ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 108
(a) Rava asked what the Din will be in a case - where someone sacrifices
ba'Chutz the head of a young dove comprising less than a k'Zayis, but whose
Shiur is complemented by a grain of salt.
(b) Rava from Parzika queried the She'eilah on the grounds - that it seems
to be the very issue which Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have just
(c) Rav Ashi replied however, that even ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan might concede that the grain of salt will not combine
to make up the Shiur, because, unlike the bone, it is not of the same
species as the bird.
(d) The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.
2. ... Resh Lakish concede that it will - because, unlike the bone of the
limb of the Korban, which is dispensable Bedieved, the grain of salt is not
(as the Torah writes in Vayikra "ve'Lo Sashbis Melach B'ris ... ").
(a) The Rabbanan in our Mishnah ask on Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who rules
'Shachat ba'Chutz, ve'He'elah ba'Chutz Patur ... ', from Shachat bi'Fenim
u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz'. When Rebbi ...
1. ... answers 'Mah le'Shochet bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz she'Kein Haysah
Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher', he means - that there where the Korban was Shechted
inside the Azarah, even Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will agree that one is Chayav
for Ha'ala'as Chutz, because (despite the fact that it became Pasul
be'Yotzei, once it is taken outside, as the Rabbanan asked), at least it had
a Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas Shachat ba'Chutz ve'He'elah ba'Chutz did not.
(b) When Ze'iri explains that the difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon will manifest itself in a case where one Shechted the Korban
ba'Chutz at night-time, he means - that on the one hand, it had no Sha'as
ha'Kosher, whereas on the other, it is 'Pesulo ba'Kodesh' (and is therefore
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon answers 'Mah le'Shochet bi'Fenim
u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz she'Kein Kodesh Mekablo', he means - that even Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili will agree there that one is Chayav, since, the P'sul having
occurred after it entered the Azarah ('Pesulo ba'Kodesh'), it is Kasher
Bedieved ('Im Alah Lo Yeired'), which is not the case by 'Shachat ba'Chutz
(c) According to Rabah, the difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar
be'Rebbi Shimon is - where a Kohen received the blood in a K'li Chol, in
which case there was no Sha'as ha'Kosher, but it is Pesulo ba'Kodesh.
(a) The Rabbanan also queried Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in the same way, when he
ruled that a Tamei person who ate a Tamei Korban is Patur (as we learned in
our Mishnah). Their proof seems irrefutable, and indeed - Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili concedes that in a case where a Tamei person ate a Tahor Korban, he
is Chayav (even though he renders the animal Tamei. The source of this
(unanimous) ruling is the principle - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' (a second Isur
cannot take effect on existing one).
(b) And Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and the Rabbanan argue - in a case where the
Tum'as Basar preceded the Tum'as ha'Guf.
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Isur Chal al Isur' by Isur
Kolel (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yossi Hagelili). This is an Isur Kolel -
die to the fact that Tum'as ha'Guf adds additional pieces to the Tamei
person that were permitted to him before.
(d) We ask that even assuming 'Ein Isur Kolel Chal al Isur', how can Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili ignore the fact that Tum'as ha'Guf is an Isur Chamur -
because it carries an Isur Kareis, whereas Tum'as Basar is only a La'av.
(e) We refute this Kashya however, on the grounds - that Tum'as Basar too,
has a Chumra over Tum'as ha'Guf, inasmuch as unlike the latter, it is not
subject to Tevilah in a Mikvah (and who's to decide which Chumra is more
(a) Our Mishnah lists the Chumros of one Avodas Chutz over the other. The
Chumra of ...
1. ... Shechitas Chutz over Aliyas Chutz is - that someone who Shechts
ba'Chutz having in mind that a Hedyot should eat it, is Chayav (which he
will not be if he sacrifices it in honor of a Hedyot).
(b) When the Tana says 've'ha'Ma'aleh le'Hedyot Patur', he means that -
assuming he was Shogeg regarding Ha'ala'as Chutz and Meizid regarding
Avodah-Zarah, he will be Patur from a Korban, notwithstanding the fact that
he is Chayav Kareis for Avodah-Zarah.
