ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 13
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.
(a) Our Mishnah rules - that Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah she'Lo li'Sheman
invalidate a Pesach or a Chatas (just like Shechitah does).
(b) When the Tana extends this ruling to ...
1. ... 'li'Sheman ve'she'Lo li'Sheman', he means - that one Shechts the
Korban le'Shem Pesach and le'Shem Shelamim.
(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama regarding - Holachah, which he
maintains, does not render the Korban Pasul with a Machsheves she'Lo
li'Shemo - because it is dispensable (since it would not be necessary if he
was standing beside the Mizbe'ach).
2. ... 'she'Lo li'Sheman ve'li'Sheman' - that he Shechts it le'Shem Shelamim
and le'Shem Pesach.
(d) There is a 'Holachah be'Makom she'Hu Tzarich Le'halech' and a 'Holachah
be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech' (which will be explained in the Sugya).
Rebbi Elazar - invalidates a Machshavah Pesulah by the former, but not by
(a) In the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar, Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon
ha'Kohanim es ha'Dam", the Beraisa interprets the word "Ve'hikrivu" to
mean - the Kabalas ha'Dam (which teaches us that it requires a K'li
(b) And we learn from "B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim" - that it also requires
Kasher Kohanim who are wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah.
(c) We suggest that "Ve'hikrivu" really means 'Zerikah' - because the word
implies 'bringing near to the Mizbe'ach' (which is what Zerikah does to the
(d) We know that it does not mean ...
1. ... Zerikah - since the Torah writes "Ve'zarku ... " independently.
2. ... Holachah - because it is dispensable (though the Torah nevertheless
implies it by using the word "Ve'hikrivu" [as we learned earlier]).
(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with the Tana Kama's D'rashah (from "B'nei Aharon
ha'Kohanim") - and he learns it (the Din of Kasher Kohanim by Kabalah) from
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "B'nei Aharon" "B'nei Aharon" (from the Pasuk "Eileh
Sh'mos B'nei Aharon ... "), which refers to Elazar and Isamar, who were
definitely Kasher Kohanim.
(b) And he learns from "Asher Milei Yadam Le'chahen" written there" - that
Kabalah also requires Bigdei Kehunah (as this is what "Le'chahen" implies).
(c) Rebbi Tarfon commented about the corollary between Kabalah and Zerikah -
which seemingly clashed with his Kabalah, which distinguished between them
(only he couldn't recall what that distinction was).
(a) Rebbi Akiva put Rebbi Tarfon's mind at rest, by presenting three
distinctions between the two, one to do with Machshavah, one with Chutz and
one with Pesulin. And the three distinctions we are referring to are - 1. a
Machsheves P'sul invalidates by Zerikah; 2. someone who makes Zerikah
ba'Chutz is Chayav Kareis and 3. if Pesulin perform Zerikah, they are
Chayav, all of which do not pertain to Kabalah.
(b) Kabalah ...
1. ... ba'Chutz is not Chayav Kareis - because there is no Pasuk to that
effect (like there is by Shechitah and Zerikah).
(c) Rebbi Tarfon was so impressed with Rebbi Akiva - because he (Rebbi
Tarfon) had learned it and forgotten it, and along came Rebbi Akiva and
worked out of his own accord what *he* had so diligently learned and
2. ... via Pesulim is not subject to Kareis either - because it is not an
Avodah Tamah (a final Avodah, since it is followed by Zerikah).
(d) He subsequently declared - that to part from Rebbi Akiva, was to part
from life itself.
(a) In any event, Rebbi Akiva clearly states that Machshavah by Kabalah does
not render the Korban Pasul. We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which holds
that it does - by establishing the Beraisa by Pigul (a Machshavah of she'Lo
bi'Zemano or she'Lo bi'Mekomo'), whereas our Mishnah speaks by a Machsheves
(b) And we prove this from the Lashon in our Mishnah 'she'ha'Zevach *Nifsal*
be'Arba'ah Avodos' - and not 'Mispagel'.
(c) Given that in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach
Shelamav Lo Yeratzeh", "Lo Yeratzeh" refers predominantly to Zerikah, the
Beraisa learn from the Lashon "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel" - that Shechitah and
Kabalah are also subject to Pigul.
(d) The Tana extrapolates that from there - because of the Lashon "He'achol
Ye'achel", which indicates that any Avodos which bring the Korban to a Heter
Achilah, are included.
