Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 111

1) "NESACHIM" THAT ARE NOT SANCTIFIED IN A "KLI SHARES"

OPINIONS: The Gemara earlier cites a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer argue with regard to pouring Nesachim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Tana Kama maintains one who pours three Lugin of water outside the Beis ha'Mikdash during Sukos transgresses the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, offering Korbanos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that he is guilty only if he originally filled the container with water with specific intent that it be used for the Sukos libations.

The Gemara records a number of explanations concerning the nature of this Machlokes. Among those explanations is that of Rav Papa, who says that their argument is based on a different argument -- whether or not Nesachim were offered during the sojourn in the Midbar. How does that argument explain the argument of the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa?

(a) RASHI (DH b'Karvu) explains that although the Torah gives an explicit commandment of Nesachim for when the Jewish people enter Eretz Yisrael (see Bamidbar 15), there is an argument regarding exactly what that commandment tells us to do. If the Jewish people offered Nesachim in the Midbar, then the verses must be teaching us that even when we enter Eretz Yisrael and offer Korbanos on private Bamos (Bamos Ketanos), we must offer Nesachim with the Korbanos. The Torah is not referring to Korbanos brought on a public Bamah (Bamah Gedolah), since the Jewish people were already bringing Nesachim on this type of Bamah (in the Midbar).

The Gemara (see 108b, 113a) says that when private Bamos were used, the people did not use any Kli Shares. According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa here, this means that one would be Chayav for offering Nesachim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash even if the Nesachim were never sanctified in a Kli Shares. Since this was the manner of bringing a Korban on a Bamah, Nesachim that were not sanctified in a Kli Shares that were poured *inside* the Beis ha'Mikdash have the status of "Im Alah Lo Yered," meaning that if they are placed upon the Mizbe'ach, they may not be removed. The criterion for transgressing the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz is whether the same act, when done in the Beis ha'Mikdash, is entirely valid, or at least has a status of "Im Alah Lo Yered." Accordingly, pouring Nesachim outside the Beis ha'Mikdash without a Kli Shares, which, inside the Beis ha'Mikdash is "Im Alah Lo Yered," constitutes a violation of the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz.

Rebbi Eliezer, on the other hand, holds that the Nesachim were not offered in the Midbar. The commandment of Nesachim in the Torah is only for when the Mishkan is erected in Eretz Yisrael, and for the eventual, permanent Beis ha'Mikdash. Bamos Ketanos never had Nesachim offered on them. Accordingly, Nesachim always need a Kli Shares. One who pours Nesachim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash without being Makdish them in a Kli Shares has *not* transgressed the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, since he has not done anything which is done in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

(b) TOSFOS (110b, DH Iy Mah) understands the logic of the Tana Kama differently. The fact that these Nesachim were once accepted without a Kli Shares is not a reason to say that they are valid when brought inside the Beis ha'Mikdash without a Kli Shares. The Halachah regarding such Nesachim is "Im Alu Yardu" -- if they were placed on the Mizbe'ach, they indeed must be removed. However, because the Torah says that at one point in time, such Nesachim (that were not sanctified in a Kli Shares) had the status of a valid "offering" even without the Kedushah of a Kli Shares, such Nesachim are always deemed an offering, and thus the person who offers non-sanctified Nesachim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is Chayav. (See CHAZON ISH 19:4 for another explanation of the words of Tosfos.)

The KEREN ORAH and others have difficulty understanding how one can be Chayav for offering a Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash with Nesachim that are not properly sanctified. We know that one transgresses the prohibition of offering a Korban outside only when the Korban has Kedushas ha'Guf, the body of the animal itself is sanctified as a Korban. Nesachim obtain this level of Kedushah only through being sanctified in a Kli Shares (see Menachos 100b). Until the Nesachim are sanctified in a Kli Shares, they may be redeemed if they become Tamei, similar to any item that is Kadosh with only Kedushas Damim that may be redeemed from Hekdesh. How, then, can one be Chayav for Ma'aleh ba'Chutz for offering Nesachim which do not have the Kedushah of a Korban?