2. ... Aliyas Chutz over Shechitas Chutz is - that whereas if two people
hold a knife and Shecht it together, they are Patur, if they carry a limb
together on to the Mizbe'ach, they are Chayav.
(a) When Rebbi Shimon says ...
1. ... 'He'elah, ve'Chazar ve'He'elah, ve'Chazar ve'He'elah, Chayav', he
means that if someone sacrificed a limb of a Korban ba'Chutz be'Shogeg,
remembered and, after forgetting again, he sacrificed another limb, and then
repeated it a third time, he is Chayav three Chata'os.
(b) With regard to Rebbi Shimon's ...
2. ... 've'Eino Chayav ad she'Ya'aleh le'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach', he means - that
one is only Chayav for Ha'ala'as Chutz if he actually builds a Mizbe'ach
ba'Chutz and sacrifices on it.
1. ... first ruling, Rebbi Yossi rules - that he is only Chayav one Chatas.
2. ... second ruling, he rules - that one is Chayav even if he sacrificed on
a rock or on a stone.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... (in connection with Ha'ala'as Chutz) "La'asos Oso *la'Hashem*") -
that 'ha'Ma'aleh le'Hedyot Patur'.
(b) From the Pasuk ...
2. ... (in connection with Shechitas Chutz) "Ish Ish" - that 'ha'Shochet
le'Hedyot (Ish le'Ish) is Chayav.
3. ... (in connection with Ha'ala'as Chutz) "Ish Ish" - that two people who
sacrifice a limb together are Chayav.
4. ... "Dam Yechashev ha'Ish ha'Hu" (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) -
that if two people perform Shechutei Chutz together, they are Patur.
1. ... "ve'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu" (written by Ha'ala'as Chutz), we learn -
that Kareis only applies to someone who sacrifices ba'Chutz on purpose, but
not be'Shogeg or be'O'nes, or if he is tricked into doing so.
(c) And from "Lehakriv Korban *la'Hashem*" (written by Shechitas Chutz), we
learn - that one is only Chayav Shechutei Chutz by a Korban that is fit to
go before Hashem, but not by the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
2. ... "ve'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu" (written by Shechutei Chutz) - the same as
we learned from the previous Pasuk.
(d) And we learn that someone who sacrifices the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach
outside the Azarah is Patur - from Shechutei Chutz.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, we need "Ish Ish" (by Ha'ala'as
Chutz) to include two people who sacrificed ba'Chutz in the Din of Ha'ala'as
Chutz, to negate the 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Shechitas Chutz - that if Shochet,
who is Chayav le'Hedyot, is Patur when he Shechts together with somebody
else, Ha'ala'ah, who is Patur le'Hedyot, should certainly be Patur when he
does it together with somebody else.
(b) Rebbi Yossi disagrees. He learns from "Ve'nichras ha'Ish *ha'Hu* (by
Ha'ala'as Chutz)", 'Echad ve'Lo Shenayim'. He preclude 'Shogeg, O'nes and
Mut'ah' - from the extra 'Hey' in ha'Hu ...
(c) ... and he explains "Ish Ish" - as a manner of speech ('Dibrah Torah
ki'Leshon B'nei Adam').
(d) Rebbi Shimon - does not consider "Hu", "ha'Hu" a D'rashah.
(a) Rebbi Yossi learns from "Dam Yechashev *la'Ish ha'Hu* Dam Shafach" -
that ha'Shochet le'Hedyot is Chayav.
(b) The reason that he does not learn it from "Ish Ish" (like Rebbi Shimon
does) is - because he holds 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam' (like he
explained by Ha'ala'ah).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon ('Chayav
al Kol Aliyah va'Aliyah') and Rebbi Yossi ('Eino Chayav Ela Achas'). We
learn from the Pasuk "La'asos *Oso* la'Hashem" - that one is only Chayav for
sacrificing an entire entity, and not just a part.
