(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 31

ZEVACHIM 31-33 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


(a) In a case where the Kohen said 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano, Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Mekomo, va'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano', Rava rules 'Va'yikatz ke'Yashein ha'Pigul'.
With which principle is this synonymous?

(b) What does he mean by that? According to which Tana does he go, Rebbi Yehudah or the Rabbanan?

(c) What is the reason for this?

(d) What does Rav Hamnuna say?

(a) Rava proves his point from a Mishnah in Taharos. What does the Tana say in a case of a k'Beitzah Ochel Rishon and a k'Beitzah Ochel Sheini ...
  1. ... that were mixed together, and that then came into contact with food?
  2. ... that were mixed together, but that then became separated, before one of the halves came into contact with food?
(b) Rava's proof is from the Tana's ruling there that, should both halves fall together into a food, they render it a Rishon, which he derives from the Seifa.
The Tana draws a distinction in the Seifa between where the two halves fall on a Terumah loaf independently ('ba'Zeh Achar Zeh'), and where they both do so simultaneously.
What is the definition of 'ba'Zeh Achar Zeh'? What is the real difference between the two cases?

(c) What distinction does the Tana draw between them?

(d) What does Rava now prove from there?

(a) On what grounds does Rav Hamnuna refute Rava's proof? What makes the Mishnah in Taharos different?

(b) Rav Hamnuna proves his point from another Mishnah there - 'ha'Ochel she'Nitma be'Av ha'Tum'ah, ve'she'Nitma bi'Velad ha'Tum'ah'.
What exactly happened there?

(c) Since when is a food that is less than a k'Beitzah subject to Tum'ah anyway?

(a) What does the Tana rule there?

(b) What is then Rav Hamnuna's proof from there?

(c) How does Rava refute it?

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted a Beraisa that he heard from bar Kapara.
What does the Beraisa say about 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Mekomo, ve'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano'?

(b) Why is that?

(c) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited bar Kapara's Beraisa differently. How did he cite it?

(d) What would the Tana hold in Rav Dimi's case?

(a) According to Rav Ashi, bar Kapara's Beraisa reads 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano, u'k'Zayis, Chetzyo Chutz li'Mekomo, ve'Chetzyo Chutz li'Zemano, Pigul'.
What is the reason for that?

(b) Like which of the above Amora'im does Rav Ashi hold?

(c) What does Rebbi Yanai extrapolate from the Pasuk in Melachim "ve'es Izevel Yochlu ha'Kelavim"?

(a) We query Rebbi Yanai however, from the Pasuk in Iyov "Tochlehu Eish Lo Nufach".
What can we learn from there?

(b) Based on our Mishnah 'Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis, Kasher', what problem does this create with Rebbi Avahu's ruling?

(c) How do we solve the problem.
In which case would 'Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis' render the Korban Pigul?

(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the Kohen has in mind that two different people should eat the Korban after the allotted time.
What are the two sides to the She'eilah?

(b) We resolve Rav Ashi's She'eilah from the same Mishnah that we just cited 'Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis Kasher ... '.
What can we extrapolate from there that will do that?

Answers to questions



(a) Rava asked what the Din will be if the Kohen had in mind to eat a k'Zayis she'Lo bi'Zemano over a longer period of time than a 'K'dei Achilas P'ras' (the time it takes to eat three cooked eggs).
What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b) How do we know that Achilas Gavohah is not restricted to a 'K'dei Achilas P'ras'?

(c) Abaye tries to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Le'echol ke'Chatzi Zayis u'Le'Haktir Chatzi Zayis', 'Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Mitztaref'.
What does he extrapolate from there, that will do that?

(d) On what grounds do we refute Abaye's proof?

(a) We extrapolate from the same piece of Mishnah 'Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol Mitztaref'.
What is the problem with that?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah answers by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi Eliezer. What does Rebbi Eliezer hold?

(c) What does Rebbi Eliezer say in the Mishnah in the next Perek with regard to someone who Shechts a Korban with the intention of eating a part of the animal that is not normally eaten or with the intention of burning part of the animal that is normally burned, 'Chutz li'Mekomo O Chutz li'Zemano'?

(d) How does Abaye amend the inference, to establish the Mishnah even like the Rabbanan?

(a) What basic problem do we have with Abaye's version?

(b) We already know from the Reisha of our Mishnah that 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol combines, and by inference, that 'Le'echol, ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol' does not.
How would we then learn 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir' from there?

(c) How do we answer the Kashya? Why does the Tana nevertheless need to teach us 'Le'echol u'Le'haktir'?

***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Zevachim she'Kiblu Daman' *****

***** Perek Kol ha'Pesulin *****


(a) What does our Mishnah say about the Shechitah of Kodshim which is performed by Zarim, Nashim, Avadim and Temei'im? Does this concession extend even to Kodshei Kodshim?

(b) Why is that?

(c) Under what condition do we permit a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim?

(d) What Chumra results from this leniency?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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