Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 95

1) TEARING THE "ME'IL" IN ORDER TO PERFORM A MITZVAH

QUESTION: The Mishnah earlier (93b) states that the cleaning of a garment onto which Dam Chatas spilled must be done in the Beis ha'Mikdash ("b'Makom Kadosh"). The Mishnah here (94b) says that if a garment absorbed Dam Chatas and was then taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash, it must be brought back into the Beis ha'Mikdash to wash out the Dam Chatas. If the garment becomes Tamei while outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, then it must be torn so that it loses its Tum'ah by becoming unfit for its previous use. The Gemara asks what is to be done in a case in which the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol absorbs Dam Chatas, is taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and becomes Tamei? It is not permitted to tear the Me'il, as the Torah says, "Lo Yikare'a" -- "it shall not be torn" (Shemos 28:32). The Gemara answers that we hold the Me'il right outside of the Azarah and insert a small portion (less than three by three Etzba'os) of the Me'il into the Azarah and wash that small portion there, and then we repeat the process with the rest of the Me'il, inserting and cleaning only a small portion of the Me'il at a time.

From the fact that the Gemara mentions only the Me'il in its question, it appears that the prohibition against tearing applies only to the Me'il and not to the other Bigdei Kehunah. However, this contradicts the Gemara in Yoma (72a). The Gemara there says that the prohibition of "Lo Yikare'a" applies not only to the Me'il but to all of the Bigdei Kehunah! Why, then, does the Gemara here specifically ask only about the Me'il, implying that the question regarding the prohibition of tearing applies only to the Me'il?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:3, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:20) and the MINCHAS CHINUCH (101:1) cite the SEFER KORBAN CHAGIGAH (of the MAHARASH ALGAZI) who infers from the RAMBAM (in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash) that the prohibition against tearing Bigdei Kehunah besides the Me'il applies only to tearing the garment in a destructive manner (b'Derech Hashchasah). The Me'il, in contrast, may not be torn even in a constructive manner. Since we would be tearing the Me'il in this case in order to be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of washing out the Dam Chatas, it is considered to be tearing for a constructive purpose. This type of tearing is permitted for the other Bigdei Kehunah, but not for the Me'il. Therefore, the Gemara's question concerns only the Me'il.

The Mishneh l'Melech (in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash) concludes, however, that the logic of this distinction is incorrect. Although he does not explain why, it seems that he is troubled by the fact that the Sefer Korban Chagigah seems to be learning two completely different prohibitions from a single verse. If the verse says "Lo Yikare'a" and that Isur applies to all Bigdei Kehunah, then why should we differentiate between the Me'il and the other Bigdei Kehunah?

The Minchas Chinuch defends the approach of the Sefer Korban Chagigah. He says that perhaps our Gemara maintains that the verse applies only to the Me'il. The Isur of "Lo Yikare'a" prohibits tearing only the Me'il. That is why the Rambam rules that only the Me'il may not be torn for a constructive purpose. Nevertheless, the Rambam rules that it is prohibited to tear any of the Bigdei Kehunah in a destructive manner because of a different verse. The verse says, "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Hashem Elokeichem" (Devarim 12:4), which prohibits destroying any object of Kedushah (see Insights to Makos 22:1).

(The Minchas Chinuch writes that according to this, the Gemara here is arguing with the Gemara in Yoma, and the Rambam is ruling in accordance with the Gemara here.)

(b) However, the Minchas Chinuch argues that in the case of our Gemara, when the garment is torn in order to bring it into the Azarah to wash it, it cannot be considered to have been torn for a constructive purpose. It is true that the Mitzvah can be fulfilled only by tearing the garment. Nevertheless, the tearing is performed for the purpose of *destroying* the garment, so that it becomes unfit for use and is no longer Tamei! The immediate act of tearing is a destructive act, and thus it should be prohibited for all of the Bigdei Kehunah!

The Minchas Chinuch adds that even if it is true that the Rambam means that it is prohibited to tear the Me'il in a constructive manner, as opposed to the other Bigdei Kehunah, the Rambam (in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash) notes such a prohibition only with regard to the *mouth* (collar) of the Me'il. Accordingly, it should be permissible to tear the Me'il in a different place in order to make it Tahor, if such tearing is considered to be for a constructive purpose (and tearing for a constructive purpose is permitted).

Third, other Rishonim clearly argue with the Rambam. The RITVA in Yoma (72a) writes that it is equally prohibited to tear any of the Bigdei Kehunah.

The Minchas Chinuch therefore suggests that it is likely that the Gemara mentions only the Me'il simply because that is the garment for which the Torah explicitly expresses the prohibition against tearing. (This is also the conclusion of the Mishneh l'Melech in Hilchos Kil'ayim 9:11, the RADVAZ in Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:20, and the KEREN ORAH here.)

