POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 15
ZEVACHIM 11-15 - 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.
1) "HOLACHAH" WITHOUT WALKING (cont.)
(a) (Ula): Holachah without walking is not considered
2) NECESSARY "HOLACHAH"
(b) Question: (According to Chachamim,) if a Kosher Kohen
redoes the Holachah while walking, is the Korban Kosher?
(c) Answer (Mishnah): If a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave
it to a Pasul, he returns it to the Kosher Kohen.
1. Even if this means that the Kosher Kohen takes it
back, it shows that the Holachah can be fixed!
(d) Rejection: If the Pasul was closer to the Mizbeach (than
the Kohen that did Kabalah), this would indeed be a
1. However, perhaps the Pasul was further from the
Mizbeach (so giving it to him was not Holachah at
(e) (Ula): Holachah without walking is Pasul.
1. (Since he already taught that is not considered
Holachah,) this means that it cannot be fixed.
(f) Question (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If blood fell from the
vessel on the floor and it was gathered, it is Kosher
(even though when it spills, some if it spreads out
towards the Mizbeach, i.e. Holachah without walking!)
(g) Answer: No, the case is, none of the blood spread towards
(h) Question: Surely, it spreads in all directions!
(i) Answer #1: No, it fell on an incline.
(j) Answer #2: It fell in a crevice.
(k) Answer #3: The blood was very thick, virtually congealed,
it did not spread at all.
(l) Objection #1: It is unreasonable to say that the Tana
taught about such unusual cases!
(m) Objection #2 (Mishnah): If blood fell (straight from the
animal) onto the floor and it was gathered, it is Pasul.
1. If in a normal case (when blood spilled from the
vessel and some spread towards the Mizbeach) it is
Pasul, the Tana should have taught this case instead
(to distinguish between ways the blood spreads,
rather than distinguishing whether it fell from the
animal or the vessel, which is a smaller Chidush)!
(n) R. Shimon and Chachamim (explicitly argued about whether
or not improper intention in Holachah is Posel, they
also) argue about whether or not Holachah without walking
is considered Holachah.
2. Ula is refuted.
1. All agree that improper intention is Posel in major
Holachah (the Kabalah was far from the Mizbeach,
Holachah through walking is needed);
(o) Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael laughed at this - if so,
according to R. Shimon, how does improper intention Posel
Haza'ah of Chatas ha'Of (shaking the bird to fling the
blood towards the Mizbeach - we know that all agree that
it is Posel)?!
2. They argue about minor Holachah (the Kabalah was
right by the Mizbeach, no walking is needed -
Chachamim say that improper intention is Posel, R.
Shimon says that it is not).
1. If the intention was before the blood left the neck,
this has no effect!
(p) (Rav Papa): They laughed because R. Shimon and Chachamim
argued about major Holachah (R. Shimon is Machshir
because one could have avoided it)!
2. If the intention was after the blood left the neck,
the Mitzvah was finished (surely, it has no effect)!
3. Rejection: Perhaps he had improper intention while
it was in the air, for truly, the Mitzvah is not
finished until the blood reaches the Mizbeach!
i. Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a Kohen was Mazeh
and he became blemished before the blood
reached the airspace of the Mizbeach, what is
ii. Answer (R. Zeira): It is Pasul.
iii. Question: What is the reason?
iv. "V'Hizah...V'Nasan" - the Haza'ah is completed
when the blood reaches the Mizbeach.
(q) Version #1: Rather, all agree that minor Holachah is
Posel (because it is indispensable);
(r) Version #2: Rather, all agree that minor Holachah is not
Posel (because it is not considered Holachah) (end of
1. They argue about major Holachah.
(a) (Benei R. Chiya or R. Yanai): If a Zar did Holachah and a
Kohen took it back and repeated the Holachah, it is
(b) (The other of Benei R. Chiya and R. Yanai): It is Pasul.
1. They argue whether or not Holachah of a Zar can be
(c) (Rav Simi bar Ashi): If a Kohen did Holachah and a Zar
took it back and repeated the Holachah - the opinion that
said Kosher (above) will Posel here (because he considers
the final Holachah to be primary), the opinion that was
Posel will Machshir here (because he considers the first
Holachah to be primary).
(d) (Rava): No, all agree that this is Pasul.
(e) Question: What is the reason?
(f) Answer: Once the blood was taken back, it is now
necessary to do Holachah.
(g) (R. Yirmeyah): R. Eliezer and Chachamim argued about
***** PEREK KOL HA'ZEVACHIM SHE'KIBELU ****
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Holachah where it is
necessary (if done with improper intention) is Posel
a Korban, Holachah where it is unnecessary does not.
(h) Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Holachah where
it is necessary is Posel a Korban:
2. (Rava): All agree that Holachah towards the Mizbeach
is considered necessary, Holachah away from the
Mizbeach is considered unnecessary;
i. They argue when it was brought towards the
Mizbeach and taken away - Chachamim consider
this necessary Holachah, R. Eliezer considers
1. Holachah towards the Mizbeach is considered
necessary, Holachah away from the Mizbeach is
(i) Rava: The Beraisa refutes me.
2. If it was brought towards the Mizbeach and taken
away, this is considered necessary.
3) THE "AVODAH" OF "PESULIM"
(a) (Mishnah): If any of the following did Kabalah, it is
1. A Zar, an Onen, a Tevul Yom (one who immersed today,
he will be fully Tahor at nightfall);
(b) If he received the blood with his left hand, it is Pasul;
2. A Mechushar Kipurim (one whose Taharah is not
completed until he brings a Korban), Mechushar
Begadim (a Kohen who lacks one or more of his
garments), one who did not wash his hands and feet,
an Arel (one who is uncircumcised);
3. One who is Tamei, sitting down, or standing on top
of vessels or an animal or another person's feet.
(c) R. Shimon says, it is Kosher.
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source that a Zar is
Mechalel Avodah (i.e. if he did Avodah, it is Pasul)?
(e) Answer #1 (Levi): "...Aharon v'El Banav va'Yinazru
mi'Kodshei *Benei Yisrael* (v'Lo Yechalelu...when the
Kohanim are Tamei)";
1. Question: What does 'Benei Yisrael' come to exclude?
i. Suggestion: It excludes Kodshei Benos Yisrael.
2. Answer #1: It excludes Korbanos of Nochrim.
ii. Rejection: We cannot say that Korbanos of women
may be offered in Tum'ah!
3. Rejection: The Tzitz never makes Tamei Korbanos of
Nochrim acceptable (even though it sometimes does so
for Korbanos of Yisrael), all the more so Korbanos
of Nochrim may not be offered in Tum'ah!
i. If a Nochri's Korban became Tamei, whether or
not this happened intentionally, it is
4. Answer #2: Rather, we expound as follows: "Aharon
v'El Banav va'Yinazru mi'Kodshei" - the Kohanim
(when they are Tamei) must keep away from Kodshim;
i. Also, "Benei Yisrael v'Lo Yechalelu" - Benei
Yisrael (even Tehorim) must not (do Avodah, for
they) Mechalel Avodah.