ZEVACHIM 36 (5 Sivan) - Dedicated l'Zecher Nishmas Reb Chaim Aryeh ben Aharon Stern Z'L by Shmuel Gut of Brooklyn, N.Y.

1)

TOSFOS DH Trei Kera'i Kesivi b'Nosar

úåñôåú ã"ä úøé ÷øàé ëúéáé áðåúø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how we learn to elsewhere.)

çã áôñç åçã áúåãä

(a)

Explanation: One is written regarding Pesach, and one regarding Todah.

1.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes learns that both verses are regarding Todah. Therefore, the coming question of Tosfos is not difficult for him.

åúéîä ããøéù áàí àéðå òðéï åîôñç (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äéëé éìôé' ùàø ðåúø:

(b)

Question: He expounds [intent Chutz li'Zmano] from Im Eino Inyan. How do we learn other Nosar from Pesach?

2)

TOSFOS DH Shalmei Pesach

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìîé ôñç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)

ôéøùúé áô''÷ ñîåê ìúçéìúå (ìòéì è.)

(a)

Explanation: I explained this above (9a DH u'Shelamim, that it is Mosar Pesach.)

3)

TOSFOS DH she'Yochluhu Temei'im v'Yakrivuhu Temei'im...

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéàëìåäå èîàéí åé÷øéáåäå èîàéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the question.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ãäàé é÷øéáåäå áàéîåøéï ÷àîø åìà áãí ãåîéà ãéàëìåäå ãäåé ááùø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Yakrivuhu refers to the Eimurim, and not to the blood, similar to Yochluhu, which refers to meat;

åàí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àëìå èîàéï àå òøìéí æáç ùðæø÷ ãîå ëäìëúå îé îôñéì ÷øáï îìøöåú

1.

If Temei'im or Arelim ate a Zevach whose blood was thrown properly, is the Korban disqualified from being accepted!?

åà''ú çéùá ìäðéç àéîåøéí ìîçø àå ìäåöéàå ìçåõ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àîàé ôñåì

(b)

Question: If he intended to leave over the Eimurim tomorrow or take them outside, why is it Pasul?

äìà àí äðéç àéîåøéí òã ìîçø àå äåöéàå ìçåõ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëéåï ùðæø÷ ãîå ëäìëúå ìà ðôñì ÷øáï îìøöåú

1.

If he left the Eimurim until tomorrow or took them outside, since the blood was thrown properly, the Korban is not disqualified from being accepted!

åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãìäðéç àéîåøéï ìîçø àé òáéã ëîçùáúå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îéôñéì ëåìéä ÷øáï á÷ãùéí äðàëìéí ìéåí åìéìä

(c)

Answer: This is different. To leave the Eimurim until tomorrow, if he did like his intent, the entire Korban is disqualified if it is Kodshei Kodoshim that are eaten for one day and a night;

ãëéåï ãäåå àéîåøéï áòéï ëì ëîä ãìà îé÷èøé ìà îùúøé áùø áàëéìä åëé îèé ìîçø îôñéì áùø îùåí ðåúø

1.

Since the Eimurim were intact, as long as they are not burned on the Mizbe'ach, one may not eat the meat. When tomorrow comes, the meat is Pasul due to Nosar.

àáì ùé÷øéáåäå èîàéí ìà îéôñéì áùø çãà ãä÷øéáåäå èîàéï àí òìå ìà éøãå

2.

However, [when he intended] that Temei'im offer it, the meat is not disqualified. Firstly, if Temei'im offered it, Im Alah Lo Yered;

åòåã ðèîàå àéîåøéí àå àáãå îùúøé áùø áàëéìä ëéåï ãðæø÷ äãí ëäìëúå

3.

Further, if the Eimurim became Tamei or were lost, one may eat the meat, since the blood was offered properly.

àëúé ÷ùä îìäåöéàå ìçåõ àé ÷àé ààéîåøéï àîàé ôñéì ø' éäåãä äìà àí òùä ëï ìà ðîðò äãí áëê îìøöåú åâí áùø îéùúøé áàëéìä

(d)

Question: Still, it is difficult from [intent] to take it outside. If it refers to the Eimurim, why does R. Yehudah disqualify? If he did so, this does not stop the blood from being Meratzeh, and also the meat may be eaten!

ãëéåï ùäåöéà àéîåøéí áçåõ äåä ìéä ëðèîàå àéîåøéí àå àáãå åäáùø ùøé ìàëåì

1.

