ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 115
ZEVACHIM 115 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) Rav Huna objects to Rav Ila'i Amar Resh Lakish (who holds that one is
Chayav Shechutei Chutz for an Asham she'Lo bi'Zemano she'Lo li'Shemo ... ) -
on the basis of the S'vara - that something that is Pasul li'Shemo, cannot
be Kasher she'Lo li'Shemo.
(b) And the Mishnah in the first Perek validating all Kodshim that are
Shechted she'Lo li'Sheman - he will establish by Korbanos that are Kasher
(c) A Pesach that one brings all year round she'Lo li'Shemo (as a Shelamim)
is - Kasher (in spite of the fact that it is Pasul li'Shemo).
(d) Ula reconciles his objection with this ruling - because a Pesach during
the rest of the year automatically becomes a Shelamim, which is not the case
by most other Korbanos (which require Akirah).
(a) In the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz, the Torah could have written " ...
Asher Yishchat ba'Machaneh O Asher Yishchat mi'Chutz la'Machaneh, ve'el
Pesach ... Lo Hevi'o". From "Shor, O Kesev O Eiz" mentioned there the
Beraisa includes, Olas Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim - Asham Metzora and Asham
(b) The Tana conspicuously omits - a Korban Chatas.
(c) The Tana cannot be talking about ...
1. ... an Asham bi'Zemano (bi'Shemo) - because then there would be no reason
to omit Chatas from the Chiyuv.
(d) Neither can he be talking about li'Shemo, and the Chiyuv ba'Chutz is
based on the fact that he would be Chayav bi'Fenim she'Lo li'Shemo - since
it is lacking Akirah, as we explained earlier.
2. ... an Asham she'Lo bi'Zemano, li'Shemo - because then, why would an
Asham be Chayav (seeing as it Pasul bi'Fenim).
(a) The Beraisa must then be speaking - bi'Zemano she'Lo li'Shemo - and the
Asham is Kasher even though it would have been Pasul had it been Shechted
li'Shemo (a proof for Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi).
(b) We reject the proof however, by establishing the case by bi'Zemano
she'Lo li'Shemo, but the author is Rebbi Eliezer, who holds - that an Asham
she'Lo li'Shemo bi'Fenim is Pasul, just like a Chatas ...
(c) ... and the Tana learns Asham (the secondary case) taking for granted
that the same applies to the Chatas (the source from which Asham is
(d) We cannot establish the Beraisa by bi'Zemano and li'Shemo, and the
Chidush by Asham will extend to Chatas too - because a. what does that have
to do with Rebbi Eliezer (who is speaking about she'Lo li'Shemo), b. seeing
as both are written with regard to being Kasher bi'Fenim, why does the Tana
refer to one as 'Ikar' and the other, as 'Tafeil', and c. we would not
require a Pasuk to teach us that one is Chayav ba'Chutz for Kodshim that are
(e) Despite the fact that an Asham (or a Chatas) she'Lo li'Shemo bi'Fenim is
Pasul, one is nevertheless Chayav for Shechting it ba'Chutz she'Lo li'Shemo,
according to Rebbi Eliezer - because until it has actually been Shechted
she'Lo li'Shemo, it retains its original status (even though he has
designated it for something else) and is therefore fit to Shecht bi'Fenim.
(a) The Beraisa discusses an 'Olah Mechusar Z'man be'Gufah and a Chatas bein
be'Gufah bein be'Ba'alim'. We reject the text 'Yachol she'Ani Marbeh Olah
Mechusar Z'man ... ' - because it presumes that it is the Seifa of the
previous Beraisa when really, it is the Reisha (though those who inserted it
actually thought that it was the Seifa, because of the order in which the
Sugya cites them).
1. 'Olah Mechusar Z'man be'Gufah' is - within the first eight days of birth.
(c) We extrapolate from the fact that the Tana omits Asham - that he must be
Chayav for Shechting it ba'Chutz.
2. 'Chatas ... be'Ba'alim' is - the Chatas of a Nazir or of a Metzora, whose
Taharah is not yet complete.
(d) The case of Asham Mechusar be'Ba'alim is - that of an Asham Nazir and an
(a) The Tana cannot be referring to Asham li'Shemo - because then he ought
to be Chayav for Shechting the Asham ba'Chutz as well.
(b) So he must be talking about she'Lo li'Shemo - even though bi'Fenim
(she'Lo bi'Zemano) he would be Patur, a Kashya on Rav Huna.
