(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 5

ZEVACHIM 5 - l'Iluy Nishmas Dina bas Reb Menachem Arye Bodner, dedicated in loving memory by her son and daughter in law, Naftoli (Tuli) and Alice Bodner of Queens, NY.


(a) What problem did Resh Lakish have with Korbanos that are Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo, that are sacrificed but whose owners are not Yotze?

(b) He presented this problem 'al Ma'ohi'.
What does this mean?

(c) Rebbi Elazar cited him a Mishnah in Kinin.
What does the Tana say there about a Yoledes who died after having brought ...

  1. ... her Chatas?
  2. ... her Olah?
(d) Why did Rebbi Elazar cite this Mishnah?
(a) Resh Lakish replied that he had no problem with an Olah, which is Kasher she'Lo li'Shemah, just as it is brought after the owner's death (as we just learned).
What *is* then his problem?

(b) How did Resh Lakish react when Rebbi Elazar, in support of his opinion, quoted Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who does indeed render an Asham Pasul, like a Chatas?

(c) So what did Resh Lakish gain by then quoting the Pasuk "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah?

(d) Why were Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba surprised at Resh Lakish's conclusion? How did they suggest the Pasuk might be interpreted?

(a) Abaye, who was sitting with Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba at the time, replied that Resh Lakish first learned from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Osah le'Chatas".
What did he extrapolate from there?

(b) How does Resh Lakish's previous D'rashah now fall into place?

(c) We suggest that the Pasuk by Chatas precludes Asham from the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah, whereas that of Neder and Nedavah precludes it from the Din of the owner not being Yotze.
How does Abaye refute this suggestion?
From which Korban does he learn a 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(d) How do we counter the Kashya ...

  1. ... 'Mah le'Olah she'Kein Kalil'?
  2. ... 'Mah li'Shelamim she'Kein Te'unin Nesachim u'Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok'?
(a) Why do we not include Semichah in the previous Kashya (together with Nesachim u'Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok')?

(b) So what do we currently conclude with regard to Asham?

(c) We ask on this 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' that whereas they are applicable to a Tzibur, an Asham is not.
Which Korban do we therefore add to the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh', which is not applicable to the Tzibur either, yet it is subject to the Din of she'Lo li'Shemah?

(d) We ask a Pircha on the Todah too, which we counter with 'Olah u'Shelamim Yochichu'.
Which Pircha do we ask?

Answers to questions



(a) What Pircha do we ask on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'?
What characteristic does Olah, Shelamim and Todah share that does not pertain to Asham?

(b) From which Hekesh does Rava ultimately learn the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah by Asham?

(c) Based on the principle of ' ... le'Chumra Makshinan' (whenever there is an option, we compare le'Chumra), why do we not rather learn Asham from Chatas, which is mentioned in the same Pasuk?

(a) What did Rav Huna and Rav Nachman mean when they asked why Rebbi Elazar did not answer Resh Lakish that an Asham, too, is brought after the owner's death?

(b) How did Rav Sheishes, who was sitting with Rav Huna and Rav Nachman at the time, query their Kashya (from Chatas)?

(c) They replied however, that the Torah writes "Chatas Hu".
Where does the Torah write this?

(d) What were they proving with that?

(a) Rav Sheishes asked further that by Asham too, the Torah writes in Tzav "Vehiktir Osam ha'Kohen ha'Mizbeichah ... Asham *Hu*". Rav Huna and Rav Nachman however, countered this Kashya with a Beraisa.
What comment did the Tana make with reference to this Pasuk?

(b) Why can "Hu" therefore not possibly come to teach us that she'Lo li'Shemo Pasul (like a Chatas)?

(c) Why did Rav Sheishes not query Rav Huna and Rav Nachman further from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Asham) "Kodesh Kodshim *Hu*"?

(a) We therefore conclude that "Hu" (in the Pasuk "Vehiktir Osam ha'Kohen ha'Mizbeichah ... Asham Hu") comes to teach us the ruling of Rav Huna Amar Rav, with regard to an Asham that is sent to the field to graze, and after obtaining a blemish, it is Shechted.
Why was it sent to the field to graze?

(b) What does Rav ...

  1. ... actually rule there?
  2. ... learn from the word "Hu"?
(a) Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes referred to Rebbi Elazar's response to Resh Lakish (proving from the Beraisa that animals are sometimes brought after the owner's death, even though they do not atone for the owner [such as the Olah of a Yoledes]).
What did Rav Ada bar Masna (who was sitting with them) counter when they asked why Resh Lakish did not reply that there too, her heirs should bring her Olah, and be atoned by it?

(b) Rav Ashi replied that perhaps she had committed many Mitzvos Asei.
So what if she had? What does that have to do with her Olah?

(c) And even assuming that she had (bearing in mind that there is nobody who does not sin), why should it now serve as an appeasement, seeing as she is no longer alive?

(d) For what does an Asei appease?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who dies, leaving behind a Minchah and two sons?

(b) What does he mean when he adds 've'Ein Bo Shutfus'? What difference would it make if there was?

(c) This is based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Nefesh Ki Sakriv Korban Minchah ... ".
What do we learn from the word "ve'Nefesh"?

(d) What problem does Rebbi Yochanan's ruling (which implies that sons do not acquire their father's Korban) create with that of Rav Ashi (that the deceased Yoledes' Olah will atone for her heirs' sins)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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