Since the Eimurim were taken outside, it is as if the Eimurim became Tamei or were lost, and one may eat the meat.

åàé ìà ÷àé ìäåöéàå ø÷ àãí àúé ùôéø äëé:

(e)

Answer (and Explanation #2): If [intent] to take it outside refers only to blood, it would be fine.

4)

TOSFOS DH ka'Savar R. Yehudah Ba'inan Makom she'Yehei Meshulash...

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ñáø ø' éäåãä áòéðï î÷åí ùéäà îùåìù...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he asked only about R. Yehudah.)

úéîä ìîàé ãìà éãò èòîà ãî÷åí îùåìù úé÷ùé ìéä ìøáðï àîàé ìà çùéá [äðéúðéï áçåõ áôðéí] çåõ ìî÷åîå

(a)

Question: [Before this answer,] that [the Makshan] did not know the reason of Makom Meshulash (a place of all three), he should have asked why Rabanan do not consider [blood] that should be put outside, and was put inside, to be Chutz li'Mkomo!

ãîäàé èòîà îîòèéðï ìéä áôéø÷éï ãìòéì åì÷îï áô' äúòøåáåú (ãó ôá:)

1.

For this reason we exclude it above (29a) and below (82b)!

åé''ì ãñ''ã ãøáé éäåãä äåà ãìà áòé îùåí ãîñ÷éðï èòîà îñáøà

(b)

Answer: One might have thought that R. Yehudah does not require [a place of all three, but Rabanan do], because we conclude that the source is from reasoning. (He uses "Shelishi" to teach about Chutz li'Zmano, so he has no verse to teach about Makom Meshulash, so one might have thought that he does not require it.)

5)

TOSFOS DH u'Mi Eis Lei l'R. Yehudah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîé àéú ìéä ìøáé éäåãä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there were different opinions about Makom Meshulash.)

öøéê ìééùá ñåâéà æå ìëì äìùåðåú ùôé' áôéø÷éï ãìòéì (ãó ëè.) î÷åí îùåìù

(a)

Remark: We must resolve this Sugya with all of the versions that I explained above (29a DH l'Makom) regarding what is a place of three.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Chatas she'Nichnas Damah Lifnim Pesulah

úåñôåú ã"ä åçèàú ùðëðñ ãîä ìôðéí ôñåìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to intent.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùìà úæáçðä ò''î ìäëðéñ ãîä ìôðéí åìà áäëðñä îîù ÷îæäø ìéä àìà áîçùáú äëðñä ãäà áæáéçä ÷àé å÷à ÷øé ìéä ãáø øò àìîà îéôñéì

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): You may not slaughter it with intent to bring its blood inside. [The Torah] does not warn about literally entering the blood, rather, intent to enter it, for we discuss Shechitah, and it calls it "Davar Ra."

åòåã éù ìôøù ããáø øò îùîò ìéä ò''é ãáåø øò (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãäééðå îçùáä åìàå äëðñä îîù

(b)

Explanation #2: "Davar Ra" connotes to him evil Dibur (speech), i.e. intent, and not truly entering.

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Kaima Lan beshe'Kiper

úåñôåú ã"ä å÷é''ì áùëéôø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the stringency of Chatas regarding this.)

åà''ú ìî''ã ùìà áî÷åîå ìàå ëî÷åîå ãîé àîàé ôñéì øçîðà èôé áçèàåú îùàø ÷øáðåú ãáùàø ÷øáðåú ðîé ôñåì (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(a)

Question: According to the opinion that not in its place is not like in its place, why did the Torah disqualify Chatas (whose blood was brought inside) more than other Korbanos? Also in other Korbanos it is Pasul!

åé''ì ãáùàø ãîéí ëùðúï îîðå òì äôøëú åáéï äáãéí àéëà ìîéîø ãéàñôðå àå àí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) éù òåã ãí éæøå÷ áî÷åîå åëùø åáçèàú àéï ú÷ðä ìãí äðùàø

(b)

Answer #1: Regarding blood of other [Korbanos], when he put from it on the Paroches or between the staves [of the Aron], we can say that he will gather it, or if there is more blood he will throw it its [proper] place, and it is Kosher. For Chatas, there is no solution for the remaining blood.

à''ð úðà ãñáø ìàå ëî÷åîå ãîé éñáåø áçèàú ãôñåì àó áìà ëéôø. áøå''ê

(c)

Answer #2 (R. Baruch): The Tana who holds that not in its place is not like in its place, he holds that a Chatas is Pasul even if he did not atone.

