(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 42

ZEVACHIM 41-43 - 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) The Beraisa restricts the Din of one Matanah being Mefagel, to the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, but that will not be the case with regard to the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
How many such cases are there?
(b) How does the Tana arrive at ...
  1. ... the forty-three Matanos of Yom ha'Kipurim (given the eight in the Kodesh Kodashim [towards the lid of the Aron] and the eight in the Heichal [towards the Paroches] of both the Par and the Sa'ir)?
  2. ... the eleven Matanos of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur?
(c) Rebbi Meir says 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein bi'Shelishis', Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'.
What do the Chachamim say?

(d) What does Rebbi Meir mean by 'bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein bi'Shelishis'?

(a) What problem does this Beraisa create with Resh Lakish's current statement?

(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Avin establishes that the Kohen was Mefagel by the Shechitah.
What does this mean? What is the case?

(c) So what if he was? How does that answer the Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(d) What problem do we now have with the Rabbanan?

(a) Rava establishes the author as Rebbi Elazar. According to the Rabbanan in a Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh', one is Chayav for bringing a k'Zayis ba'Chutz of the Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or Minchas Nesachim.
What does Rebbi Elazar say? Why is that?

(b) What will Rebbi Elazar hold in a case where he brought the bulk of the Korban bi'Fenim, and the last k'Zayis ba'Chutz?

(c) How does that explain the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir?

(d) We query this from Rava however, who maintains that even Rebbi Elazar will agree that if the Kohen sprinkled one of the above three bloods ba'Chutz he will be Chayav.
Why is that?

(a) Rava therefore (retracts from Rav Yitzchak's answer ['Kgon she'Pigeil bi'Shechitah'] and) tries to establish Rebbi Meir (in the Beraisa currently under discussion) when the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul by the first and third sets of Damim, but not by the second.
What is then the Chidush? What might we have otherwise thought?

(b) In which point do? the Chachamim then disagree with Rebbi Meir?

(c) Rav Ashi refutes Rava's explanation however, on the grounds of 'Midi Shasak Katani'?
What does he mean by that?

(a) Rav Ashi himself therefore tries to establish Rebbi Meir, when he was Mefagel by the first three sets of Matnos Damim, but not by the fourth (see Tosfos DH 'K'gon').
What is the fourth set of Damim?

(b) What is then the Chidush?

(c) How do we refute Rav Ashi's explanation?

(d) So what is finally Rebbi Meir's reason?

Answers to questions



(a) On what S'vara can Pigul not take effect 'ad she'Yikrevu Kol Matirav'?

(b) Based on this principle, what is the problem now that we ascribe Rebbi Meir's ruling to 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'?

(c) Why is this not a problem according to those who established the Beraisa by Pigeil bi'Shechitah (or according to the Rabbanan who require a Machsheves Pigul by all the parts of the Zerikah)?

(a) Rabah establishes the case by four Parim or four Se'irim. What does he mean by that?

(b) How do we now explain Rebbi Meir 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah ... Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'?

(c) But is this not the opinion of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who hold that if the blood spills, the Kohen brings another Par (or Sa'ir) and continues where he left off?

(a) Rava (or Abaye) establishes the Beraisa even by one Par and one Sa'ir, because 'le'Pigulo Meratzeh'.
What does he mean?

(b) The Tana of the current Beraisa refers to forty-three Matanos.
How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa which refers to ...

  1. ... forty-seven Matanos?
  2. ... forty-eight Matanos?
(a) What does the Tana of another Beraisa mean when he says 'ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch'?

(b) Which Avodah *is* the Levonah subject to?

(c) The Chachamim go on to say 'Nasan es ha'Kometz be'Machshavah ve'es ha'Levonah bi'Shesikah, O es ha'Kometz bi'Shesikah ve'es ha'Levonah be Machshavah, Ein Chayavin Alav Kareis'.
Why is that?

(d) What does Rebbi Meir say? Why is this a Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(a) How do we try to amend the Lashon ' ... ve'es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah', to reconcile the Beraisa with Resh Lakish?

(b) What objection do we raise to that?

(c) How does another Beraisa word the same ruling which renders our amendment impossible?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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