(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 110

ZEVACHIM 110 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Hillel Yakov and Elisheva Tzipora Kagan. May they be blessed with a year of Berachah and joy, and may Hashem answer all of their prayers!


(a) What is the Nesech of ...
  1. ... a bull?
  2. ... a ram?
  3. ... a lamb?
(b) What does Rava now say, according to the opinion of the Rabbanan (who hold that placing the Ketores inside a K'li Shareis does not render it Kadosh), in a case where someone placed ...
  1. ... six Login into a K'li (for a bull), and then took out four, which he sacrificed ba'Chutz? Why is that?
  2. ... four Login into a K'li (for a ram), and then took out three ... ?
(c) Rav Ashi reinstates Abaye's explanation, establishing our Mishnah by Ketores P'nim. And he accepts his theory that the Rabbanan learn P'nim from Chutz. How does he reconcile it with the Beraisa, which does not learn even Chutz from Chutz (Nisuch from Haktarah)?
(a) We ask whether a Chesaron ba'Chutz is considered a Chesaron or not.
What do we mean by that?

(b) One side of the She'eilah is that seeing as, having left the Azarah, it is Pasul anyway, what difference does it make if it is Chaser, too.
What is the other counter-argument to that?

(a) What objection does Rabah bar Rav Chanan raise to Abaye's proof from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah exempting whoever brings a k'Zayis of Kometz or Levonah ... , unless he brings it all?

(b) How did Abaye's counter Rabah bar Rav Chanan's Kashya?

(c) How do we reject Abaye's proof anyway?

(d) And how do we reject the proof from the Seifa of the Mishnah 've'Chulan she'Chasru Kol-she'Hu Ve'hikrivan ba'Chutz, Patur'?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who sacrifices Kodshim together with their Eimurin ba'Chutz, is Chayav.
What problem do we have with that?

(b) Shmuel answers 'she'Hafchan'.
What does he mean by that?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say? Why will it not be a Chatzitzah according to him?

(d) Rav dismisses the problem of Chatzitzah with a principle.
Which principle?

(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who sacrifices a Minchah from which the Kemitzah has not been taken, from Ha'ala'as Chutz.
Why is that?

(b) What does the Tana say about a case where the Kometz fell into the Shirayim? Why?

(c) What problem do we have with the Mishnah's latter ruling?

(a) To answer the Kashya, we cite a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
What do we learn with regard to "Lo *Saktiru* Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" from "Ve'kamatz *Ve'hiktir*" (Haktaras Shirayim from Haktaras Kometz)?

(b) Why, in the latter case, is one Kometz not Mevatel the other?

(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, someone who sacrifices either the Kometz or the Levonah ba'Chutz is Chayav.
To which Korban is the Tana referring?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Eliezer exempt him unless he sacrifices both?

(c) In which case will he concede that he is Chayav?

(a) What are the two Bazichei (bowls of) Levonah?

(b) In which way are they comparable to the Kometz and the Levonah of a Minchah?

(c) What do Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim respectively, say with regard to someone who sacrifices one of the Bazichei Levonah ba'Chutz?

(a) What does Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha mean when he asks whether the Kometz will permit part of the Shirayim? What is the case?

(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) What makes us certain that Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha is not referring to ...

  1. ... Rebbi Meir (in Menachos), who holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'?
  2. ... the Rabbanan there, who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'?
  3. ... Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who holds that one is not Chayav on one Matir alone ba'Chutz?
(d) According to which Tana then, must he be presenting the She'eilah?

(e) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

Answers to questions



(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who performs one Matnas Dam ba'Chutz?

(b) Although this applies even to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, why might we have thought that it doesn't?

(c) What is the reason for this ruling, according to the Rabbanan?

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say about someone who pours water designated for Nisuch ha'Mayim, ba'Chutz?

(b) And Rebbi Nechemyah includes someone who pours Sheyarei ha'Dam, ba'Chutz in the Din of Ha'ala'as Chutz.
What is his reason?

(c) Rava maintains that Rebbi Elazar (who, in the previous Mishnah, required the burning of the entire Matir by Ha'ala'as Chutz), agrees with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, even with regard to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos.
Why is that?

(d) And he bases his statement on a Beraisa.
What do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon mean when they say 'mi'Makom she'Pasak Hu Maschil'?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Menachem Yudfa'ah, Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, who includes the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim in the Isur of Avodas Chutz, holds like his Rebbi Akiva.
What does Rebbi Akiva say about Nisuch ha'Mayim?

(b) How does he learn it from the Pasuk (written in connection with the Musaf on the sixth day of Succos) "Minchasah u'Nesachehah"?

(c) Resh Lakish queried Rebbi Yochanan. What made him think that one would only be Chayav ba'Chutz for pouring three Login?

(d) What do we mean when we ...

  1. ... reply 've'Ha Rebbi Elazar Mei ha'Chag ka'Amar'?
  2. ... when we say 've'Ha Rebbi Elazar be'Chag ka'Amar'? Which Kashya does this come to answer?
(a) What did ... Rebbi Yochanan say in the name of bar Nechunyah Ish Baka'as Beis Chorsan about 'Eser Neti'os, Aravah and Nisuch ha'Mayim'?

(b) What makes us say that Menachem Yudfa'a (see Tosfos DH 'Ishtemitseih') must have forgotten this latter statement?

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who pours out three Login of water on Succos ba'Chutz, is Chayav.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Machlokes by whether the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim has a Shiur or not.
What does he mean by that? What is then their Machlokes?

(c) On which principle is the Machlokes based?

(d) What in fact, did they used to do in the Beis-Hamikdash?

(a) According to Rav Papa, both Tana'im hold that the water has a Shi'ur (see Tosfos DH 'be'Karvu'), and the Machlokes depends upon whether Yisrael brought Nesachim in the desert or not (which will determine how to interpret the Pesukim in Sh'lach-Lecha, on which whether they brought Nesachim on a Bamah or not, hinges). How will this affect the principle of 'Im Alah Lo Yeired'?

(b) Assuming that, according to the Rabbanan, they brought Nesachim in the desert, and according to Rebbi Eliezer, they did not, how will this explain their Machlokes.
What exactly ...

  1. ... do the Rabbanan hold?
  2. ... does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(c) According to Ravina, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees that they brought Nesachim in the desert, which means that they poured Nesachim on a Bamas Yachid without Kidush K'li.
Why is this confined to Nisuch ha'Yayin, but does not pertain to Nisuch ha'Mayim?

(d) What is now the Machlokes? In which case are they arguing?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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