Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 87

1) THE EXTENT TO WHICH A "KLI SHARES" IS "MEKADESH" AN ITEM THAT IS "PASUL" TO BE OFFERED ON THE "MIZBE'ACH"

OPINIONS: The Gemara records a discussion between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether or not Klei Shares are Mekadesh items that are disqualified from being offered on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yochanan quoted our Mishnah (86a) which states that the Klei Shares are Mekadesh whatever is fit to be placed in them, which includes things that are Pasul. Reish Lakish responded that his question was whether or not these Pasul items that were placed in the Klei Shares may be offered l'Chatchilah. Rebbi Yochanan answered that we already learned this in the Mishnah as well, for the Mishnah earlier (84a) states that one of the things that are not brought down from the Mizbe'ach once they are placed there are Korbanos whose blood was received and sprinkled by Pesulim (people who are not qualified to perform the Avodah, such as a Zar or a Kohen who is Pasul). The Gemara refutes Rebbi Yochanan's proof by saying that the case of the Mishnah there is not that the blood was both accepted and sprinkled by Pesulim, but rather the Mishnah is referring to two separate cases; either the blood was accepted by Pesulim, or it was sprinkled by Pesulim.

What exactly did Rebbi Yochanan understand Reish Lakish to be asking in his first and second questions, and what were Rebbi Yochanan's answers?

(a) RASHI (DH Mahu through DH Iy Nami) explains that Rebbi Yochanan understood that Reish Lakish was asking whether or not a Korban that is Pasul, such as a Minchah that is Tamei, must be redeemed in order to remove its Kedushah, because it entered a Kli Shares. This question is based on the Mishnah in Menachos (100b) that says that a Minchah that is Tamei may be redeemed, but not if it became Tamei after it entered a Kli Shares. Rebbi Yochanan answered that our Mishnah says that a Kli Shares always gives Kedushah to that which is normally fit to be offered in a Kli Shares, which includes disqualified Korbanos. Reish Lakish then explained that his question was in fact whether or not the offered may be brought, l'Chatchilah, upon the Mizbe'ach once it (if the offering is a Minchah) or its blood (if the offering is an animal) was placed in a Kli Shares. Rebbi Yochanan answered that the offering may be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, although his proof was refuted by the Gemara, as mentioned above.

TOSFOS (DH Klei Shares) is perplexed by Rashi's explanation. Among other questions, Tosfos asks that according to Rashi, Rebbi Yochanan cited our Mishnah to prove that the limbs are not brought l'Chatchilah only when a person who was Pasul performed the Kabalah and Zerikah. This implies that if the Pasul only accepted the blood, then the limbs may be brought l'Chatchilah. There are many other cases in the Mishnah that involve a disqualified Korban with a Kohen performing both the Kabalah and Zerikah. In those cases as well, the Halachah is that they are not removed from the Mizbe'ach once they have been placed there. This implies that they should not be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, l'Chatchilah, even though a Kohen accepted and sprinkled the blood from a Kli Shares! How, then, could Rebbi Yochanan deduce that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh when a Pasul only accepts the blood, and ignore the rest of the cases in the Mishnah in which the Kli Shares does not allow one to bring the Korban to the Mizbe'ach, l'Chatchilah, even when a Kohen did all of the Avodah? (To understand Tosfos' second question on Rashi, see the difference of opinion between the TZON KODASHIM and the SHALOM RAV.)

Tosfos says that the only way to resolve these difficulties is to say that all of these cases do not involve a Kli Shares. However, for numerous reasons, Tosfos is still not satisfied with Rashi's explanation. One reason is that if Rebbi Yochanan originally understood Reish Lakish as asking about redeeming the Korban, and Reish Lakish wanted to tell him that he was referring to a totally different topic, then Reish Lakish should have said simply that he is asking about "offering the Korban" ("l'Karev"). Why does Reish Lakish add that he is asking about "*l'Chatchilah* l'Karev?" This implies that Rebbi Yochanan already understood that Reish Lakish was talking about offering the items on the Mizbe'ach (and not that he was originally asking about redeeming the items placed in the Kli Shares), but he simply did not understand that Reish Lakish was asking about a case of l'Chatchilah.

