(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 112

ZEVACHIM 111-112 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.



(a) We explained in our Mishnah why, in the Reisha (in the case of one Kos), 'ba'Chutz ve'Chazar ve'Nasan bi'Fenim' is Chayav. The reason that he is Chayav in the case of 'bi'Fenim Ve'he'elan ba'Chutz', despite the fact that the blood that remains is only Shirayim is - because the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Nechemyah (a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Nechemyah).

(b) And we reconcile this with the Seifa (in the case of two Kosos), where the Tana rules 'Echad bi'Fenim ve'Echad ba'Chutz, Patur', by establishing it like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who holds in a similar case, that one cup renders the other one Dachuy (rejected).

(c) This latter Machlokes (which we already quoted in 'Kol ha'Pesulin') concerns a case where the Kohen received the blood of a Chatas in four cups - and then performed all four Matanos from one of the cups.

(a) The Tana compared the case of two cups to the case of someone who finds the Chatas that became lost after he had already designated a second one. The problem with that is - why this is necessary? What is it coming to teach us?

(b) And we answer by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi, who draws a distinction between the case in our Mishnah - where the animal that was designated after the first one got lost, must die, once the original one is found, and a case where the owner originally designated two Chata'os - where once one of them is brought on the Mizbe'ach, the second one becomes an Olah.

(c) This does not mean that it is actually brought as an Olah - but that it is set free in the field ('Nitak le'Re'ayah') until it becomes blemished, and then sold, and the proceeds are used to purchase an Olah.

(a) Nevertheless, it is only Kasher because of a statement by Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said - 'Asham she'Nitak le'Re'ayah, ve'Shachto S'tam, Kasher'.

(b) And since the second animal is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach Bedieved, that, in the case of two Chata'os, Rebbi renders him Chayav for the Shechitah of the second Chatas ba'Chutz (like the Din of 'Im Alah Lo Yeired').

(c) And we can only compare the second Chatas to the Asham of Rav Huna Amar Rav, which is a male animal - because the Tana is talking about the Sa'ir of a Chatas Nasi, which is a male animal too.

(a) According to the Rabbanan - there would be no difference in the case of two Chata'os, whether the owner originally designated them together or where he designated the second one only after the first one got lost. Either way, we will apply the Din of 'Yir'eh', in which case, the second animal is Kasher Bedieved, and someone who Shechts it ba'Chutz will be Chayav.

(b) And the reason that the Mishnah finds it necessary to insert the case of two Chata'os here is - to establish the Limud from two Kosos, like Rebbi.

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh ****

***** Perek Paras Chatas *****


(a) Our Mishnah rules that someone who Shechted a Paras Chatas or the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, ba'Chutz - is Patur.

(b) The Tana extrapolates this from the Pasuk (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - which implies that it is fit to bring to the Ohel Mo'ed (which *they* are not, though we will query this with regard to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtaleach later).

(c) And from the Pasuk there "Lehakriv Korban Lifnei Mishkan Hashem" he learns that a Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzeh, Ne'evad, Mechir Kelev and Esnan Zonah - are not subject to Shechitas Chutz either.

(d) The other three Pesulim that are contained in the Tana's list are - Kil'ayim, Tereifah and Yotzei Dofen.

(a) One is not Chayav for Shechting a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a, and according to the Tana Kama - one is not Chayav on a Ba'al-Mum Over, either.

(b) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama - on the grounds that a Ba'al-Mum Over is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, albeit at a later stage. Consequently, he says, he may not be Chayav Kareis, but he has transgressed a Lo'Sa'aseh.




(a) The Tana Kama rules that someone who Shechts 'young' pigeons and 'old' doves is - Patur.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon - he has transgressed a Lo Sa'aseh, but is not Chayav Kareis (or a Chatas).

(c) The Mishnah refers to Mechusar Z'man (which means bringing the Korban prematurely, and), which incorporates - both from the point of view of the animal (before it is eight days old) and of the owner, as we shall explain shortly.

