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 46
ZEVACHIM 46 - Rabbi Chaim Davis of Passaic, NJ, has dedicated this Daf in
honor of the members of Kollel Iyun Hadaf. May the Zechus of the worldwide
Torah-study they provide help to bring a Refu'ah Sheleimah to Menachem ben
1) PROHIBITIONS THAT APPLY TO BLOOD
(a) (Mishnah): (Nosar and Tamei apply to Kodshim in which
Pigul does not apply,) except for blood.
2) "KARES" FOR "TUM'AH"
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer: Three words in the following verse exclude blood
from Me'ilah (later, we will use two of them to exclude
from Nosar and Tamei):
1. (Ula): "Va'Ani Nesativ *Lachem*" - blood is yours
(it is not considered Hash-m's, there is no
(d) We do not need a verse to teach that Pigul does not apply
- Pigul applies only to something that *has* Matirim,
blood is a Matir for other things.
2. (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Lechaper" - it is for
atonement, not for Me'ilah;
3. (R. Yochanan): "Hu" - blood has the same status
before Kaparah as after;
i. Just as after Kaparah there is no Me'ilah, also
4. Question: Why not say that just as before Kaparah
there is Me'ilah, also after?!
5. Answer: We never find Me'ilah (in something used for
a Mitzvah) after the Mitzvah was done.
6. Question: We do find this regarding Terumas
7. Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen and Bigdei Kehunah (i.e.
the linen garments the Kohen Gadol wears on Yom
Kipur) are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which
teaches something which could have been learned from
the other (i.e. that Me'ilah applies after the
Mitzvah was done)), they do not teach to other
8. Question: This is according to Chachamim, who
expound "V'Hinicham Sham" to teach that the linen
garments require Genizah (they may not be used);
i. But according to R. Dosa, who says that they
may not be used on another Yom Kipur but a
regular Kohen may use them, how can we answer?
9. Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah are Shnei
Kesuvim, they do not teach to other cases.
10. Question: This is according to the opinion that
Shnei Kesuvim do not teach to other cases -
according to the opinion that they do teach, how can
11. Answer: Regarding each, a verse teaches not to learn
to other cases:
i. It says "*Ha'*Arufah" and "V'Sam*o*" (but
normally, there is no Me'ilah after the
12. Question: Why do we need three exclusions to teach
that there is no Me'ilah in blood?
13. Answer (and culmination of answer (c)): One excludes
Me'ilah, the others exclude Nosar and Tamei.
(a) Question (R. Yochanan): Why does the Torah teach Kares
three times regarding eating Shelamim b'Tum'ah?
(b) Answer: One is a Klal, one makes it considered something
governed by a Klal which received a new law, to teach
about the entire Klal (i.e. that Kares for Tum'ah applies
to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, not to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), and
one teaches that one is liable for things not normally
3) THE PROPER INTENTIONS FOR "KORBANOS"
(c) Question: R. Shimon exempts for things not normally eaten
- how does he expound the third Kares?
(d) Answer: It teaches that one is liable for inner Chata'os;
1. One might have thought, since (he holds that) one is
not liable for Pigul of inner Chata'os, one is not
liable for eating them b'Tum'ah - the extra verse
teaches that this is not so.
(e) (Mishnah - R. Shimon (just before he died)): One is
liable for things that are normally eaten...
(f) Version #1 - Rav Tivyomi - ((R. Yochanan or Reish
Lakish), or, (R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina)):
They argue about eating (Kodesh that is not normally
eaten) b'Tum'as Basar (when the Kodesh itself is Tamei -
Chachamim Mechayev, R. Shimon exempts), but all agree
that one is not lashed for Tum'as ha'Guf;
(g) (A Chacham from the other pair) They argue in both cases.
(h) Question: Why do Chachamim Mechayev even for Tum'as
(i) Answer: Since "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei (Lo
Ye'achel)" applies, also "V'Tum'aso Alav (v'Nichresah)"
(j) Version #2 - Rav Kahana - The Amora'im discussed the end
of the Mishnah (R. Shimon exempts for eating wood,
frankincense or Ketores b'Tum'ah.)
(k) (R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish, or, R. Elazar or R. Yosi
b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about Tum'as ha'Guf (R.
Shimon exempts, Chachamim Mechayev), but all agree that
one is lashed for Tum'as Basar;
(l) (A Chacham from the other pair) They argue in both cases.
(m) (Rava): Presumably, the latter opinion is correct.
(n) Question: What is the reason?
(o) Answer: Since R. Shimon holds that "Veha'Basar Asher
Yiga..." does not apply, neither does "V'Tum'aso Alav".
(p) Question: It was taught, "Veha'Basar" includes wood and
(q) Answer: Indeed, they are forbidden (Tosfos - mid'Oraisa;
Rashi - mid'Rabanan), but one is not lashed for them.
(a) (Mishnah): There are six intentions in Korbanos:
1. Which Korban it is, whose Korban it is, it is l'Shem
(for the sake of) Hash-m, l'Shem the fire, l'Shem a
smell, and to be pleasing (these will be explained);
(b) R. Yosi says, even if one slaughtered without any
intention, it is Kosher;
2. Additionally, a Chatas or Asham is offered l'Shem
1. Chachamim enacted to slaughter without intent, for
everything depends on the intent of the Oved (the
one offering the Korban).
(c) (Gemara - Rav Yehudah): "Olah" - an Olah is offered
l'Shem Olah (as opposed to l'Shem Shelamim);
1. "Ishei" - the Eimurim should burn totally, not to
merely grill them (Rashi; Ramban (on Chumash) - they
are burned on the fire, not on coals);
(d) (Rav Yehudah): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem Olah,
it is Pasul; if it was slaughtered l'Shem Chulin, it is
2. "Re'ach" - (the meat should make a nice smell on the
Mizbe'ach), it should not be roasted first;
i. (Rav Yehudah): If limbs were roasted before
they were offered, he did not fulfill "Re'ach".
3. "Nicho'ach" - he must intend that it will be
pleasing to Hash-m;
4. "La'Sh-m" - he intends for Hash-m, Creator of the
(e) (R. Elazar): He expounds "V'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Benei
Yisrael" - (intentions for other) Kodshim are Mechalel
(Posel) Kodshim, (intent for) Chulin is not.
(f) Question (Rabah - Mishnah - R. Yosi): Even if one
slaughtered without any intention, it is Kosher - this is
an enactment of Chachamim.
1. Inference: It is Kosher because he had no intent -
had he intended for Chulin (or any other improper
intent), it would be Pasul!
(g) Answer (Abaye): No - when he had no intent, it is Kosher
and Meratzeh (he fulfilled his obligation);
1. If he intended for Chulin, it is Kosher, it is not
(h) (R. Elazar): If Reuven (knowingly) slaughtered a Chatas
l'Shem (to be) Chulin, it is Kosher;
1. If he thought that it was Chulin (and slaughtered
l'Shem Chulin), it is Pasul.
2. Shmuel and Rav Huna also agree with the latter law.
3. Question (Shmuel): What is the source that Misasek
(one who did not intend for the action he did) is
Pasul in Kodshim?
4. Answer #1 (Rav Huna): "V'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar" -
the slaughter must be l'Shem an ox (Korban).
5. Shmuel: I knew that l'Chatchilah, it must be l'Shem
the Korban - I asked, what is the source that this
6. Answer #2 (Rav Huna): "Lirtzonchem Tizbechuhu" - you
must slaughter it knowingly.