ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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
Our Mishnah exempts Dam Kodshim from Nosar and Tum'ah. True, someone who
drinks blood is Chayav Kareis anyway, but now, if he drinks it be'Shogeg, he
will be Chayav two Chata'os.
(a) The Pasuk writes "va'Ani Nasati Lachem al ha'Mizbe'ach Lechaper ... ki
ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh". ...
1. ... Ula learn from "Lachem" - that ('she'Lachem Yehei') Dam Kodshim is
not subject to Nosar and Tum'ah, and ...
(b) We cannot say vice-versa 'Mah Lifnei Kaparah Yesh bo Me'ilah ... af
le'Achar Kaparah ... ' - because of the principle 'Ein Lecha Davar
she'Na'asis Mitzvaso u'Mo'alin bo'.
2. ... Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns it from "Lechaper" ('le'Chaparah
Nesativ, ve'Lo li'Me'ilah' [in which case it has a Din of Chulin]), and ...
3. ... Rebbi Yochanan from "Hu" ('Hu Lifnei Kaparah ke'le'Achar Kaparah').
(c) The 'Terumas ha'Deshen' is - the shovel-full of ashes that the Kohanim
took down from the Mizbe'ach each morning and placed beside the ramp of the
(d) It poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan's D'rashah - inasmuch as it is Asur
be'Hana'ah, in spite of the fact that its Mitzvah has expired.
(a) We answer that Terumas ha'Deshen and Bigdei Kehunah constitute 'Sh'nei
Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad' (two Pesukim which teach the same principle),
which do not incorporate any other cases. The problem with the second case
(of Bigdei Kehunah) is - that according to Rebbi Dosa - it is only a Kohen
Gadol who may not use those garments on a subsequent Yom-Kipur, but he or a
Kohen Hedyot was permitted to wear them during the year.
(b) So to make it 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad', we add Eglah Arufah
(after its neck has been broken) to Terumas ha'Deshen.
(a) We learn from "*ha*'Arufah" and "Ve'hinicham Sham" - two 'Miy'utin' (see
Tosfos DH 'Mishum') permitting benefit from all other cases of 'Davar
(b) We need the Miy'ut, in spite of the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in
ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin' - because there is an opinion which requires at
least 'Sheloshah Kesuvin ha'Ba'in ke'Echad', before ruling 'Ein Melamdin'.
(c) We require three Pesukim (Ula, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi
Yochanan) - to preclude Dam Kodshim from three different Isurim. "Hu"
precludes it from Me'ilah, as we explained, and "Lachem" and "Lechaper" -
from Nosar and Tum'ah.
(d) We do not require a Pasuk to preclude it from Pigul, too - because we
know that already from the principle 'Kol she'Yesh Lo Matirin ... ve'Dam
Atzmo Matir Hu' (as we learned in the Mishnah earlier).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains why the Torah needs to write three times Kareis
by Dam Shelamim (in connection with Tum'ah, once in Emor, and twice in
Tzav ). By 'Achas li'K'lal ve'Achas li'P'rat', he means - that it is a case
of 'something (Shelamim) that was part of the 'K'lal' (all Kodshim, which
are Chayav Kareis for Tum'ah [see Mesores ha'Shas]), and yet the Torah
mentions it on its own, to teach us that even the K'lal (like the P'rat), is
only Chayav Kareis, by Kodshei Mizbe'ach (like Shelamim), but not by Kodshei
(b) The third Kareis comes to include things that are not edible - according
to the Chachamim of our Mishnah.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon (who precludes Eitzim and Levonah from
Tum'ah), it comes to include Chata'os ha'Penimitos ...
(d) ... which we might otherwise have thought are not subject to Tum'ah,
just as, according to Rebbi Shimon, they are not subject to Pigul ('Kol
she'Eino al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon ki'Shelamim ... ').
(a) Mar learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol
Tamei" - the La'av of eaten Basar Kodshim which is Tamei (Tum'as Basar).
(b) One of each pair of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, Rebbi Elazar and
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, combine to argue over the Machlokes between
Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (regarding Eitzim u'Levonah).
One opinion qualifies the Machlokes, based on the previous Pasuk - by
confining it to Tum'as Basar (but if someone eats Eitzin or Levonah
be'Tum'as ha'Guf, even the Rabbanan will agree that he does not receive
(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk (that follows it) "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher
Tochal Basar ... ve'Tum'aso Alav, ve'Nichresah") - that one is Chayav Kareis
for eating Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf.
(d) The second opinion maintains - that just as the Chachamim extend the
Malkos of Tum'as Basar to Eitzim and Levonah, so too, do they extend to
them, the Kareis of Tum'as ha'Guf.