(a) We suggest - that the above list incorporates Shefichas Shirayim and
Haktaras Eimurin (pouring the remains of the blood on to the Yesod and
burning the fat-pieces on the Mizbe'ach).
(b) We reject this suggestion however, based on the Pasuk "ha'Makriv Oso Lo
Yechashev", which teaches us the Din of Pigul by Zerikah. This is strange -
because we already know that from the previous Pasuk, where "Lo Yeratzeh"
refers directly to Zerikah (as we explained), even if it does incorporate
Shechitah and Kabalah too.
(c) That makes this a case of a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Ch'lal ve'Yatza min
ha'Klal Le'lamed ... '. Consequently, whatever is not an Avodah which is
crucial to the Kaparah (like Zerikah [such as Shefichas Shirayim and
Haktaras Eimurin, which are dispensable, Bedieved]) is not subject to Pigul.
(a) In any event, we see that Kabalah is subject to Pigul. We reconcile this
with Rebbi Akiva, who taught us in the previous Beraisa that it is not - by
presenting two interpretations of 'Kabalah being subject to Pigul': 1. that
one Shechts in order to receive the blood tomorrow (which is not Pigul); 2.
that one receives the blood in order to pour the remainder of the blood on
to the Yesod tomorrow (which is).
(b) With regard to the Beraisa, which precludes Shefichas Shirayim ... from
the Din of Pigul, a certain Chacham asked Rava from another Beraisa, which
learns from the double Lashon "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel" - that the Torah
incorporates two kinds of eating in the Din of Pigul, what a person (the
owner or the Kohen) eats, and what the Mizbe'ach eats (i.e. Zerikas ha'Dam,
Shefichas ha'Dam or Haktaras Eimurim).
(c) Rava answered him (in the same vein as we just explained Kabalas
ha'Dam) - that there are two interpretation of 'Shefichas ha'Dam being
subject to Pigul': Shefichas Shirayim ... is subject to Pigul if one thinks
during the Shechitah or the Zerikah that he will pour the remainder of the
blood or burn the Eimurim tomorrow; but it is not, if the Kohen thinks
whilst pouring the blood or burning the Eimurim, that the Korban will be
(d) In brief - it is Pigul only if, whilst performing an indispensable
Avodah, the Kohen has in mind either that the Korban will be eaten or the
Mizbe'ach will receive its due, after its allotted time (or outside its
(a) With regard to the Chata'os Penimiyos, the Torah writes "Ve'taval
ha'Kohen Etzba'o ... ". Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya commented that
Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os Penimiyos - is subject to Pigul.
(b) bar Pada queried this ruling (from the source of Pigul), when Ilfa
repeated this Chidush in front of him - inasmuch as we learn all cases of
Pigul from Shelamim, and there is no such thing as Tevilas ha'Dam by
(c) The Mishnah rules in Perek Sheini that in a case where, after a Korban
Chatas has been Shechted with thoughts of Pigul, the Kohen makes Kabalah or
Holachah she'Lo li'Shemo, the person who eats it is not Chayav Chatas -
because Pigul is only effective if the Kohen goes on to sacrifice the Korban
as if it was Kasher, but not if he then performs an Avodah that renders the
(d) Nevertheless, if the same occurs with a Shelamim, the Din of Pigul
remains intact - because 'she'Lo li'Shemo does not invalidate a Shelamim.
(a) To explain the discrepancy between Chatas and Shelamim that we just
cited - we retract from the theory that learns Pigul by Chatas directly from
Pigul by Shelamim, by pointing out that we actually learn Chatas from a
Ribuy ("ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel") written by Shelamim, and not from Shelamim
(b) ... thereby vindicating Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya - in that we
can now learn the Dinim of Chatas independently, without having to come on
(c) In a repeat of the Sugya, Resh Lakish (who holds like bar Pada) asks
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who holds like Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya)
the same Kashya as bar Pada asked Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya. Only
there, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina concludes that we do indeed learn Chatas
from Shelamim - not from she'Lo li'Shemo, but from a Machshavah of Chutz
li'Mekomo (which renders Shelamim, Pasul, even though a Machsheves she'Lo
li'Shemo does not).