The SEFAS EMES suggests that verbally designating the water as Nesachim gives the water Kedushah and turns the water into a Korban. His logic seems to be that since this is the most that one could do when Nesachim were brought on a Bamah Ketanah, it suffices to be called a Korban.

The Keren Orah rejects this explanation. While it is true that when no Kli was needed, according to the Tana Kama who says that Nesachim were brought on a Bamah, a verbal dedication sufficed, since that was the only way to designate the water as Nesachim. However, once the Halachah is that Kedushas ha'Guf is necessary, there is no reason to say that a verbal dedication elevates the Nesachim to the status of a Korban, without the Nesachim being sanctified in a Kli Shares!

Using the explanation of Tosfos, perhaps we may justify the logic of the Sefas Emes. When the Torah says that it sufficed to have only a verbal dedication for Nesachim that were offered on a Bamah Ketanah, the Torah is essentially saying that this action bestows the title of "offering" on this water. Even though it is a totally unfit Korban when there is a Beis ha'Mikdash, it should still be called an "offering" with regard to offering it outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. This explanation is proposed by the CHAZON YECHEZKEL (Chidushim 12:4).

(c) Due to this difficulty, the Sefas Emes himself advances a third possibility. It is possible that the Beraisa is referring to a case in which the Nesachim were sanctified in a Kli Shares. The only question concerns a case in which one took the Nesachim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash and then poured them without using the Kli Shares. The Tana Kama is saying that because a Bamah Ketanah did not require a Kli Shares, pouring from an ordinary Kli outside the Beis ha'Mikdash would also make one Chayav. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that because a Kli Shares was always necessary for Nesachim, pouring Nesachim without using a Kli Shares would be like pouring it on the ground without a Mizbe'ach, which does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of offering Kodshim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

However, the Sefas Emes admits that the wording of Rebbi Eliezer, who says that one is Chayav "if the Nesachim are filled up with intent to be used for Sukos," is not consistent with this explanation. (Y. Montrose)

111b

OPINIONS: The Gemara records an argument between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon regarding a Korban that is slaughtered at night. The Tana Kama maintains that one who slaughters an animal in the Beis ha'Mikdash at night and then offers it outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash has *not* transgressed the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. In contrast, one who slaughters the animal outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash at night and then offers it outside *is* Chayav.

The Tana Kama does not explain when the Korban must be offered. Is one Chayav for offering the Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash (when one slaughtered it at night outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash) only when he offers it during the day, or even when he offers it during the night?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 18:17) maintains that the Gemara is discussing a Korban that is being offered at night as well. The reason why the offering in the first case (when it was slaughtered at night *inside* the Beis ha'Mikdash) does not qualify as Ma'aleh ba'Chutz is because the slaughtering inside the Beis ha'Mikdash at night disqualified the Eimurin. One does not transgress the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz when he offers limbs that are Pasul. In contrast, when the animal was slaughtered outside the Beis ha'Mikdash at night, the Korban is *not* disqualified by the verse that teaches that a Korban slaughtered in the Beis ha'Mikdash must be slaughtered during the day. Only a Korban that is slaughtered *inside* the Beis ha'Mikdash is subject to this Pesul. (See RADVAZ there.)

(b) The RA'AVAD argues with the Rambam and says that the Gemara is referring to an offering that is slaughtered outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash at night, but is offered outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash during the day.

He explains this as follows. Even though an animal that is slaughtered outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is Pasul, the Torah nevertheless says that one *is* Chayav for offering such a Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. If we see that the Torah obligates a person for offering something which is Pasul outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, it makes no difference already whether it is Pasul for one reason (it was slaughtered outside of the Mikdash) or for two (it was slaughtered outside, and by night).

The words of the Ra'avad require further clarification.

