(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 74


(a) Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav discusses a ring of Avodah-Zarah that fell into a hundred rings, one of which then fell the Sea. What is a ring of Avodah-Zarah?

(b) He rules that all the remaining rings are permitted.
Why is that?

(c) What did Rava ask Rav Nachman on this from our Mishnah 'Afilu Achas be'Ribu Yamusu Kulan'?

(d) Like whom did Rav Nachman establish Rav, to answer Rava's Kashya?

(a) What is the reasoning behind Rebbi Elazar's statement that Rebbi Eliezer only permits the remaining heads to be brought two by two?

(b) How does Rav Nachman then reconcile Rav's previous ruling (which he himself just quoted) permitting all the rings S'tam?

(a) If a ring of Avodah-Zarah fell into a hundred rings and, after they rings were divided into groups of sixty and forty, one out of the group of forty fell into another batch of rings, why did Rav permit the latter batch?

(b) And why did he initially forbid the same batch of rings, assuming that it was one of the group of sixty rings from which the ring fell?

(c) What problem do we have with this latter ruling?

(d) So what distinction did Rav really make between the two groups?

(a) What would be the Din if for example, the forty separated from the sixty without falling into another batch of rings?

(b) Why is that?

(a) Shmuel disagrees with Rav's previous ruling.
What does he say about 'Safek and S'fek S'feika of Avodah-Zarah?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about a case where ...

  1. ... a cup of Avodah-Zarah that fell into a storeroom full of cups?
  2. ... one of those cups then fell into ten thousand cups, one of which fell into another ten thousand cups (see Tosfos DH 'Peirash')?
(c) How does Shmuel reconcile his opinion (forbidding even 'S'fek S'feika' by Avodah-Zarah) with this Beraisa?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, maintains that Rimonei Baden render forbidden even a 'Kol she'Hu', even in the case of S'fek S'feika.
Which Isur is he referring to?

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon is lenient in the case of S'fek S'feika.
What is the significance of Rimonei Baden in this Machlokes?

(c) What problem do we have in establishing Shmuel like Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) Why can we not answer that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon who agrees with Rebbi Yehudah with regard to Avodah-Zarah?

(a) So how do we finally solve the problem?

(b) When Rebbi Shimon permits S'fek S'feika by Rimonei Baden, the Lashon he employs is ' ... u'mi'Ribu li'Sheloshah, u'mi'Sheloshah le'Makom Acher'. Why must the pomegranate fall into three pomegranates, when two is already a Rov?

(c) Alternatively, Shmuel holds like Rebbi Eliezer.
What does Rebbi Eliezer say about bread that is baked in an oven that has been heated with wood from an Asheirah that twice got mixed up with other loaves? What does this teach us?

(d) This last answer might refer to Rebbi Shimon (and not to Shmuel).
What do we then mean by making him compatible with Rebbi Eliezer? Which statement of Rebbi Eliezer are we referring to anyway?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Resh Lakish say about a barrel of Terumah that became mixed up with a hundred barrels of ordinary wine, if one of them then fell into the sea?

(b) This ruling is synonymous with that of Rav Nachman Amar Rav regarding a ring of Avodah-Zarah.
Having taught us ...

  1. ... Rav's ruling, why is it necessary to add that of Resh Lakish?
  2. ... Resh Lakish's ruling, why is it necessary to add that of Rav?
(c) On what grounds does Rabah restrict Resh Lakish's ruling to a barrel of wine (but not to a fig)

(d) What does Rav Yosef say?

(a) What lenient ruling did Rebbi Elazar issue regarding a barrel of Terumah wine that fell into a hundred barrels of ordinary wine?

(b) What problem did Rav Nachman have with this ruling when Rav Dimi told him about it?

(c) How did he therefore amend the initial statement?

(a) In a case where a barrel of Terumah wine became mixed up with a hundred and fifty barrels of ordinary wine, and a hundred of those barrels were subsequently opened, what did Rebbi Oshaya say vis-a-vis ...
  1. ... the hundred barrels?
  2. ... the remaining fifty barrels?
(b) What is the Chidush? What might we otherwise have thought?
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if Zevachim became mixed up with Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah ... or T'reifah, 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu'.
What problem do we have with 'T'reifah'?

(b) de'Bei Rebbi Yanai establishes our Mishnah by where the Korban was pierced by a thorn, and the T'reifah animal, by a wolf. How far did the holes penetrate?

(c) Why is the former not a Ba'al-Mum anyway?

(a) According to Resh Lakish, the T'reifah animal fell down from a roof (and its T'reifus cannot be detected externally).
What then is the case? At which stage did they Shecht the animal?

(b) Why did they not examine the animal by seeing if it stood up by itself or even walked?

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes 'T'reifah' by the baby of a T'reifah, according to Rebbi Eliezer.
What does Rebbi Eliezer say about the baby of a T'reifah?

(d) Why do ...

  1. ... Resh Lakish and Rebbi Yirmiyah reject Rebbi Yanai's answer?
  2. ... Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yirmiyah reject Resh Lakish's answer?
  3. ... Rebbi Yanai and Resh Lakish reject Rebbi Yirmiyah's answer?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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