ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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