95b

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (93b) teaches that when the blood of a Korban Chatas becomes absorbed in a garment, it must be washed out. This applies only to the blood of a Chatas and not to the blood of other Korbanos. The Mishnah here (95b) teaches that when any Korban is cooked in a metal pot, the pot requires Merikah u'Shetifah before it may be used again. This Halachah is not limited to a Korban Chatas, even though it is written in the Torah immediately after the laws of washing Dam Chatas. This apparently is inferred from the words in the verse "Kodesh Kodashim Hi" (Vayikra 6:22), which imply that the requirement of Merikah u'Shetifah applies to all Kodshei Kodashim according to Rebbi Shimon, and even to Kodshim Kalim according to the Tana Kama.

What, though, is the Halachah with regard to the third Halachah mentioned in the Mishnah, the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres? When a Korban is cooked in an earthenware vessel (Kli Cheres), the vessel must be shattered. The Mishnah mentions only that Merikah u'Shetifah apply to all Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim. May we infer from here that breaking a Kli Cheres applies only to the Korban Chatas, or does it apply to other Kodshim as well?

(a) RASHI (93b, DH Zeh Chomer) explains that when the Mishnah says, "This is what is more stringent about a Chatas than other Kodshei Kodashim," it is referring only to Kibus, washing out Dam Chatas from a garment. According to Rashi, the Mishnah implies that this stringency does *not* apply to Sheviras Kli Cheres, but rather the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to other Korbanos as well. Rashi on the verse in Vayikra (6:21) writes clearly that a Kli Cheres that absorbs Kodshim must be broken, because the Korban that was absorbed becomes Nosar, and Rashi adds that this applies to all Kodshim. Therefore, when the Mishnah writes that Merikah u'Shetifah apply to other Kodshim, it also means that Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to other Kodshim.

Why does the Mishnah not mention explicitly that Sheviras Kli Cheres also applies to other Kodshim? Similarly, the Beraisa later (96b) says that Merikah u'Shetifah are more stringent than cleaning Dam Chatas that was absorbed, since Merikah u'Shetifah apply to all Kodshim, while the cleaning of a garment applies only to the blood of a Korban Chatas. Why does the Beraisa not relate to the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres?

The answer perhaps lies in what Rashi teaches here (DH Balu'a). Rashi writes that it is clear that if the taste of a Korban became absorbed in a Kli Cheres even without being cooked (Bishul) in the vessel (but rather by Iruy, pouring boiling water over the vessel), it is obvious that the Kli must be broken since the absorbed taste of the Korban will never be able to be removed from the walls of the Kli, and, consequently, when it becomes Nosar it will prohibit anything that is subsequently cooked in the Kli. That is why we must break a Kli Cheres that absorbed the taste of a Korban. According to this, it is clear why the Gemara does not need to discuss Sheviras Kli Cheres. The Kli Cheres must be broken when any Korban becomes absorbed in it, in order to prevent the Isur of Nosar from entering food that is subsequently cooked in the Kli. (According to this, even Rebbi Shimon of our Mishnah would agree that if Kodshim Kalim are cooked in a Kli Cheres, then the Kli must be broken.)

We may ask that if this is true, then why should the obligation of Merikah u'Shetifah also not apply to all Kodshim due to the same logic? Merikah u'Shetifah are necessary to remove the Isur of Nosar that became absorbed in a metal Kli so that it not enter food that is subsequently cooked in the Kli! Apparently, Rashi addresses this question in our Mishnah. Rashi explains that Merikah u'Shetifah involve more than simply cleaning and purging the Isur from the Kli. Rashi's source is the Gemara later (96b) which teaches that there are three ways in which Merikah u'Shetifah involve more than simply purging the Isur from the Kli. Abaye says that boiling water must be poured over the entire Kli and not just over the part of the Kli that was heated and absorbed the Korban. Purging would require that boiling hot water be poured only on the part of the Kli that became hot and absorbed the Isur. Rava explains that Merikah u'Shetifah must be done with water, and not with wine or diluted wine. Rabah bar Ula explains that Merikah u'Shetifah include an extra rinse in cold water, besides the boiling water which purges the Isur. These added requirements of Merikah u'Shetifah apply only to Kodshei Kodashim according to Rebbi Shimon, or to all Kodshim according to the Tana Kama (based on their respective ways of understanding the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv). However, none of these three differences between Merikah u'Shetifah and merely purging an Isur apply to a Kli Cheres. No cold water is used for a Kli Cheres, nor is even hot water used for a Kli Cheres, since a Kli Cheres is simply broken, because it is impossible to remove the absorbed Isur from the Kli in any manner. In addition, even if only part of the Kli absorbed the Isur, that part of the Kli must be removed in order to prevent the Isur from entering foods that are cooked in the Kli, and this effectively is Sheviras Kli Cheres, destroying the Kli and rendering it unusable.

