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 83
ZEVACHIM 82-83 - These Dafim have been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom
Kelman of Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with a year filled
with Torah and Nachas!
1) WHEN IS THE BLOOD "NIFSAL"?
(a) (Mishnah): If blood was brought in Lechaper...
***** PEREK HA'MIZBE'ACH MEKADESH ****
(b) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): It says here "Lechaper
ba'Kodesh", and it says that no one else may be in the
Ohel Mo'ed on Yom Kipur when the Kohen Gadol enters
1. Just as there, the prohibition begins once the Kohen
Gadol enters, even before Kaparah, also here the
blood is Pasul once it enters, even before Kaparah;
(c) R. Shimon says, it says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it
says to burn the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur whose blood
was brought in "Lechaper ba'Kodesh";
1. Just as there, this refers to after Kaparah, also
(d) Question: What do they argue about?
(e) Answer: R. Eliezer holds that it is better to learn
(about blood, which should be left) outside from (people
who are commanded to stay) outside, and not from the
Kaparah of Yom Kipur which was done inside;
1. R. Shimon holds that it is better to learn about
(the blood of) an animal from (the blood of) an
animal, and not from a law concerning people.
(f) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If it was entered b'Shogeg, it
(g) Inference: If it was entered b'Mezid, it is Pasul.
(h) Question: Does this apply when he was Mechaper (like R.
Shimon), or even before Kaparah (like R. Eliezer)?
(i) Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa) Question: It says, "V'Es
Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas..." - why does it say
1. Question: Clearly, the verse teaches that the one
who burns them is Metamei Begadim (he and his
clothes become Teme'im)!
(j) Answer (R. Yehudah): This teaches that all Chata'os that
should be burned (i.e. inner Chata'os) are Metamei
Begadim (of those who burn them).
2. Answer: The question is, why does it say "ha'Chatas"
(k) Objection (R. Meir): We already know that from "Lechaper"
(that all Korbanos brought inside for Kaparah are Metamei
1. Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn like R. Meir?
2. Answer (and summation of Answer (i)): He uses
"Lechaper" for the Gezerah Shavah (of R. Shimon).
2) THE "MIZBE'ACH" IS "MEKADESH"
(a) (Mishnah): The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is fitting for
it (as we now explain):
1. R. Yehoshua says, any Kodesh fitting for the fire
(i.e. it is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach) that
Alah (came up on the Mizbe'ach) is offered, Lo Yered
(we do not take it down, even if it is Pasul) - "Hi
ha'Olah Al Mokdah";
(b) They argue only about blood and Nesachim (of wine or
water) - R. Gamliel says Lo Yerdu (since they are offered
on the Mizbe'ach), R. Yehoshua says Yerdu (since they are
i. Olah is fitting for the fire, if it came up Lo
Yered - the same applies to all Kodshim.
2. R. Gamliel says, any Kodshim fitting for the
Mizbe'ach that Alah, Lo Yered - "Hi ha'Olah Al
Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach";
i. Olah is fitting for the Mizbe'ach, if it came
up, Lo Yered - the same applies to all Kodshim.
(c) R. Shimon says, (when Nesachim accompany a Korban),
whether (only) the Nesachim or Korban or both are
Pesulim, we do not take down the Korban, we take down the
(d) (Gemara) Inference: (The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh) *only*
what is fitting for it, nothing else.
3) WHICH THINGS CAN THE "MIZBE'ACH" BE "MEKADESH"?
(e) Question: What does this come to exclude?
(f) Answer (Rav Papa): This excludes a Kemitzah that was not
put into a Kli Shares.
(g) Question (Ravina): Why is this different than Ula's law?
1. (Ula): If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim Alu before
Zerikah, Lo Yerdu, for they became 'food' of the
(h) Answer: Eimurim are not taken down, for they are not
1. The Kemitzah is taken down, for it is lacking (it
must be put in a Kli Shares).
(i) (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Any Kodshim fitting for the
(j) Question: How does R. Gamliel expound "Al Mokdah"?
(k) Answer: This teaches that if meat (of the Olah) flies off
the Mizbe'ach, we must return it.
(l) Question: What is R. Yehoshua's source of this law?
(m) Answer: He learns from "Asher Tochal ha'Esh".
1. R. Gamliel uses this to teach that meat of an Olah
is returned to the fire, Ketores is not.
(n) (Mishnah - R. Gamliel): Any Kodshim fitting (for the
i. (R. Chanina bar Minyomi): "Asher Tochal ha'Esh
Es ha'Olah Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - meat of an Olah
is returned to the fire, not Ketores.
2. R. Yehoshua says, it teaches both (meat of an Olah
is returned, Ketores is not.)
(o) Question: How does R. Yehoshua expound "Mizbe'ach"?
(p) Answer: This teaches *what* is Mekadesh what is fitting
for the fire, i.e. the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh.
1. R. Gamliel says, another verse teaches that ("Kol
ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash"!)
(q) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Whether (only) the Korban is
2. R. Yehoshua says, one verse teaches about Kodshim
that was once fitting (to be burned, i.e. but later
became Tamei or became Nosar), the other teaches
about Kodshim that was never fitting (e.g. something
slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo).
3. R. Gamliel says, since the Torah permits offering
Pesulim, we do not distinguish whether or not it was
(r) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): (The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh an)
"Olah" - just as Olah is offered on account of itself,
similarly, the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh anything offered on
account of itself;
1. This excludes Nesachim that accompany a Korban.
(a) (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili) Suggestion: "Kol ha'Noge'a
ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" - perhaps this applies even to
things not fitting for the Mizbe'ach!
(b) Rejection: "Kevasim" - it is Mekadesh (only) things
fitting for it, like lambs.
(c) R. Akiva says, "Olah" - it is Mekadesh (only) things
fitting for it, like an Olah.
(d) Question: What is the difference between them?
(e) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They differ concerning Olas
1. R. Akiva includes it from "Olah", R. Yosi ha'Galili
excludes it from "Kevasim" (the Mizbe'ach is
Mekadesh only Behemos).
(f) Question: What does R. Yosi ha'Galili learn from "Olah"?
(g) Answer: Had it said only "Kevasim", one might have
thought that it is Mekadesh even living animals - "Olah"
teaches, this is not so.
(h) Question: What does R. Akiva learn from " Kevasim "?
(i) Answer: Had it said only "Olah", one might have thought
that it is Mekadesh even Menachos - " Kevasim " teaches,
this is not so.
(j) Question: What is the difference between these Tana'im
(of the Beraisa) and those of our Mishnah?
(k) Answer (Rav Papa): They argue about a Kemitzah that *was*
put into a Kli Shares:
1. The Tana'im of our Mishnah say Lo Yered, the Tana'im
of the Beraisa say Yered.