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah however, asks a Pircha on this Limud. We cannot learn the
Din of she'Lo li'Shemo (by Chatas) from Chutz li'Mekomo (by Shelamim), he
argues - because only Chutz li'Mekomo (which applies to all Kodshim),
invalidates the Pigul by a Shelamim; but perhaps she'Lo li'Shemo (which does
not), will not invalidate the Pigul by a Chatas.
(a) We therefore learn Chatas from Shelamim with a 'Mah Matzinu' from
Shelamim via a set of principles. We learn ...
1. ... that she'Lo li'Shemo by a Chatas negates the Pigul that preceded it -
because, like Chutz li'Mekomo by a Shelamim, it renders Pasul a Chatas (and
we learn something that renders Pasul from something that renders Pasul).
(b) Rav Mari tries to prove this from a Mishnah in Menachos, where the Tana
rules - that a Kohen performing the Kemitzah, placing the Minchah into a
K'li Shareis, taking it to the Mizbe'ach or burning it on the Mizbe'ach -
are all subject to Pigul, if he has in mind to either burn the Kometz or to
eat the remainder of the Minchah, on the following day.
2. ... that Tevilas Etzba renders Pigul by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because,
like the four Avodos by Shelamim, it is crucial to the Avodah of a Chatas
Penimis (to learn something that is crucial from something that is crucial).
(c) Performing the Kemitzah, placing the Minchah into a K'li Shareis, taking
it to the Mizbe'ach and burning it on the Mizbe'ach correspond to the
Shechitah, Kabalas ha'Dam, Holachas ha'Dam and the Zerikah of a Zevach,
(d) Although we can learn the other three from the corresponding Avodos by a
Shelamim quite comfortably, the problem with learning Matan Kometz bi'Cheli
from Kabalas ha'Dam is - that whereas the former requires an act, the latter
(a) Rav Mari therefore learns from the Mishnah in Menachos that we can
derive one indispensable Avodah by one Korban (such as Tevilas Etzba by
Chata'os ha'Penimiyos) from an indispensable Avodah by another Korban (such
as Holachah by a Shelamim), even though they are different.
(b) We refute Rav Mari's proof however, on the grounds - that, at the end of
the day, placing the Kometz in the K'li is the exact equivalent of receiving
the blood in the vessel, we can learn one from the other, irrespective of
the fact that one requires an act whilst the other occurs automatically;
whereas Tevilas Etzba and Holachah are two different Avodos, and we cannot
perhaps learn one from the other.
(c) One Beraisa states 'Tevilas Etzba Mefageles be'Chatas', whilst another
Beraisa states 'Lo Mefageles ve'Lo Mispageles'. Initially, we explain - that
the first Beraisa considers Tevilas Etzba'o like Holachah (like the opinion
of Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya, and those who hold like him), whereas
the second Beraisa does not (like bar Pada, and those who hold like him).
(d) We counter that both Beraisos may well hold that Tevilas Etzba renders
Pigul like Holachah, and the author of the Beraisa 'Lo Mefageles ... ' is
Rebbi Shimon, who holds - that Holachah is not subject to Pigul (as we
learned in the previous Mishnah).
(a) The problem with establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon is
the fact that we are talking about Pigul in the Heichal, in which case - the
Tana would not have had to confine the statement to Tevilas Etzba, seeing as
in his opinion, there is no Pigul outside the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.
(b) So we establish both Beraisos like the Rabbanan. And we ascribe 'Lo
Mefageles ... ' in the second Beraisa to the fact - that the Tana is talking
about a Chatas Chitzonah (whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach
(c) We ask on that 'P'shita' - because seeing as there is no such Avodah as
Tevilas Etzba by a Chatas Chitzonah, why would we even think that Tevilas
Etzba is subject to Pigul?
(a) In fact, when the Torah writes (by Chatas Chitzonah) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen
mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o", it refers to Kabalas ha'Dam, and not to
Tevilas Etzba'o - in which case it should have written ''Ve'taval ha'Kohen".
(b) We might nevertheless have thought that it does - seeing as when all's
said and done, "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen ... " also implies that the Kohen has to
take blood on his finger, and if a monkey would do it for him, he would be
obligated to do it again himself. This suggests that Tevilas Etzba is an
Avodah that is crucial to the Chatas, and which should therefore be subject
(c) Yet Tevilas Etzba'o is not subject to Pigul - because since the Torah
does not specifically write "Ve'taval", even though it is crucial to the
Chatas, it is not considered an Avodah (but a means of performing the
Avodah, something like a Hechsher Mitzvah).