(d) The same Tana'im repeat the same Machlokes with regard to someone who Shechts (the second of) Oso ve'es B'no or Mechusar Z'man ba'Chutz - the Tana Kama holds Patur, Rebbi Shimon, that he has transgressed only a La'av.

(a) We just cited Rebbi Shimon (who holds that even though all cases of Mechusar Z'man do not carry a Chiyuv Kareis, they are subject to a La'av). The Rabbanan maintain - that wherever there is no Kareis, there is no La'av either.

(b) 'Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim' refers to - a Zav, Zavah or a Yoledes who brought their respective Korbanos prematurely (the first two during the days of counting, the third during her days of Taharah).

(c) The Tana rules that - if a Zav ... brings his Chatas ve'Asham ba'Chutz prematurely, he is Patur, whereas if he brings his Olah u'Shelamim ba'Chutz, he is Chayav ...

(d) ... because if they were to send the latter as a Nadavah through a Sheli'ach, they would be acceptable, whereas the former would not.

(a) The Tana rules that someone who brings Basar Kodshim or Kodshim Kalim, Mosar ha'Omer, Sh'tei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim or Sheyarei Menachos, ba'Chutz - is Patur.

(b) Having already listed Basar Chatas and Asham, when the Tana mentions 'Kodshei Kodshim' independently, he is referring to the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur.

(c) The Tana also rules that a Kohen who pours oil on the Minchah, breaks up the Minchas Ma'afeh-Tanur, mixes the flour and the oil, salts, waves of brings the Minchah to the Mizbe'ach, arranges the Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, prepares the Menorah in the morning, takes a Kemitzah or receives the blood of a Korban, ba'Chutz - is Patur, as well.

(d) All those mentioned in both of the above lists are not subject to the strict punishment of Zarus, Tum'ah, Mechusar Begadim or performing them without the Kohen washing his hands. A Zar is Patur from ...

1. ... the first list (the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim ... ) - because all of them eaten (and whatever is not fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach bi'Fenim is Patur Bachutz).
2. ... the second list (ha'Yotzek, ve'ha'Bolel ... ') - because a Zar is only Chayav for an Avodah which is final (but not for one which is followed by other Avodos).
(e) We learn she'Lo Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim from Mechusar Begadim regarding the previous Halachah - and Mechusar Begadim from the Din of Zar (since that is what a Kohen Mechusar Begadim who performs the Avodah is compared to).
(a) When the Torah writes (with regard to the Korbanos that were brought prior to Matan Torah) "Va'yishlach es Na'arei B'nei Yisrael", it is referring to - the Bechoros.

(b) The two major changes that took place regarding the Avodas ha'Korbanos when the Mishkan was erected were - a. that private Bamos became forbidden and b. the Kohanim took over the Avodah from then on.

(c) Kodshei Kodshim where then eaten - within the hangings of the Azarah, and Kodshim Kalim, anywhere within Machaneh Yisrael.

(a) When they arrived in Gilgal, Bamos became permitted once more, and Kodshei Kodshim had to be eaten within the hangings. The Tana is talking about - the Bamas Tzibur, because on a Bamas Yachid one could only bring Nedarim and Nedavos, and the only Kodshei Kodshim that were brought as a Neder or Nedavah was an Olah (which was not eaten).

(b) The only Nidar ve'Nidav that was not sacrificed on the Bamah was - a Minchah.

(c) And Kodshim Kalim could now be eaten anywhere - (even though the Mishkan was still standing) - because seeing as that were no longer located in one spot, the concept of Machaneh Yisrael no longer applied.

(d) The Tana could not inform us where Ma'aser Sheini was eaten during the era of Gilgal - because Ma'asros only came into effect after they had captured and distributed the land (which is when the era of Gilgal came to an end).

(a) The era of Gilgal lasted - fourteen years, until they had conquered and distributed the land, fourteen years later. It was succeeded by the era of Mishkan Shiloh.

