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 107
ZEVACHIM 107 - sponsored by Kenny and Aliza Weinblatt in honor of the birth
of their son Binyomin Yitzchok - may he grow to excel in Torah and Yir'as
1) THE "AZHARAH" FOR "SHECHITAH" AND "HA'ALAH" DONE "BA'CHUTZ"
(a) Answer #3 (to Question 2:a 106A - R. Yochanan): We learn
the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz from a Gezerah Shavah
"Hava'ah-Hava'ah" from Ha'alas Chutz:
2) THE "CHIYUV" FOR "ZERIKAH"
1. Just like there the Torah did not give an Onesh of
Kares without an Azharah, also here (Shechutei
(b) Answer #4 (Rava citing R. Yonah): We learn from a Hekesh
to Ha'alas Chutz:
1. It says "Sham Ta'aleh Olosecha v'Sham Ta'aseh"
(Devarim 12:14) - just like there the Torah did not
give an Onesh of Kares without an Azharah, also
(c) Question: We brought a Lav for Ha'alas Chutz of Korbanos
that (were slaughtered inside the Mikdash, hence) could
have been offered inside and were offered outside;
1. What is the Lav for Korbanos that were slaughtered
(outside, in order) to be offered outside, and were
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): (The Parshah of Ha'alas Chutz
begins) "Va'Aleihem Tomar..." - we read this like
'Va'Aleihem' with an Ayin, i.e. it is a continuation of
the previous Parshah, which discusses Shechutei Chutz.
(e) Objection (Rabah): "Va'Aleihem" is written (Shitah
Mekubetzes - and read) with an Aleph (to them (Benei
Yisrael) tell...), it is not a continuation of the
(f) Answer #2: We learn like Tana d'vei R. Yishmael.
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Va'Aleihem
Tomar..." - the 'Vov' connects the Parshiyos (the
latter is a continuation of the former.)
(g) Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah
"Hava'ah-Hava'ah" from Shechutei Chutz, that the Lav of
Ha'alas Chutz also applies to Korbanos slaughtered
(h) Objection (to all these answers - Rav Bivi - Mishnah):
There are 36 Chayavei Kerisus (and if all were done in
one Helam, one is liable for all of them);
1. If we learn from a Hekesh or Gezerah Shavah, this is
like a second Lav, the two cases of Ha'alas Chutz
should be counted separately (for one is liable for
each of them), making 37 in all!
2. This is left difficult.
(a) (Mishnah): One who throws some of the blood outside is
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answers (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Dam Yechashev (...Dam
Shofach)" - this includes ha'Zorek..
1. R. Akiva says, "*O* Zovach" includes ha'Zorek.
(d) Question: What does R. Akiva learn from "Dam Yechashev"?
2. Question: What does R. Yishmael learn from "(Olah)
3. Answer: The Torah had to say "O (or)", had it
connected them with a 'Vov', one might have thought
that one is not liable unless he slaughters two
Korbanos outside, a bird *and* an animal.
4. R. Akiva says, "Lo *Yevi'enu*" (singular) teaches
that one is liable for one slaughter.
5. R. Yishmael says, that exempts for a Chaser
(incomplete Korban or Haktarah).
6. R. Akiva learns this from "La'asos Oso".
7. R. Yishmael says, these two exemptions are for
Chaser, when the slaughter was inside and when it
i. Support (Beraisa - R. Yishmael) Suggestion: If
a Korban was slaughtered inside, perhaps one
who is Ma'aleh b'Chutz is liable even if it is
8. R. Akiva holds that if a Korban was slaughtered
inside, one who is Ma'aleh b'Chutz is liable even if
it is Chaser.
ii. Rejection: "La'asos Oso" - one is liable for
complete Ha'alah, not for Chaser.
(e) Answer: This includes Shechutei Chutz of birds.
1. R. Yishmael learn this from "O *Asher Yishchat*".
(f) (Mishnah (112B)): If one did Kemitzah or Kabalah b'Chutz,
he is exempt.
2. R. Akiva uses this to teach that one is liable for
slaughter, not for Melikah b'Chutz.
3. R. Yishmael learn this from "Zeh ha'Davar":
i. (Beraisa) Question: What is the source to
obligate for Shechutei Chutz of birds?
4. R. Akiva uses "Zeh ha'Davar" for a Gezerah Shavah.
ii. Answer: "O Asher Yishchat".
iii. Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that
one is liable for Melikah b'Chutz! Slaughter is
not the way birds are offered inside, yet one
is liable for it b'Chutz - birds are offered
inside through Melikah, all the more so one
should be for it b'Chutz!
iv. Rejection: "Zeh ha'Davar" (this (slaughter) is
the only way one is liable.)
(g) Question: What is the source of this?
1. Question: Why would we think that he is liable?
2. Answer #1: We learn from slaughter.
3. Rejection: We cannot learn from slaughter, for
slaughter of Pesach for the sake of people that
cannot eat it is Pasul.
4. Answer #2: We learn from Zerikah.
5. Rejection: We cannot learn from Zerikah, for a Zar
who does Zerikah is Chayav Misah (but a Zar is not
Chayav for Kemitzah or Kabalah, for they are not
3) WHERE DOES THE "CHIYUV" APPLY?
