ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 75
ZEVACHIM 75 (25 Av)- dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the third Yahrzeit of
her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), an
exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kodshim be'Kodshim Miyn be'Miyno, Zeh Yikrav
le'Shem Mi she'Hu ... '. To evade the problem of Semichah (which must be
performed by the owner and by nobody else) - Rav Yosef establishes the
Mishnah by Korbanos belonging to women.
(b) The Beraisa discusses a Korban Yachid that became mixed up with another
Korban Yachid or with a Korban Tzibur, or a Korban Tzibur that became mixed
up with another Korban Tzibur. The Tana is referring to - Chata'os.
(c) A Chatas Yachid (which is generally a female) can become mixed up with a
Chatas Tzibur (which is a male) - if it is the Chatas of a Nasi (which is a
(a) Initially, the Kohen should - place four Matanos for each Korban.
(b) In a case where the Kohen placed one Matanah for each Korban, or four
Matanos ('Shetayim she'Hein Arba [see Shitah Mekubetzes']) for all the
Korbanos (See Rashash) - the Korbanos are nevertheless Kasher.
(c) If the mix-up occurs after the animals have been Shechted (meaning that
the blood got mixed up in the cups) - then even Lechatchilah, it is not
necessary to place four Matanos for each Korban.
(d) Rebbi qualifies the latter ruling - by restricting it to where there is
sufficient blood for each Korban.
(a) We try to prove that the Beraisa is talking about the Korbenos Yachid of
men (and not of women) - because - just as Tzibur refers to men, so too,
(b) This poses a Kashya on Rav Yosef - because the Korbenos Yachid require
Semichah, which is not possible to perform (in which case, according to his
previous statement, the Korbanos ought to be Pasul).
(c) The Kashya is only from Korban Yachid and not from Korban Tzibur - since
a Korban Tzibur does not require Semichah in the first place.
(d) We know that the Tana is not referring to the Chatas Penimiyos of the
Tzibur, which does require Semichah - whereas the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos
require seven plus one, as we have already learned.
(a) We counter this Kashya by querying the very Beraisa. The problem with
the Seifa ' ... Aval Nis'arvu Shechutin Lo' is - the fact it is only if the
blood became mixed up in the same cup that it does not require four Matanos
for each Chatas Lechatchilah, but if it got mixed up in different cups, then
it does, as if the animals became mixed up before the Shechitah (even though
it happened after the Shechitah [so how can the Tana differentiate between
before the Shechitah and after it]).
(b) When we therefore establish the Mishnah by 'Shechutin ke'Ein Chayim' we
mean - that the Tana is speaking about a case (not that took place before
the Shechitah, but) after the Shechitah, only the blood became mixed up in
separate cups (which has the same Din as becoming mixed up before the
(c) This answers the Kashya - in that Semichah must have taken place before
the Shechitah, and was therefore no longer necessary at the time when the
bloods became mixed up.
(a) Rebbi in our Mishnah requires sufficient blood for each animal. In a
Beraisa, Rebbi cites Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that a 'Kol she'Hu' of the
Eifer ha'Parah will suffice for the sprinkling of a Tamei Meis - because he
says, Haza'ah does not have a Shiur.
(b) And when he adds 'Haza'ah Mechtzah Kasher u'Mechtzah Pasul', he is
coming to teach us - that even if it is mixed with Pasul ingredients, the
Haza'ah is nevertheless valid.
(c) The first answer to this apparent contradiction in Rebbi is that
although, in the latter Beraisa, he cites Rebbi Eliezer, he does not hold
like him. The second answer is - that one cannot compare the ashes of the
Parah Adumah, which do not have a Shiur, with the blood of a Chatas, which
(d) ... in order for the blood to appear on the two adjacent sides of the
Mizbe'ach (though it is unclear why this should be necessary there where the
Kohen places one or four Matanos).
(a) We have already learned that a Bechor cannot be redeemed, nor may the
Kohen sell it by weight. Rami bar Chama adds here - that the Kohen may not
feed it to a woman who is a Nidah.
