ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 49
ZEVACHIM 47-50 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who holds that there is no such thing as 'Tafel
Chamur min ha'Ikar', will ascribe the ...
1. ... Kedushah not taking effect on a permanent Ba'al-Mum, whereas Temurah
does - to the fact that Kodshim comes from Chulin, whereas Temurah comes
(b) We might learn from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas *bi'Mekom
ha'Olah*" - that Tzafon is Me'akev by an Olah.
2. ... Korban Pesach on Pesach not requiring Semichah, Nesachim or Matnas
Chazeh ve'Shok to a Kohen, whereas during the rest of the year, it does - to
the fact that after Pesach, the Korban Pesach changes its status to a
(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham) "bi'Mekom Asher
Yishchatu es ha'Olah Yishchatu es ha'Asham" that the Asham requires Tzafon,
1. ... the Pasuk there "ve'es Damo Yizrok" we learn - that the Kabalas
ha'Dam does too, and from ...
2. ... the 'Vav' in "ve'es" - that the Kohen who receives the blood must
also be standing in the north.
3. ... the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham Metzora) "ve'Shachat es
ha'Keves bi'Mekom Ashar Yishchat es ha'Chatas ... " - that Tzafon is
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves ... *ki
ka'Chatas ha'Asham*" - that the Asham Metzora requires Matan Damim and Matan
Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) Otherwise, based on the principle 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza
Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash ... ', we would have thought - that since it has
the unique Din of placing the blood on the big right thumb, the big toe and
the middle section of the right ear, it no longer follows the procedure of a
(c) This poses a Kashya on the previous D'rashah (that "ve'Shachat es
ha'Keves ... " teaches us that Tzafon is Me'akev) - because we need that
Pasuk for the same reason as we need the continuation, to teach us that an
Asham Metzora requires Tzafon even initially.
(d) We answer 'im Kein, Lichtov be'Hai, ve'Lo Lichtov be'Hai' - by which we
mean that if that were so, it would suffice to let us know that by the Asham
Metzora (from which we would extend it to other Ashamos), but now that the
Torah also writes it by "Zos Toras ha'Asham (bi'Mekom Asher Yishchatu
.... )", we learn that it is Me'akev.
(a) The previous D'rashah conforms with those who say that apart from the
unique Halachah, we can extend whatever the Torah subsequently writes by the
Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal to the K'lal. It does not however, seem to conform
with those who say that we neither learn it from the K'lal, nor the K'lal
from it - because we would then need bi'Mekom Asher Yishchatu .... )" - to
teach us Tzafon Lechatchilah by other Ashamos (and not Le'akev).
(b) We reconcile the previous D'rashah even according to that opinion - by
establishing that now that the Torah wrote "Ki ka'Chatas ka'Asham" by Asham
Metzora, the Torah has indicated that the all Ashamos are like the Asham
Metzora, in which case the Pasuk in Tzav comes Le'akev.
(c) Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina that maybe the Torah only
reinstates the Asham Metzora regarding the Din of the Matanos, but not
regarding the Din of Tzafon - since the Torah writes there ''ka'Chatas
ka'Asham Hu la'Kohen", and whereas the Matanos require Kehunah, the Shehitah
(d) Ravina replied - that Rav Zutra's Kashya would have been valid, had the
Torah written "ki ka'Chatas Hu ... ", but now that the Torah writes "ki
ka'Chatas ka'Asham Hu ... ", the Torah clearly indicates that the Asham
Metzora remains like all other Ashamos.
(a) The Torah writes "Ve'shachat es ha'Keves bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es
ha'Chatas ve'es ha'Olah", comparing the Asham both to Chatas and to Olah,
because if it only compared it ...
1. ... to Chatas, Ravina explained - we would have learned from there that
'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh.
(b) ... and the reason that the Torah chose here to compare Asham to Olah
and not to Chatas, which immediately precedes it is - because it prefers to
learn it from the source.
2. ... to Olah, Ravina told Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari - we would still
have thought that generally, Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed
(c) Consequently, the Torah compared Asham both to Chatas and to Olah to
teach us categorically - that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Eino Chozer
(a) Rava learns 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'
from another source. The problem with ...
1. ... the Pasuk (in connection with the Eimurim of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach)
"Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim" is - that all the Chalavim are
specified, so why does the Torah find it necessary to compare it to
(b) The first Kashya however, answers the second - in that due to the
superfluous comparison to Shelamim, it is as if the Torah had specified the
required parts by Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and 'Im Eino Inyan' (since it is not
needed there), it is as if they had been specifically mentioned by the Par
He'elam Davar, to teach us 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed
2. ... learning Yoseres ha'Kaved by the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim from Par
He'elam Davar shel Tzibur is - that the Torah does not specify the Yoseres
ha'Kaveid and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos by Par He'elam Davar either, and we only
know that they are included from a Hekesh to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach (which
suggests that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh')
(c) When Rav Papa asked Rava why the Torah does not simply insert the
Yoseres ha'Kaved and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos directly in the Parshah of Par
He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, in which case a Hekesh to Par Kohen Mashi'ach
would not be necessary - he replied then we would then not have a source for
the principle 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'.
(a) Rebbi Nasan ben Avtulmus in a Beraisa learns 'P'richah' by Tzara'as
Begadim with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Karachas ve'Gabachas" "Karachas
ve'Gabachas" from Tzara'as Adam on a location of hair. 'P'richah' means -
that if the mark of Tzara'as which is otherwise a Si'man Tum'ah, spreads to
cover the entire body, it is Tahor.
(b) We learn from "me'Rosho ve'Ad Raglo" - that just as it is a Tahor on the
location of the body, so too, is it Tahor on the location of the hair (i.e.
if it spreads across the entire head, it is Tahor.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan refutes the proof from there that 'Davar ha'Lamed
be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because, as he points out,
the question of not learning one Lameid from another is confined to the
realm of Kodshim.
(d) He then goes on to prove that by Kodshim, we hold 'Davar ha'Lamed
be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', from the fact that the
Torah writes "Tzafonah" by Asham - because otherwise, why can we not learn
it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah" "Kodshei Kodashim" "Kodshei Kodashim" from
Chatas, which in turn, we learn with a Hekesh from Olah.
(a) We attempt to counter Rebbi Yochanan's proof - by claiming that we
cannot learn Asham from Chatas, since the latter atones for Chayvei
K'riysus, which the former does not.
(b) And we reject the Kashya - on the grounds that seeing as "Kodshei
Kodashim" appear a number of times by each one, the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is
Mufnah (based on words that are redundant) which is not subject to a