1. The KEHILOS YAKOV (#43) questions the reasoning of the Ra'avad, that only offering the limbs during the day constitutes Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. If *slaughtering* at night is forbidden and yet the animal is still subject to the prohibition of offering outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, then *offering* the limbs at night should also constitute a transgression of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, even though it would not be a valid Korban if offered in such a manner!

The Kehilos Yakov explains that there is a fundamental difference between *slaughtering* at night, and *offering the limbs* at night. The Gemara earlier (107a) says that Rebbi Akiva rules that slaughtering a bird-offering (as opposed to performing Melikah) outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is considered a violation of the prohibition of Shechutei Chutz. The fact that it is forbidden to slaughter a bird-offering outside the Beis ha'Mikdash even though a bird is *never* slaughtered inside the Beis ha'Mikdash shows that the prohibition of slaughtering outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is not because it is an Avodah that is normally done in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Torah does not forbid slaughtering outside because it is an "Avodah," but rather it forbids the very *act* itself of slaughtering outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

In contrast, the offering of limbs outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is forbidden because the Torah forbids performing an *Avodah* of offering outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash in the same manner in which it is done inside the Beis ha'Mikdash. This is apparent from the Gemara later (115b). The Gemara there excludes any item which is not brought on the Mizbe'ach, such as the meat of a Korban which is supposed to be eaten, from the prohibition against offering limbs outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. This is because the verse describes the meat being offered outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash as an "Olah" (Vayikra 17:8), meaning that it must be something which is fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach. It seems that the prohibition of offering Korbanos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is because it is being treated as an "Olah," and an *Avodah* is being done with the Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. This is why the Ra'avad says that doing Avodos other than slaughtering outside, such as offering limbs, is a transgression only when done during the day, which is the time when the Avodah is performed. (See also MINCHAS AVRAHAM, p. 118, in the name of the BRISKER RAV, and Insights to Zevachim 107a.)

2. Although this answers the basic question of how slaughtering outside the Beis ha'Mikdash differs from doing other Avodos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Kehilos Yakov still has difficulty with the view of the Ra'avad. We know that the *offering* and burning of limbs on the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash is done *at night*. Since this is the normal manner of offering the limbs inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, offering limbs outside at night *should* constitute a transgression of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz!

The OR SAME'ACH, who also poses this question, suggests the possibility that when the Ra'avad says, "He'eleh ba'Laylah," he means that the person did the *Zerikah* at night -- and not that the person offered the Eimurin of the Korban at night. Since Zerikah may *not* be performed at night in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the person does not transgress the Isur of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz when he performs such a Zerikah.

However, the Or Same'ach rejects this interpretation, asserting that this cannot be the Ra'avad's intention. The Ra'avad writes that if the animal was slaughtered in the Beis ha'Mikdash at night, one is not obligated for "offering" such an animal outside of the Mikdash because the Korban already was disqualified due to having been *slaughtered at night*. If, when the Ra'avad says, "offering," the Ra'avad was referring to performing the *Zerikas ha'Dam* at night outside of the Mikdash, the Korban will be disqualified for a different reason, and not merely because it was slaughtered at night. It would be Pasul because its blood (even if it was not sprinkled at night) became Pasul after the sun set due to "Linah."

However, the Kehilos Yakov suggests that interpreting the Ra'avad's words as referring to performing Zerikah at night would indeed explain the Ra'avad's view. Although blood becomes Pasul b'Linah when it is sprinkled at night in the Beis ha'Mikdash, this alone would not remove the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz from the blood. The criterion for determining whether a certain act transgresses the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz is whether the act is valid when done at *some time* on the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The fact that blood is no longer valid for Zerikah at night does not remove it from the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz , since Zerikah is performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash with similar blood during the day.

This is unlike the Pesul of *Zerikah* at night, since Zerikah at night is an act that is never done in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and therefore is not included in the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. If this is the Ra'avad's intention, it is understandable why he writes that even if the Korban was slaughtered in the Mikdash at night, the offering (= Zerikah) must be done during the day in order for one to be Chayav. (Y. Montrose)