(b) He asks - whether these three Halachos will extend to the Temurah of a
(c) Rava resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from a Beraisa, where after
stating that Bechor and Ma'aser that became blemished may not be weighed
(when it is sold), the Tana adds - that the same applies to the Bechor's
(a) A Kohen is permitted to declare a Bechor, Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis -
provided it obtains a blemish.
(b) Rami bar Chama asked whether, if the Kohen did so, the Bechor could be
weighed. This might be different than a regular sale - since the benefits of
the sale go to Hekdesh (as opposed to the owner).
(c) On the other hand, it might be forbidden, like a regular sale - assuming
that the criterion is (not who benefits from the sale, but) the fact that it
is degrading for a Bechor to be sold in this way.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Nis'arvu bi'Vechor u've'Ma'aser, Yir'u ad
she'Yista'avu ve'Ye'achlu ki'Vechor u'che'Ma'aser'. Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida
tries to prove from there - that all the Chumros of Bechor apply in Rami bar
Chama's case as well.
(b) Rav Huna and Rebbi Chizkiyah, the Talmidim of Rebbi Yirmiyah however,
repudiate this proof - on the grounds that our Mishnah is speaking about two
different animals (and it stands to reason that the fact that one animal is
an Olah or a Shelamim, will not detract from the status of the second animal
which is a Bechor), whereas Rami bar Chama is speaking when the one animal
incorporates two 'Kedushos', where one Kedushah might well override the
(c) When Rebbi Yossi bar Avin argues that if the Kohen wanted to redeem the
Bechor in question, would they listen to him, he is trying to prove - that
by the same token, they will not listen to him if he wants to sell it by
weight (since both are forbidden).
(d) We object to this proof however - on the grounds that whereas redeeming
a Bechor is Asur mi'd'Oraysa (which cannot be overruled), selling it by
weight is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan, which, under certain circumstances,
the Chachamim may have waived.
(e) Rebbi Ami finally resolves the She'eilah - on the basis of the S'vara
that a person can only give away something that he has. Consequently, since
the Kohen was not permitted to sell the Bechor by weight, Bedek ha'Bayis,
who received it from him, cannot do so either.
(a) Our Mishnah lists Chatas and Asham as the only two Korbanos that cannot
become mixed up, and we query this from a number of other cases. The Tana
not include Chatas and Olah - because of the Chatas Nasi, which is also a
(b) The Tana nevertheless lists Chatas and Asham, (despite the fact that
Chatas Nasi and Asham are also both male animals) - because whereas (unlike
the Pesach) the former is a goat (which does not have wool), the latter is a
ram, which does.
(c) The Tana does not add Pesach and Asham to the list - seeing as the
former is in its first year, whereas the latter is in its second.
(d) We answer that some Ashamos also come in their first year - namely,
Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora, by which the Torah writes "Keves", just like
(a) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah rules that if an Asham becomes mixed up with
a Shelamim, they must both be Shechted in the north of the Azarah, and eaten
with the Chumros of an Asham. The Chachamim disagree with this - on the
basis of the principle that one is forbidden to detract from the time that
the Torah allocates for eating a Korban (two days for a Shelamim) ...
(b) ... in case one does not manage to eat it in time, resulting in the
Kodshim having to be burned.
(c) According to them - one lets them graze in the field until they become
blemished, sells them and with the proceeds, one purchases an Asham and a
(d) In a case where pieces of Asham got mixed up with pieces of Shelamim,
the Chachamim concede - that they must be eaten with all the Chumros of the
Asham, since there is no alternative.
(a) A Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav, prohibiting the
purchase of Terumah with Shevi'is money - because it detracts from the time
that one would otherwise be permitted to eat the Terumah.
(b) The Rabbanan commented in front of Rabah that this Beraisa does not
conform with all opinions - because according to Rebbi Shimon, it ought to
(c) Rabah reconciles the Beraisa with Rebbi Shimon - by restricting his
ruling to Bedieved (after the two Korbanos became mixed up), but not
Lechatchilah (to permit initially buying Terumah with Shevi'is money).