(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 39

ZEVACHIM 36-40 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff


(a) How do we reconcile the current Beraisa (Damim ha'Te'unin Yesod ... Te'unin Kibus ... ') with another Beraisa, which precludes Shirayim and Haktaras Eimurim from Machsheves P'sul?

(b) Then why does the Tana say 'Te'unin Yesod', seeing as the three Matanos require placing on the Keren?

(c) But Rav Papa ruled before (regarding those three Matanos) 'Lo Sharya, ve'Lo Mefagla ve'Lo Ayla le'Gava'i ke'Sofan'.
So how do we re-establish the earlier Beraisa?

(d) What problem do we then have with the Seifa 've'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah Ein Te'unin Kibus, ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles Bahen, ve'ha'Ma'aleh Bahen ba'Chutz Patur'? What should the Tana have rather said?

(a) We answer by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Nechemyah, who holds 'Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz, Chayav'.
So what if he is? How does this answer the Kashya?

(b) Going back to the Mishnah in Dam Chatas 'min ha'Keren u'min ha'Yesod Eino Ta'un Kibus', from which Rav Papa extrapolated 'Ha min ha'Ra'uy le'Keren, Ta'un Kibus' (on which we asked from 'min ha'Yesod ... ', where we cannot make the same inference).
How does Ravina establish 'min ha'Yesod ... ', to answer this Kashya?

(c) Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza asked Ravina why we cannot interpret the Reisha too, to mean 'Ra'uy le'Keren' (like the Seifa means 'Ra'uy li'Yesod').
How would this interpretation affect Rav Papa?

(d) What did Ravina reply?

Answers to questions



(a) The Torah writes in Parshas Vayikra (in connection with the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) "Ve'asah la'Par Kasher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas".
What does "Par ha'Chatas" refer to?

(b) What is the problem with this Pasuk?

(c) Why can we not answer that the Hekesh comes to include the burning of the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, which the Torah does not mention by the Par He'elam Davar?

(d) So why doe the Torah write "Ve'asah la'Par ... "?

(a) And what do we learn from "Kein Ya'aseh Lo"?

(b) From the word "(Kein Ya'aseh) le'Par", the Tana includes the Par (of the Chatas ha'Tzibur) of Yom Kipur.
What does he learn from ...

  1. ... "(Ka'asher Asah) le'Par"?
  2. ... "ha'Chatas"?
(c) If the Tana incorporates the Par Kohen Mashi'ach in the current Din (of Ikuv Matnosav), regarding which Halachos does he include the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim?

(d) On the other hand, what does he preclude from the word "(Kein Ya'aseh) Lo"?

(a) On what grounds does the Tana include Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim, and preclude the Se'irei Yom-Tov and Rosh Chodesh (and not vice-versa)?

(b) The Beraisa goes on to preclude the Semichah from deterring the Korbanos in question, from "Ve'chiper".
What does he preclude from "Ve'nislach"?

(c) Why might we have thought otherwise?

(d) Why does the Tana see fit to include the Haza'os and to preclude Semichah and Shirayim? why does he not Darshen the other way round?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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