ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 101
ZEVACHIM 101 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) Following Nadav and Avihu's death, Moshe instructed Aharon and his sons
to eat ...
1. ... the Minchah of the Milu'im.
(b) Moshe was subsequently angry with Aharon - when he discovered that they
had burned one of the Korbanos.
2. ... the Chazeh ve'Shok of the Shalmei Tzibur.
(c) The problem with saying that Moshe initially instructed Aharon to eat
the Kodshim ba'Aninus lies in another Beraisa - which attributes the fact
that Aharon burned the Korban to the Aninus of Aharon and his sons, and
what's more, Moshe conceded that Aharon was right.
(a) We answer that the Beraisa goes like Rebbi Nechemyah - Rebbi Yehudah and
Rebbi Shimon ascribe the burning of the Korban to Tum'ah.
(b) And they prove this - because if it was due to Aninus, then all three
goats (which will be listed later) ought to have been burned, or they should
have waited until nightfall and eaten them then.
(c) Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos like Rebbi Nechemyah, and we
reconcile the second Beraisa with the fact that Moshe commanded them to eat
the Korbanos in spite of the Aninus - by restricting the dispensation to eat
the Korbanos that day to the Korbanos of the Milu'im, but not the regular
(d) According to Rebbi Nechemyah, Moshe did not command them to should eat
the Minchas Shemini ba'Aninus - but that they should eat it even though it
was a Minchas Tzibur, which was unique (and they would not have otherwise
known what to do with it).
(a) When Aharon replied ...
1. ... "Hein Lo Huva Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah" - Moshe had asked him -
whether the blood had not perhaps been taken into the Heichal.
(b) Aharon retorted that "Va'tikrenah Osi ka'Eileh Ve'achalti Chatas ha'Yom,
ha'Yitav be'Einei Hashem" (by which he meant that the special dispensation
permitting them as Onenim, to eat Kodshim, did not extend to Kodshei Doros,
as we learned earlier). And he learned this - from Ma'aser Sheini, which is
forbidden to an Onan, 'Kal-va'Chomer' Kodshim.
2. ... "ba'Kodesh (Haysah)" ... - whether the animal had not been taken
outside the Azarah.
3. ... "Hein Hayom Hikrivu" Moshe had asked him -whether perhaps his sons,
who were Onenim (with regard to sacrificing the Korbanos), had not perhaps
brought it on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) Moshe responded - by admitting to having erred, and conceded that Aharon
was right. In fact, he said without hesitation, that is what he had been
taught, but he had forgotten it.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, Moshe asked Aharon ...
1. ... whether due to his sorrow, he had not perhaps been careless, causing
the Korban to become Tamei - he expressed surprise that Moshe should suspect
him of such gross negligence.
(c) ... and the reason that they did not eat it after nightfall - was
because in the meantime, it had become Tamei be'O'ness.
2. ... why they did not then eat it - he replied that in all probability, it
was only after nightfall that they were permitted it (because Aninus Laylah
(a) Aharon said to Moshe "Ve'achalti Chatas Hayom". The significance of
"Hayom", according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon - is that the Chatas
could not be eaten during the day, only at night.
(b) The problem with "Hayom" according to Rebbi Nechemyah" is - that the
Korbanos of Milu'im were permitted even during the day, whereas the regular
Korbanos were forbidden at night, too (so what does "Hayom" mean).
(c) He therefore explains it to mean - that since the Korban under
discussion was a regular Korban (of that day), it did not enjoy the special
dispensation that pertained to the Korbenos of the Milu'im.
(a) According to what we just said (to explain Rebbi Nechemyah) "Hein Hayom
Hikrivu" makes perfect sense. The problem with this phrase, according to
Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemya is - that if Aharon was telling Moshe that
perhaps it was only at night-time that the Korbanos were permitted, what
does the phrase mean?
(b) In fact, they interpret it to mean - that it was not Elazar and Isamar
(who were Onenim) who brought the Korbanos during the day, but he (Aharon,
and a Kohen Gadol Onan is permitted to bring Korbanos).
(a) "ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas" refers to the Sa'ir of Nachshon (the first of
the twelve princes to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach), whereas the goat referred
to by ...
1. ... Chatas - is the Sa'ir of the Milu'im.