(b) Tosfos (ibid.) quotes RABEINU TAM who has an entirely different explanation of the Gemara. Rebbi Yochanan thought that Reish Lakish was asking about someone who brought a disqualified Korban onto the Mizbe'ach in a Kli Shares. He understood that the Korban could not have become Kadosh as a result of being in the airspace above the Mizbe'ach, because the bottom of the Kli Shares effectively separates the Korban from that Kedushah. However, he thought that Reish Lakish was inquiring whether a Kli Shares is unlike other vessels. Since a Kli Shares is itself Kadosh, perhaps it should not be considered a separation between the airspace of the Mizbe'ach and its contents, and therefore its contents should be able to stay on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yochanan answered from our Mishnah that the Kedushah of the Kli Shares itself can make the disqualified Korban become Kadosh. Reish Lakish responded that his doubt was actually based o this Mishnah. When the Mishnah says that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh anything which is appropriate for it, is it saying that because the Kli Shares is above the Mizbe'ach it therefore does not have to go down, or is it saying that even if the Kli Shares is not on the Mizbe'ach, it is Mekadesh its contents and they can now be brought on the Mizbe'ach? Rebbi Yochanan answered Reish Lakish from the Mishnah earlier (84a), which discusses a case of a Pasul "who accepted the blood and sprinkled the blood" (in the past tense), implying that it was done b'Di'eved. (Rabeinu Tam maintains that the fact that our Gemara says, "and Pesulin sprinkled it," does not mean that the word "Pesulin" is relevant to our discussion. This is in contrast to the explanation of Rashi, who says that this is the entire point of Rebbi Yochanan.) According to Rabeinu Tam, Rebbi Yochanan answered that the blood should definitely *not* be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah, as is implied by the Mishnah.

Tosfos points out that the same problem that he had with Rashi's explanation -- that Rebbi Yochanan seems to be ignoring the other cases in the Mishnah -- applies as well to Rabeinu Tam's explanation. Even according to Rabeinu Tam, we must say that the other cases, for some reason, are not discussing a Kli Shares. However, besides for the objections mentioned above, Rabeinu Tam's explanation has another important advantage. We find in Menachos (7a) that Reish Lakish asked this same question to Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Yochanan replied that the Klei Shares are not Mekadesh what is placed into them. According to Rabeinu Tam, this was indeed the answer that Rebbi Yochanan gave to Reish Lakish in our Gemara as well, unlike Rashi's explanation, according to which we are left with two different answers from Rebbi Yochanan. (Y. Montrose)

87b

QUESTION: The Gemara inquires whether an item that enters the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is considered as if it has rested on the Mizbe'ach. This question is relevant for an item for which the Halachah is that when it is placed upon the Mizbe'ach it should not be removed (84a). What is the Halachah when that item reaches the airspace of the Mizbe'ach (without being placed on the Mizbe'ach)? Must it now be left on the Mizbe'ach? The Gemara discusses this question at length.

Rav Ashi (88a) says that if one was carrying an item fit to be a Korban at the top of the Mizbe'ach, it definitely is considered to be on the Mizbe'ach already. Since the person himself is standing on and supported by the Mizbe'ach, the Korban is considered to be on the Mizbe'ach as well, even if the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is not like the Mizbe'ach. The question remains, though, in a case in which a Kohen extends a Korban over the airspace of the Mizbe'ach with a pole, without standing on the Mizbe'ach himself. In such a case, does the airspace of the Mizbe'ach make the Korban as if it is already on the Mizbe'ach itself? The Gemara does not resolve this question.