(b) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yossi are arguing over
four or five limbs. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether "La'asos Oso"
refers to the entire animal (precluding part of it from the Chiyuv [Rebbi
Yossi]), or to each limb (to preclude someone who sacrifices only part of a
limb from the Chiyuv [Rebbi Shimon]).
(c) Even Rebbi Shimon will agree - that someone who sacrifices one limb,
part at a time, is only Chayav one Chatas.
(d) We might also interpret 'Eiver Echad' to mean a limb that fell off the
Mizbe'ach (Mukt'ri P'nim, which will be explained shortly).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Machlokes by one limb (Mukt'ri P'nim).
According to him - they argue over whether one is Chayav for sacrificing
ba'Chutz, Mukt'ri P'nim that fell off the Mizbe'ach (Rebbi Shimon), or nor
(b) Rebbi Shimon's source is - the fact that one is obligated to return
'Pok'in (that fell off the Mizbe'ach) on to the Mizbe'ach ...
(c) ... and "Oso" comes to preclude - Mukt'ri Chutz (to preclude sacrificing
an incomplete limb of Shechutei Chutz from Ha'ala'as Chutz).
(d) Rebbi Yossi holds Patur (even on Mukt'ri P'nim) - from the Pasuk "Lo
Yevi'enu" [like Rebbi Yishmael, as we learned earlier]).
(e) Both Tana'im will hold - that one is Chayav for sacrificing the animal
ba'Chutz limb by limb.
(a) Ula disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan. According to him, both Tana'im agree
that one is Chayav for sacrificing Mukt'ri P'nim ba'Chutz - since one is
Chayav to return Pok'in on the Mizbe'ach, and they argue over sacrificing
(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, who includes Mukt'ri Chutz in Ha'ala'as
Chutz - "Oso" comes to preclude someone who burns less than a k'Zayis at a
(c) According to Ula's second Lashon both Tana'im agree that one is Patur
for sacrificing a limb of Mukt'ri Chutz, and they argue over a limb of
Mukt'ri P'nim. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether one returns Pok'in
on to the Mizbe'ach (Rebbi Shimon) or not (Rebbi Yossi).
(d) Avuhah di'Shmuel, who declared that the Minhag to replace Pok'in (limbs
that fell off the Mizbe'ach) on to the Mizbe'ach, does not conform with the
opinion of Rebbi Yossi - holds like the second opinion of Ula.
1. Rav Huna quotes the Pasuk "Va'yiven No'ach Mizbe'ach la'Hashem" - as
Rebbi Yossi's source for his ruling that a Bamas Yachid requires a Mizbe'ach
(b) The Torah writes ...
2. ... whereas Rebbi Yochanan quotes the Pasuk "Va'yikach Mano'ach es G'di
ha'Izim ... Va'ya'al al ha'Tzur la'Hashem" - as Rebbi Shimon's source for
his ruling that it does not.
1. ... "Va'yiven No'ach Mizbe'ach la'Hashem", according to Rebbi Shimon (not
because he had to do so, but) - because it was convenient.
(c) Alternatively, Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, extrapolates his ruling from
the Pasuk "Mizbe'ach Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - 've'Ein Mizbe'ach ba'Bamah'.
2. ... " ... Va'ya'al al ha'Tzur la'Hashem", according to Rebbi Yossi -
because it was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary ruling).
(d) We explain the continuation "Lefichach, He'elah al ha'Sela O al ha'Even
Chayav' (when it would have more sense to have said 'Yatza' - by amending it
to 'Lefichach, be'Sha'as Isur ha'Bamos, He'elah al ha'Sela ... Chayav'.
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asked - whether a Bamas Yachid requires
'Keren, Kevesh, Yesod and Rivu'a' (like the Mizbe'ach in the Mishkan did).
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah answered him with a Beraisa - which draws a distinction
between a Bamah Gedolah (where all of these are crucial), and a Bamah
Ketanah (where they are not).
(c) The Bamah Gedolah - was first in Nov, then in Giv'on.