However, we may still question Rashi's explanation. Sheviras Kli Cheres seems to entail more than simply breaking the Kli so that the Isur cannot be cooked into another food. We find that the Mishnah earlier (94b) teaches that the Kli must be broken in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why, then, does the Mishnah not say that Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to all Kodshim, in order to teach us that the Shevirah must be done "b'Makom Kadosh," in the Beis ha'Mikdash?

The answer seems to be that changing the place in which the Kli is broken does not change the *way* in which the Kli is broken. Since the Kli is broken in the same manner, the Mishnah could not discuss whether Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim. The Shevirah certainly applies to both. The Mishnah is only discussing whether Shevirah is done with Kodshim Kalim.

We may ask further on Rashi's explanation that if the Kli Cheres must be broken in either case in order that the Isur of Nosar not enter other foods, then why does the Torah need to tell us the law of Sheviras Kli Cheres altogether? It is obvious that a Kli Cheres must be broken! (The Torah should discuss only where the Shevirah must be done.) The answer is that it appears from the words of Rashi in Pesachim (30b, DH d'Midyasi) that the answer to this is that this verse in the Torah is the source that a Beli'ah cannot be Removed from a Kli Cheres and the Kli Cheres must be broken. (In Rashi here, DH Balu'a, the correct Girsa is "ha'Torah" and not "v'ha'Torah," since this verse is the source that Beli'ah cannot be removed from a Kli Cheres.)

(b) However, Rashi later on the Amud (DH Mateches) seems to say otherwise. The Gemara there says that the ovens in which the Korbanos were cooked were made out of metal, since if they were made out of Cheres they would have to be broken even though the Korbanos were not cooked directly on the Cheres and no part of the Korban was absorbed into the Cheres. Rashi explains that the Gemara thought that the oven would have to be broken since a spit holding a Korban Chatas was lowered into it and the Korban Chatas was cooked there. Why does Rashi mention Korban Chatas? It seems from Rashi that the Halachah that a Kli Cheres must be broken if a Korban is cooked in it applies only to a Korban Chatas! How can this be reconciled with the words of Rashi on the Mishnah (93b) where he writes that the requirement of Sheviras Kli Cheres is not a stringency of a Korban Chatas?

The answer to this might be that Rashi is writing that this Halachah applies to a Chatas only according to the suggestion of the Gemara there that a Kli Cheres must be broken if a Korban was cooked in it, even if it did not absorb any taste of the Korban. At this point in the Gemara, Rashi suggests that perhaps this Halachah will apply only to a Chatas, since the stringency has nothing to do with the Nosar that is absorbed in the Kli, and, therefore, it is more logical to compare it to the Halachah of Dam Chatas than to compare it to the Halachah of Merikah u'Shetifah, which involve removing a Beli'ah from a Kli. However, Rashi later (96a, DH Ela) writes that the Gemara's conclusion is that it is necessary to break a Kli only when it absorbed the taste of a Korban. If the Halachah of Shevirah applies only when taste is absorbed, then it is obvious that this will apply to all Korbanos, as Rashi writes (DH Balu'a).

Accordingly, when Rashi writes that the Halachah of Shevirah applies only to a Chatas, he is explaining only the Gemara's initial suggestion, and this is not then Gemara's view according to the Gemara's conclusion.

However, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:14) writes clearly that the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres applies only to a Korban Chatas that was absorbed in the Kli. Furthermore, he writes that if another Korban was absorbed in a Kli Cheres, then Merikah u'Shetifah are required.

This is perplexing. We know that what is absorbed in a Kli Cheres cannot be removed at all. How will it help to perform Merikah u'Shetifah on a Kli Cheres?

The RADVAZ explains (8:18) that the Rambam learns that Merikah u'Shetifah are not done in order to remove what is absorbed in the Kli, but rather to remove the fatty substances attached to the surface of the Kli. Accordingly, the Merikah u'Shetifah which the Rambam requires might be for the sake of permitting food that is held in the pot without being cooked (or heated) in the pot. (The Radvaz writes that what is absorbed in the pot is Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam and therefore it is permitted in the Beis ha'Mikdash, l'Chatchilah, in any case.)

In addition, the Rambam might mean that when the taste of a Korban is absorbed in a pot, the pot must be broken immediately after the food is eaten, as the Rambam writes elsewhere (8:14). A Kli Cheres which had another Korban cooked in it may not be used for other Korbanos; however, it is not necessary to break it immediately. It is necessary only to perform Merikah u'Shetifah and to remove the fats from the external surfaces immediately after its use.