However, we find that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:12) rules that the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach, and he does not differentiate or elaborate with regard to whether or not this applies only in specific cases. This clearly shows that he rules in all cases that the airspace is akin to the Mizbe'ach. What is the source of the Rambam's ruling?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARI KURKAS answers that the Rambam finds in other, similar cases that the airspace of a place is considered like the place itself. Therefore, he rules that the same applies for the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam earlier (1:20) rules that if an animal was suspended in the airspace of the Azarah and the Kohen performed the Kabalas ha'Dam in the air, it is considered as though the Kabalah was performed in the Azarah, "because the airspace of the place is like the place." We know that the Gemara sometimes expresses a doubt about something in one place, while in another place it has no doubt. The Rambam understood from this Gemara that airspace is generally considered like the place itself. (See the additional explanation of the Mahari Kurkas, and the MISHNEH L'MELECH in Hilchos Shegagos 11:4, who cites many places in which the Rambam rules that airspace of the Azarah is like the Azarah.)

It seems that the logic of the Mahari Kurkas is also expressed by TOSFOS earlier (25b, DH Zos). The Gemara there says that we see that water that is in the airspace of a vessel is considered to be in the vessel before it actually enters the confines of the vessel's walls. Tosfos there asks, why does the Gemara here not bring that Gemara in order to answer that the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach itself? Tosfos leaves this question unanswered.

The KEHILOS YAKOV (#18) has great difficulty with Tosfos' question. The Gemara there is discussing an entirely different case than the Gemara here. The Gemara earlier is discussing water that is falling into a vessel. It is much easier to understand that water that will eventually and inevitably find itself inside the vessel is considered to be already in the vessel. In contrast, the Gemara here is discussing a person holding a Korban at the end of a pole over the airspace of the Mizbe'ach. There is no certainly that the Korban will fall or be placed onto the Mizbe'ach. How, then, could the Gemara here answer that something in the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is considered to be resting on the Mizbe'ach from the Gemara earlier?

Although the Kehilos Yakov has great difficulty with the comparison of the airspace of the Mizbe'ach to the airspace of a vessel, he understands that there could potentially be a proof for the case of our Gemara from a different case -- a case of the airspace of the Azarah. We know that the airspace of the Azarah is considered like the Azarah. The Kehilos Yakov explains that bringing a proof from the Azarah to the Mizbe'ach would depend on the underlying reason why the airspace of the Mizbe'ach would be considered like the Mizbe'ach. One possibility is that the airspace is considered Kadosh because it is as if it is resting on top of the Mizbe'ach. Since it is considered to be resting on top of the Mizbe'ach, it has Kedushah like the Mizbe'ach. Another possibility is that the airspace itself is considered Kadosh, even though it is not considered to be resting on top of the Mizbe'ach itself. If our question is whether or not the airspace has the same Kedushah as the Mizbe'ach, and we find that this is also true by the Azarah, one could say that the airspace of the Mizbe'ach has the same Kedushah as well. If the reason why the airspace should be considered like the Mizbe'ach is because it is considered to be resting on the Mizbe'ach, then we can bring a proof from the airspace of the Azarah, which is also considered to be resting on the Azarah itself and has the same Kedushah. However, if the reason why the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach is a different reason than why the airspace of the Azarah is like the Azarah, than we cannot bring a proof from the Azarah to the Mizbe'ach. The Kehilos Yakov later says that this very question is the subject of a dispute with regard to the airspace of the Azarah itself. (See the aforementioned Mishneh l'Melech, who also discusses at length whether the status of the airspace of the Azarah has any bearing on the status of the airspace of the Mizbe'ach.)

(b) The KESEF MISHNEH (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:12) answers that the Rambam actually has no specific source for his ruling. Rather, the Rambam is also in doubt as to the true nature of the Halachah, just as the Gemara concludes with a doubt. However, since we are unsure whether or not the airspace is considered like the Mizbe'ach, when an item actually enters the airspace of the Mizbe'ach we may not remove it from the Mizbe'ach, because perhaps the Halachah is that the airspace is like the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam is not ruling that the airspace is definitely like the Mizbe'ach. Rather, he is ruling that, in practice, we may not remove an item once it has entered the airspace of the Mizbe'ach, due to the doubt about the status of the airspace. (Y. Montrose)