6. Answer #1: We learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah of
slaughter and Zerikah.
(h) (R. Avahu): If someone slaughtered and Zorak (outside,
7. Rejection: If the Torah lets us learn Chiyuvim for
Avodah b'Chutz in this way, it would not have taught
the Chiyuv for Zerikah, for it could be learned from
a Tzad ha'Shavah of slaughter and Ha'alah:
i. Question: We should be able to learn (Zerikah)
from slaughter (alone)!
ii. Answer: We cannot learn from slaughter, for
slaughter of Pesach for people that cannot eat
it is Pasul.
iii. Question: We should be able to learn from
iv. Answer: We cannot learn from Ha'alah, for it
applies to a Minchah.
v. Question: We should be able to learn from the
Tzad ha'Shavah of slaughter and Ha'alah!
vi. Answer: Indeed, there is no refutation of the
Tzad ha'Shavah - the fact that the Torah taught
Zerikah anyway shows that we do not learn
Chiyuvim for Avodah b'Chutz in this way.
1. R. Yishmael is Mechayev one (Chatas, since he learns
Zerikah from "Dam Yechashev", in the Parshah of
Shechutei Chutz, it is as if he transgressed
Shechutei Chutz twice), R. Akiva is Mechayev two (he
learns Zerikah from "O Zevach" in the Parshah of
Ha'alas Chutz, it is a different transgression);
(i) (Abaye): Even R. Akiva is Mechayev only one - "(Sham
Ta'aleh Olosecha) v'Sham Ta'aseh", the Torah considers
all Avodos (other than Ha'alah) like one.
(j) (R. Avahu): If someone Zorak and Ha'alah:
1. R. Yishmael is Mechayev two (it is as if he
slaughtered and Ha'alah), R. Akiva is Mechayev one
(it is as if he was Ma'aleh twice);
(k) (Abaye): Even R. Akiva is Mechayev two - "Sham
Ta'aleh...v'Sham Ta'aseh", the Torah considers Ha'alah
independently of all other Avodos.
(l) If someone slaughtered, Zorak and Ha'alah, all agree that
he is liable two.
(a) (Beraisa) Question: "O Asher Yishchat mi'Chutz
la'Machaneh" - perhaps this means, outside of three
Machanos (like it does regarding Parim ha'Nisrafim);
4) "HA'ALAS CHUTZ" NOWADAYS
1. What is the source that one is liable even in
(b) (Ula): One who slaughters on the roof of the Heichal is
liable, since no Korban may be slaughtered there.
2. Answer: "(O Ez - Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this)
3. Suggestion: "Ba'Machaneh" suggests even in Machaneh
Shechinah, i.e. an Olah slaughtered in Darom (the
south half of the Azarah, for it must be slaughtered
4. Rejection: "O...mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - one
transgresses outside Machaneh Shechinah, for no
Korban may be slaughtered there, but not in Darom,
for Kodshim Kalim may be slaughtered there.
(c) Objection (Rava): If so, the Torah should have said
"mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", there would be no need to say "El
Pesach Ohel Mo'ed";
1. Rather, "El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed (Lo Hevi'o)" excludes
the roof of the Heichal (for it was brought to the
(d) Question: According to Rava, the Torah should have said
just "El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", there was no need to say
"mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" and "ba'Machaneh";
1. Suggestion: "Ba'Machaneh" comes to include the roof
of the Heichal (and "Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" excludes
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Mari): No, it includes (slaughter of) an
animal totally in the Azarah except for its neck.
(f) Objection: The prohibition is slaughtering outside,
slaughter is at the neck (no extra verse is needed for
(g) Answer #2: Rather, it includes an animal outside the
Azarah except for its neck.
(a) (R. Yochanan): If one is Ma'aleh b'Chutz nowadays, he is
liable - the first Kedushah (of Yerushalayim and the Beis
ha'Mikdash) was permanent;
(b) (Reish Lakish): He is exempt - the first Kedushah was
temporary (it ended after the Churban)
(c) Suggestion: Tana'im argue as R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): I have a tradition that when
building the Heichal and the walls of the Azaros,
they set up curtains;
(d) Rejection (Ravina): Perhaps all agree that Shlomo's
Kedushah was permanent; each Tana said what he received!
i. The builders of the Heichal were outside the
curtains (of the Heichal), the builders of the
Azaros were inside the curtains (of the
2. R. Yehoshua: I have a tradition that we may bring
sacrifices even though the Mikdash is not standing;
Kodshei Kodoshim may be eaten (where the Azarah
should be) even though there are no curtains,
Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten (in
Yerushalayim) even though the wall is not standing.
3. This is because Shlomo's Kedushah was permanent.
4. Suggestion: R. Eliezer argues, he holds that
Shlomo's Kedushah ceased (therefore, curtains were
needed in order to offer sacrifices until the
building was finished)!
(e) Question: If so, why did they need curtains?
(f) Answer: The curtains were to prevent workers from
deriving pleasure by looking at the Heichal, and to
prevent people from seeing the Azarah.