(c) Here too, we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer. The Tana is
speaking in a case of she'Lo li'Shemo, and he is Patur - because (seeing as
Rebbi Eliezer compares Asham to Chatas) it is not fit to Shecht bi'Fenim
(d) The Tana mentions the Ikar (the Chatas), and (seeing as the same reason
pertains to both), it is obvious that the same applies to the Tafeil (the
(a) According to Rav Huna, the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Eliezer in this
ruling - because whatever is not fit li'Shemo, cannot be fit she'Lo li'Shemo
(b) And what forces Rav Huna to establish the author as Rebbi Eliezer - is
the fact that the Seifa has to go like him, as we explained earlier.
(c) In addition, the Rabbanan do not learn Asham from Chatas, and we would
not automatically learn one from the other. If the Tana had wanted to
mention only one, it should have mentioned Asham rather than Chatas - to
teach us the additional Chidush that Asham has to be Pasul she'Li li'Shemo,
because it is Pasul li'Shemo.
(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a Beraisa of bei bar
Liva'i, which hinted at a Pasuk which includes Olas Mechusar Z'man
be'Ba'alim and Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora in the Din of Shechutei Chutz,
but failed to pinpoint it. Ravina pointed to - "Shor, ve'Chesev va'Eiz" (as
we learned in the Beraisa earlier).
(b) We ...
1. ... prove Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi right from there - because the Tana
must be speaking in a case of she'Lo li'Shemo (as we proved earlier).
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this answer however, based on Rav
Dimi's Kashya on bar Livai's Beraisa from a Beraisa cited by Levi, which
states - that an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora which were Shechted ...
2. ... try to refute the proof - by establishing it like Rebbi Eliezer (like
we did there).
1. ... she'Lo li'Sheman - are Kasher, even though the owner has not
fulfilled his obligation with it.
2. ... Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim or in their second year - are Pasul.
(a) To resolve the discrepancy - Rav Dimi established the latter Beraisa by
li'Shemo, and the former by she'Lo li'Shemo (but not according to Rebbi
Eliezer), a proof for Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi.
(b) Rav Ashi gave the same answer to resolve the discrepancy between the
first Beraisa (which he establishes she'Lo li'Shemo [but not Rebbi Eliezer[)
and our Mishnah - which rules with regard to Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim
'ha'Zav ... she'Hikrivu Chatasam ve'Ashamam ba'Chutz Peturin' (and which he
(c) Now that we have established bar Livai's Beraisa (rendering Chayav Asham
Nazir and Metzora ba'Chutz Chayav, by she'Lo bi'Zemano), to reconcile it
with own opinion, Rav Huna establishes the case - where the owner initially
designated two Ashamos (in case one gets lost), in which case one of them
automatically stands to become an Olah (similar to the S'vara that we gave
above to explain a Pesach during the rest of the year, to answer the same
(d) And he bases this on a ruling of Rav that he himself quoted, who rules
that an Asham which has been disqualified from being sacrificed, and that
was sent into the field to become blemished, but Shechted before it had a
chance to do so - is automatically Kasher as an Olah.
(a) The Beraisa extrapolates from ...
1. ... the word "Olah" - that Shechutei Chutz only applies to things that
are fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, to preclude 'B'sar Chatas, Asham and
Kodshei Kodshim and Kalim, Moser ha'Omer, Sh'tei ha'Lechem and Lechem
ha'Panim and Sheyarei Menachos', which are all eaten.
(b) Rav Chanah bar Rav Ketina quoting Rav Asi, cited the Pasuk "Va'yishlach
es Na'arei B'nei Yisrael Va'ya'alu Olos" in front of Rav Chisda. The
"Na'arei B'nei Yisrael" were - the Bechoros.
2. ... the Pasuk "Asher Ya'aleh Olah O Zavach" - that 'ha'Yotzek, ha'Bolel,
ha'Poses, ha'Mole'ach, ha'Meinif, ha'Magish, ha'Mesader ha'Shulchan,
ha'Meitiv es ha'Neiros, ha'Kometz ve'Hamekabel, ba'Chutz' are Patur, since
unlike Olah, they are all not final Avodos.