(b) The Torah uses the double expression "Darosh Darash" - because Moshe
inquired as to why the one goat was burned and the other two were not.
2. ... Darash Moshe - is the Sa'ir of Rosh Chodesh.
(c) We learn from "ve'Hinei Soraf" - that only one of the goats was burned,
and not all three.
(d) "ve'Osah Nasan Lachem Laseis es Avon ha'Eidah" - that the one that was
burned was the Sa'ir Rosh Chodesh (which comes to atone for the sin (of
Tum'ah) of the congregation.
(a) Rebbi Nechemya refutes Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon's Kashya, that if
it was a matter of Aninus ...
1. ... then all three goats should have been burned - by differentiating
between Kodshei Sha'ah (which Hashem had specifically permitted) and Kodshei
Doros (which He had not) as we already learned.
(b) Rebbi Nechemyah's source for that - is this Pasuk ("Va'tikrenah Osi
2. ... then they ought to have waited until nightfall and eaten the Sa'ir
Rosh-Chodesh then - because he holds 'Aninus Laylah d'Oraysa'.
(c) Whereas Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon hold - that even though Aninus Laylah is
d'Oraysa, that would take effect later, but did not apply to Aharon and his
sons, as we already explained.
(d) And Rebbi Nechemyah's answer to the Kashya that Pinchas was there, and
if it was a matter of Aninus, *he* should have eaten the Chatas - by
agreeing with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina, who maintain
that Pinchas became a Kohen only many years later, as we shall now see.
1. Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas
"Ve'haysah Lo u'le'Zar'o Acharav B'ris Kehunas Olam" - that Pinchas became a
Kohen only after killing Zimri.
2. Rav Ashi learns from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Va'yishma Pinchas ha'Kohen
u'Nesi'ei ha'Eidah ... " - that he became a Kohen only after being
instrumental in making peace between the B'nei Gad and Reuven and the tribes
who lived in Eretz Yisrael (following their quarrel over the Mizbe'ach that
the former had built beside the Yarden River).
1. Rav Ashi refutes Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina's interpretation of the
Pasuk in Pinchas - by restricting it to a B'rachah (which would only
materialize much later).
2. Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina refutes Rav Ashi's interpretation of the
Pasuk in Yehoshua - by confining it to inclusion of his descendants, who
would become Kohanim Gedolim (since prior to that time, only he was destined
to be a Kohen Gadol, but not his descendants).
(a) Rav learns from the Pasuk "me'Eil ha'Milu'im le'Moshe Hayah le'Manah" -
that Moshe was a Kohen Gadol who received a portion in Kodshei Shamayim.
(b) And the reason that the Beraisa asks from Pinchas and not from Moshe
is - because Moshe was constantly on Har Sinai dealing with the Shechinah,
and did not have time to collect a portion of Kodshim.
(c) Like Mar say about Moshe - that he would ascend Har Sinai early in the
morning and descend late at night.
(a) The Pasuk "Lechem Elokav mi'Kodshei ha'Kodshim u'min ha'Kodshim Yochel"
refers - to a Kohen Ba'al Mum.
(b) The problem the Beraisa has with this Pasuk is - why the Torah needs to
mention both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim?
(c) Had the Torah not written ...
1. ... Kodshim Kalim, we would have thought that a Ba'al-Mum may eat only
Kodshei Kodshim - since we find that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim is
permitted to Zarim as well as to them.
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim, would have thought that a Ba'al-Mum may eat only
Kodshim Kalim, whose Kedushah is less than that of Kodshei Kodshim.
(d) We know that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim is Kodshei Kodshim - because
it had to be cooked and eaten at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed and could
only be eaten for one day and a night.
(a) We attempt to ask from this Beraisa on Rav - based on the understanding
that the Zar in the Beraisa refers to Moshe.
(b) To refute the Kashya on Rav however - Rav Sheishes interprets 'Zar'
literally, with reference to Bamos, which do not require Kehunah, and on
which the Minchah (which was Kodesh Kodshim) was brought.
(c) Bearing in mind that Bamah refers to Bamah Ketanah, Rav Sheishes' answer
is not unanimous - because it does not coincide with the opinion that the
Korban Minchah was not brought on the Bamah.
(d) The answer depends on the Minchah - because the only other Kodesh
Kodshim that are eaten are Chatas and Asham, neither of which could be
brought on a Bamah.