(a) That is the version of Rav Tivyomi. According to Rav Kahana however, the
above Machlokes pertains to Rebbi Shimon in the Seifa. One of the above
opinions establishes the Machlokes by Tum'as ha'Guf. With regard to
Tum'as Basar however - Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbanan that he is
(b) The second opinion holds Rav concurs with those who say 'ke'Machlokes
be'Zu, Kach Machlokes be'Zu'. Rava agrees with them on the grounds - that
since the Pesukim are written next to each other, it stands to reason that
since Eitzim and Levonah are precluded from "ve'Tum'aso Alav", they are also
precluded from "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei".
(c) And we reconcile Rebbi Shimon with the D'rashah "ve'ha'Basar", 'Larabos
Eitzim u'Levonah' - by treating the latter as an Asmachta, because in
reality, the Isur of Tum'ah by Eitzim and Levonah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) Our Mishnah lists six things that the Kohen must specifically have in
mind when he Shechts Kodshim. The first four are 'Zevach, Zove'ach, Hashem
and Ishim', the last two - are 'Re'ach and Nicho'ach' (which will be
explained in the Sugya).
(b) By ...
1. ... 'le'Shem Zevach', the Tana means - that the Shochet has in mind the
correct Korban (an Olah), and not a different one (a Shelamim).
(c) In the case of a Chatas and an Asham, the Tana adds - the sin for which
the Korban is coming to atone.
2. ... 'le'Shem Zove'ach' - he means that he has in mind the right owner,
and not somebody else.
(a) Rebbi Yossi says that even if the Shochet Shechts S'tam, the Korban is
Kasher - due a Takanas Chachamim to Shecht S'tam, because someone who
specifically Shechts with a Kavanah li'Shemo, may come to do so she'Lo
(b) ... invalidating the Korban, even if the owner thinks li'Shemo - because
our Tana holds that P'sul Machshavah depends on the Oved, and not on the
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns le'Shem Zevach from the Pasuk "Olah
le'Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem". Even though this Pasuk *is not written* in
connection with the Shechitah, we learn that the Shechitah requires 'le'Shem
Zevach' - from Shelamim, where *it is*.
(b) And the reason that we cite the Pasuk by Olah and not by Shelamim is -
because although the other four are things mentioned by Shelamim, ''Re'ach
Nicho'ach'' is not written there.
(c) The definition of ...
1. ... 'le'Shem Ishim' is - that he intends the Korban to be burned to a
cinder, and not just into pieces of grilled meat.
2. ... 'le'Shem Re'ach' - that he intends the aroma of roasting meat to
pervade the Azarah (and not that it will be placed on the Azarah after
having already been roasted off the Ma'arachah).
3. ... 'le'Shem Nicho'ach' - that he intends the Korban to please Hashem,
who ordered it to be sacrificed.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav draws a distinction between a Chatas that one
Shechted as ...
1. ... an Olah - which is Pasul.
(b) Rebbi Ila'i extrapolates Rav's ruling from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalalu es
Kodshei B'nei Yisrael" - implying that *Kodshim* profane Kodshim (but not
2. ... Chulin - which is Kasher.
(c) Rabah poses a Kashya on Rav from Rebbi Yossi. He infers from Rebbi
Yossi's ruling 'Af Mi she'Lo Hayah be'Libo le'Shem Echad mi'Kol Eilu
asher' - that if the Shochet had in mind le'Shem Chulin, the Korban would
be Pasul (a Kashya on Rav).
(d) We qualify the inference however, to read - that it does atone, though
it is Kasher (and that is also what Rav meant when he said Kasher).
(a) Rebbi Ila'i agrees with Rav's previous ruling. But 'Chatas she'Shachtah
Mishum Chulin' (where the Shochet actually thinks that he is Shechting
Chulin) is Pasul ...
(b) ... because 'Misasek' (by Kodshim, where he does not even mean to Shecht
Kodshim) is Pasul.
(a) Rav Huna cited the Pasuk "ve'Shachat es ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hashem" that
'Mis'asek' by Kodshim is Pasul. He learned it from there - because the Pasuk
implies that the Shochet must know that he is Shechting that bull, which is
Kodshim (and not a Chulin bull).
(b) Shmuel was not satisfied with that source - because he knew it already,
and what he was looking for was a second Pasuk, rendering the Korban Pasul
(c) Rav Huna therefore quoted the additional Pasuk - "li'Retzonchem
Tizbachuhu", to teach us the P'sul of Mis'asek even Bedi'eved.