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 29
ZEVACHIM 26-30 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) WHAT MAKES "PIGUL"?
(a) Question (Rav Papa against Rava): What do you learn from
'Shelishi' in the short verse?
2) DELAYING VOWS
(b) Answer (Rava): This teaches that improper intention takes
effect only if it is in a place Meshulash with blood,
meat and Eimurim (Rashi - all are offered or consumed
there; R. Yom Tov - a place is Meshulash if all of these
become Pasul there).
(c) Question: We already know this from Shelishi in the long
verse (which comes first)!
(d) Answer (Rav Masnah): From there, one might have thought
that "Shelishi" is a specific, "Pigul" is a generality -
from the specific and generality we include all places;
1. Therefore, it must say Shelishi in the short verse
to teach that the place must be Meshulash.
(e) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "V'Im He'achel Ye'achel mi'Bsar
Zevach Shelamav" - the verse discusses one who plans to
eat on the third day.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps it discusses one who eats on the
2. Rejection: If it was already Kosher (at the time of
Zerikah), it cannot become Pasul later!
3. R. Akiva: But we find regarding a Zav (or Zavah or
Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom) that is Muchzak to be
Tahor, if he (she) sees an emission (blood), he
retroactively becomes Tamei;
i. Similarly, a Korban that was Kosher can become
4. R. Eliezer: "Ha'Makriv" - it becomes Pasul at the
time it is offered, not on the third day.
i. Suggestion: Perhaps "Ha'Makriv" comes to Posel
the Kohen who offered it!
ii. Rejection: "Oso"`- only the Zevach becomes
(a) (Beraisa - Ben Azai): Since it says "Lo Se'acher
Leshalmo", one might have thought that if one delayed
bringing the Korban he vowed (transgressing Lo Se'acher),
it is Pasul - "Oso" teaches, Pigul is not Meratzeh, but a
late Korban is accepted.
(b) Others say, "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pasul through
intent, not (by being eaten) on the third day.
(c) Question: What is Ben Azai's source that the Korban
becomes Pasul, not the Kohen?
(d) Answer #1: He agrees with 'Others' (the Torah had to
teach that eating on the third day is not Posel - one
would never think that this could Pasul the Kohen who
(e) Answer #2: It says, "Lo Yeratzeh" - this refers to the
(f) Question: Ben Azai should learn that a late Korban is
acceptable like 'Others' (why does he need "Oso"?)!
1. (Beraisa - Others) Suggestion: A Bechor (firstborn
male animal, it is automatically a Korban) that was
not offered in its first year should be Pasul like a
3) DIFFERENT INTENTIONS
2. Rejection: "V'Achalta...Ma'aser Degancha...u'Vchoros
Bekarcha" - the Torah equates Bechor and Ma'aser (of
produce) - just as Ma'aser is not Nifsal if it is
not eaten within the year, also Bechor.
(g) Answer: One might have thought, Bechor is not Nifsal
because it does not atone for anything, but one who must
bring a Korban does not fulfill his obligation if he
brought it late;
1. "Oso" teaches that this is not so.
(h) Question: He should learn from the following verse!
1. "V'Hayah *Becha* Chet" (if you delay fulfilling your
vow) - there is no sin in your Korban (it is
(i) Answer: Ben Azai expounds, "V'Hayah *Becha* Chet" - there
is no sin in your wife (she will not die for this).
1. (R. Elazar): A woman dies if her husband does not
pay the theft (Rashi; Tosfos - *never* brings the
vows) that he owes - "Im Ein Lecha Leshalem Lamah
Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha";
(j) (Beraisa - Others): "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pasul
through intent, not on the third day.
2. One might have thought, she also dies for delaying
bringing vows - Ben Azai teaches, this is not so.
(k) Question: How does R. Eliezer expound "Lo Yechashev"?
(l) Answer: He expounds like R. Yanai.
1. Version #1 (R. Yanai): An intention (of Chutz
li'Mkomo) that accompanies an intention (of Chutz
li'Zmano) prevents Kares - "Lo Yechashev", different
intentions will not be mixed.
2. Version #2 - Rav Mari - (R. Yanai): One who offers
Kodshim with improper intention is lashed - "Lo
3. Question (Rav Ashi): One is not lashed for a Lav
that does not entail an action!
4. Answer (Rav Mari): He holds like R. Yehudah, who
says that one is lashed for such a Lav.
(a) (Mishnah): The general rule regarding Shechitah, Kabalah,
Holachah or Zerikah done with (improper) intent to eat
something that is normally eaten, or Lehaktir (to burn on
the Mizbe'ach) something that is normally burned there:
1. If he intended for a k'Zayis (e.g. of meat) Chutz
li'Mkomo, the Korban is Pasul, there is no Kares;
(b) Question: When do we say that the Matir was offered
2. If he intended for a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, the
Korban is Pigul, one who eats it is Chayav Kares, if
the Matir (the blood, which permits the meat and
Eimurim) was offered properly (except for intention
of Chutz li'Zmano).
(c) Answer: If he slaughtered property, and did Kabalah,
Holachah or Zerikah (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano;
1. Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did the other
three Avodos properly;
(d) Question: When do we say that the Matir was not offered
2. Or, he did all four Avodos Chutz li'Zmano.
(e) Answer: If he slaughtered Chutz li'Mkomo, and did
Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano;
1. Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did one of
the other three Avodos Chutz li'Mkomo;
(f) If he intended to eat a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, and
(later intended to eat) a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or
vice-versa, or half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, and half a
k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or vice-versa, it is Pasul, there
is no Kares;
2. Or, he did all four Avodos Chutz li'Mkomo;
3. Or, regarding a Chatas or Pesach - he slaughtered Lo
Lishmah (this is Posel these Korbanos), and did
Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano;
i. Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did one
of the other three Avodos Lo Lishmah.
ii. Or, he did all four Avodos Lo Lishmah.
(g) R. Yehudah says, the general rule is - if intent Chutz
li'Zmano came first, it is Pigul, there is Kares; if
intent Chutz li'Mkomo came first, it is Pasul, there is
(h) Chachamim say, whichever came first it is Pasul, there is
1. If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis (Chutz li'Mkomo
or Chutz li'Zmano) and Lehaktir half a k'Zayis, it
is Kosher, because eating and burning do not join.
(i) (Gemara - Ilfa):Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue about
intentions in two different Avodos, but if he had both
intents in one Avodah, all agree that it is Pasul, there
is no Kares;
(j) (R. Yochanan): They argue even when the intentions were
in one Avodah.
(k) Question: According to Ilfa, the entire Mishnah discusses
(intentions in) different Avodos - but according to R.
Yochanan, the beginning discusses two Avodos, the end
discusses one Avodah!
(l) Answer: Indeed, that is how R. Yochanan explains the