(c) When he commented on the Pasuk, 'u'Paskeih', he meant - that there
should be an Esnachta under the word "Yisrael", because although it was the
Bechoros who prepared the Olos, it was Nadav and Avihu who actually brought
them on the Mizbe'ach, since they were chosen to perform the Avodah already
(d) Rav Chisda had in mind to ask him from our Mishnah - which specifically
states that the Bechoros who served until the Mishkan was built.
(a) Rav Chisda also heard from Rav Chanah in the name of Rav Ada bar
Ahavah - that the Olah that Yisrael brought at Har Sinai did not require
Hefshet and Nitu'ach.
(b) The reason that he then changed his mind about asking the previous
Kashya from our Mishnah is - because he came across a Beraisa, which
disproves both statements of Rav Chanah.
(c) Besides informing us that before the Mishkan was erected, Bamos were
permitted, the Tana also says that ...
1. ... any type of Beheimah, Chayah and Of could be brought on a Bamah, male
or female, complete or blemished, provided it was a Kasher species.
(d) The Beraisa permits Nochrim nowadays all of the above concessions -
since the Isur of Bamos does not pertain to them.
2. ... the only category of Korban - that could be brought though, was an
(a) The Tana says - that ...
1. ... until the Mishkan was erected, it was the Bechoros who performed the
(b) To which Rav Chanah replied - 'Tanai Hi' (meaning that the first point
[initially] is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im).
2. ... the Olah in question required Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach, whereas according
to Rav Chana's previous rulings, Nadav and Avihu took over the Avodah
already at Sinai, and the Olos did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in a Beraisa, interprets "ha'Kohanim" in the
Pasuk "ve'Gam ha'Kohanim ha'Nigashim el Hashem Yiskadashu", as Bechoros,
whereas, according to Rebbi - it refers to Nadav and Avihu.
(d) Rebbi's explanation ties up nicely with the Pasuk in Shemini "Hu Asher
Diber Hashem bi'Kerovai Ekadesh" - because the prediction implied there
refers to the above Pasuk, to which Hashem added that if those 'Kohanim' go
too close, Hashem will 'cause a breach' in them (which is precisely what
happened later [in Shemini], when they went too close).
(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, "Hu Asher Diber Hashem ... "
refers to the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'no'adti Shamah li'Venei Yisrael
Ve'nikdash bi'Chevodi" - which he reads as 'bi'Mechubadai', which now means
that Hashem predicted that when He would appear to Yisrael in the
newly-erected Mishkan, He would be sanctified with His honored ones (i.e. by
there death [a reference to Nadav and Avihu, as Rashi explains there]).
(b) When this Pasuk was said to Moshe, he did not fully understand it (in
fact, he thought that it pertained to himself and his brother Aharon).
(c) Based on what we just said, Moshe told Aharon - that his two sons had
died in order to create a Kidush Hashem.
(a) When Aharon realized how close his sons were to Hashem - he reacted to
Moshe's comforting words by remaining silent (and accepting the Divine
(b) David Hamelech too, advocated silence in face of the Midas ha'Din, when
he wrote in Tehilim "Dom Hashem *Ve'hischolel Lo*" - by which he meant that
even if many of one's relatives are being killed, must one accept it in
(c) Shlomoh said in Koheles - that there is a time when one receives reward
for being silent, and a time when one is rewarded for talking.
(d) Aharon's reward for his silence was - that the following Parshah,
prohibiting Kohanim from drinking wine was said to him (and not to Moshe).
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan read the Pasuk in Tehilim "Nora
Elokim mi'Mikdashecha" as - "Nora Elokim mi'Mekudashecha", by which he means
to say that Hashem is revered when He performs Din with His holy ones.
(b) Rav Chanah bar Rav Ketina answers the Kashya from Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach in
the same way as he answered the previous one - 'Tana'i Hi' (as we shall now
(c) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, says 'K'lalos Ne'emru be'Sinai u'P'ratos
Ne'emru be'Ohel Mo'ed'. Assuming that the former statement refers to the
Pasuk "Mizbach Adamah Ta'aseh Li Ve'zavachta Alav ... ", Rebbi Yishmael is
now saying - that although they were told the K'lalei Korban at Har Sinai,
the P'ratim (such as Hefshet and Nitu'ach) were only handed to them later in
the Ohel Mo'ed), in which case, Hefshet and Nitu'ach were not performed with
the Olah at Har Sinai (like Rav Chanah bar Ketina).
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - they were told both the K'lalim and the
P'ratim at Sinai, and again in the Ohel Mo'ed and a third time, at Arvos