with Rebbi, who says 'Kol Z'man she'Lo Nikbar' is - that if were to mean literally that, once he has been buried, Aninus no longer applies, then how would he explain the Pasuk in Amos "ve'Acharisah ke'Yom Mar" (which implies a complete twenty-four hour day).

(c) Rav Sheishes therefore establishes Rebbi (not on the day of death, which renders one an Onan until the following morning, but) on the day of burial (though at this point, it is not yet clear what the Machlokes is).

(a) Rav Yosef queries Rav Sheishes from the Beraisa 'ha'Shome'a al Meiso ve'ha'Melaket Atzamos, Tovel ve'Ochel be'Kodshim la'Erev', from which we can extrapolate - that Leil Kevurah is Asur.

(b) Rav Yosef therefore asks - who the author of this Beraisa is (since, according to Rav Sheishes, neither of the above Tana'im considers the relative an Onan on Leil Kevurah).

(c) So Rav Yosef amends the Tana Kama to 'Ad Masai Mis'onenin Alav? Kol Oso ha'Yom ve'Leilo', to which Rebbi adds - 'Kol Z'man she'Lo Nikbar', meaning that Leil Kevurah is permitted.

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah objects to Rav Yosef's explanation however - on the basis of a Beraisa, where Rebbi is more stringent than the Tana Kama (even going so far as to declare the relative an Onan up to ten days later, as long as the burial has not yet taken place).

(a) Consequently, leaving the Tana Kama intact, Rebbi Yirmiyah amends Rebbi - who now comes to render the relative an Onan right up to the burial, and even the night after.

(b) We have now proved - that Leil Kevurah is a Machlokes Tana'im, like Rav Chisda.

(a) From the fact that Rebbi holds Leil Kevurah is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan - Rava extrapolates that Leil Misah must be Asur d'Oraysa, because the Rabbanan, who added Leil Kevurah to the Aninus, must have taken their cue from the Torah, who must have added Leil Misah to Yom Misah.

(b) He queries that however, from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from Aharon's words (in Parshas Shemini, in connection with Aninas Laylah) "Hein Hayom Hikrivu" that Aharon the night after the death of his sons, Aharon was permitted to eat Kodshim, but that in future, it would be Asur mi'd'Oraysa. The reason for this distinction is - the fact that in the case of Aharon, other than Aharon and his two remaining sons, there were no Kohanim to eat the Korbanos, whereas in later generations, there would always be many others.

(c) Rebbi said - 'Aninus Laylah Eino mi'Divrei Torah Ela mi'Divrei Sofrim', and if the Torah did not forbid Leil Misah, why did the Rabbanan forbid Leil Kevurah?

(d) We reconcile Rebbi here with the previous ruling however - by means of the principle 'Chachamim Asu Chizuk le'Divreihem Yoser mi'shel Torah' (meaning that the Rabbanan supported their Rabbinical rulings more than the Torah supported its own rulings (because Rabbinical rulings need more support).

Next daf


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