(b) The Torah refers to Mishkan Shiloh as - 'Nachalah'. The structure of Mishkan Shiloh was unusual - in that although it comprised a stone building, instead of a roof, it had only curtains.

(c) They now ate ...

1. ... Kodshei Kodshim - within the hangings of the Azarah.
2. ... Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini - within any point from which one could see Shiloh.
(d) The period following Shiloh was - that of (first) Nov and (then) Giv'on - where exactly the same Halachos applied as those that applied in Gilgal (except that there, Ma'aser Sheini must be added to Kodshim Kalim).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei ...
1. ... "Ki Lo Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah ... Lo Sa'asun ke'Chol Asher Anachnu Osin Poh Imanu ha'Yom ... Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav" - that once they arrived in Gilgal, they would be permitted to bring only what was voluntary (i.e. Nedarim and Nedavos).
2. ... "Vi'yeshavtem ba'Aretz ... Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom Asher Tir'eh" - that once they had conquered and distributed the land, they would be forbidden to build private Bamos once more.
(b) What caused the destruction of Shiloh - was the capture of the Aron by the P'lishtim in the days of Eli.

(c) We know that, after the destruction of Shiloh , the Bamah Gedolah was situated in Nov - because Achimelech (the Kohen Gadol), informed David Hamelech that the only bread they had was the Lechem ha'Panim, a clear indication that the Shulchan (and therefore the Menorah, too) was there.

(d) It was moved to Giv'on - after Shaul had all its Kohen inhabitants killed.

(a) The Torah refers to Shiloh as 'Menuchah'. When it writes 'Nachlah' - it is referring to Yerushalayim.

(b) Once Yerushalayim was chosen - Bamos became forbidden forever.

(c) Kodshim Kalim were now eaten - within the walls of Yerushalayim.

(a) Kodshim that are sacrificed ba'Chutz during the period when Bamos are forbidden, assuming that they are sanctified during the period of ...
1. ... Isur Bamos - are subject to Kareis, a La'av ("Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh ... ") and an Asei ("Ve'hevi'um la'Hashem").
2. ... Heter Bamos - are subject to the La'av and the Asei (but not to the Kareis).
(b) Whereas Kodshim that are sanctified during the period that Bamos were permitted and sacrificed when they are forbidden - are only subject to the Asei (which one has contravened by not sacrificing them when one could have).
(a) The Mishnah rules - that Korbanos that were sanctified for the Mishkan (whilst it was standing in Gilgal) - must be brought in the Mishkan (and not on a Bamah).

(b) This pertains to Korbenos Tzibur S'tam. But Korbenos Yachid ...

1. ... S'tam - may be brought on a Bamah.
2. ... which one sanctified specifically for the Mishkan - must be brought in the Mishkan.
(c) When the Tana adds 've'Im Hikrivam be'Bamah, Patur' - he means that one is Patur from the punishments of Shechutei Chutz, though he will have contravened the La'av in Ki Seitzei "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor Ve'asisa" (for breaking his word).
(a) The Tana lists the various distinctions between a Bamas Yachid and a Bamas Tzibur. After Semichah, Shechitas Tzafon and Sh'tei Matanos she'Hein Arba, he adds two that pertain to Menachos - Tenufah and Hagashah.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the last two - inasmuch as, in his opinion, there is no Minchah at all on a Bamah.

(c) To the above list that applies exclusively to a Bamah Gedolah, the Tana adds Kehunah, Bigdei Shareis, Re'ach Nicho'ach, Mechitzah le'Damim and Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim. By ...

1. ... 'Re'ach Nicho'ach', he means - to preclude limbs that have been roasted before being placed on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... 'Mechitzah le'Damim' - he means to preclude the Chut ha'Sikra that divided between the Haza'os of the Chata'os, and the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Olah.
(d) The Mishnah's final ruling is - that Z'man (Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano), Nosar and Tamei pertain equally to both categories of Bamah.
Next daf


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