8)

TOSFOS DH Hacha d'Chashuvei Chashiv Lo Kol she'Chen

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà ãçùåáé çùéá ìà ëì ùëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

úéîä à''ë áèìä úåøú ôéâåì ãæø÷ î÷öú ãí áçåõ àå àåëì ëæéú áçåõ ìà îéôñéì åîçùá îçùáä ôåñì

(a)

Question: If so, the law of Pigul is nullified! If one threw some of the blood outside or eats a k'Zayis outside, [the Korban] is not disqualified. If he has [improper] intent [to do so, this is more stringent, and] he disqualifies!

äëé ðîé ðäé ãîëðéñ áìà îëôø ìà îéôñéì îçùá ìäëðéñ áìà ìëôø (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ôåñì

1.

Likewise, granted that entering without being Mechaper does not disqualify. Intent to enter without being Mechaper [can] disqualify!

åé''ì ãáø øò îùîò ãáø ùäåà øò áî÷åí àçø (äâää áâìéåï) æä àñøúé áîçùáä áùòú æáéçä

(b)

Answer: "Davar Ra" connotes something that is evil elsewhere, this I (Hash-m) forbade to intend at the time of Shechitah. (Even though entering disqualifies only if he was Mechaper, Kaparah does not apply to intent.)

1.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes (Kesav Yad) says that the following starts a new Dibur.

äëà ãçéùá ìà ëì ùëï

(c)

Citation: Here that he intended, all the more so (it disqualifies only if there was intent for Kaparah).

ãëùø ãàôéìå çéùá ìéúï áôðéí òì îæáç äæäá òì îðú ìäúëôø ëùø ëéåï ãáîçùáä ìà ùééëà ëôøä ëìì

(d)

Explanation: It is Kosher, for even if he intended to put inside on the golden Mizbe'ach in order to atone, it is Kosher, since Kaparah does not apply to intent at all;

àáì ðúéðä îîù øàåéä ìëôø áùåí î÷åí:

1.

However, truly putting (even though in the wrong place it does not atone, it) is proper to atone in some (i.e. the correct) place.

36b----------------------------------------36b

9)

TOSFOS DH she'Yochluhu Temei'im

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéàëìåäå èîàéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is worse than intent for dogs to eat.)

ìà ãîé ìàëéìú ëìáéí ãáèîàéí îéôñéì ÷åãí àëéìä îùòú ðâéòä

(a)

Explanation: This is unlike [intent for] dogs to eat, for regarding Temei'im, it is disqualified before they eat, once they touch it;

åàôé' úçá ìå çáéøå î''î áäê îçùáú àëéìä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãáø àçø âåøí ìå ùáìà àëéìä éëåì ìôåñìå áðâéòä

1.

And even if his friend inserts [the meat in the Tamei's mouth, so he is not Metamei it], in any case, in this intent for eating, something else causes that without eating, he can disqualify it through touching.

10)

TOSFOS DH Besar Pesach she'Lo Hutzlah

úåñôåú ã"ä áùø ôñç ùìà äåöìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Beraisa in Menachos.)

äà ãúðéà áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëä:) ãùàéï ðéúø ìèäåøéí àéï çééáéï òìéå îùåí èåîàä

(a)

Implied question: A Beraisa in Menachos (25b) teaches that what is not permitted to Tehorim, one is not liable for [eating] it b'Tum'as ha'Guf!

äééðå áãáø ùöøéê äéúø îæáç ëâåï áùø ùðèîà ìôðé æøé÷ä

(b)

Answer: That refers to something that needs a Heter through the Mizbe'ach, e.g. meat that became Tamei before Zerikah;

åìà ãîé ìáùø ôñç ùìà äåöìä åìçîé úåãä ùìà äåøîå

1.

It is unlike meat of Pesach that was not roasted or Lachmei Todah before Terumah was taken.

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ ãäëà ãøùéðï àùø ìä' ìøáåú àéîåøé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ìèåîàä åäúí îå÷îéðï ìéä ìøáåú ìï åéåöà:

(c)

Question: Here we expound "Asher la'Shem" to include Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim for Tum'ah, and there we establish it to include Linah and Yotzei! (Panim Me'iros - there, Rabanan obligate for wood and Levonah, and all the more so for Eimurim, so they use the verse for Linah and Yotzei. Here, R. Shimon, who exempts for wood and Levonah, uses the verse for Eimurim.)

11)

TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Nisnin Al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon...

úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìðéúðéï òì îæáç äçéöåï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this can even be like Beis Hillel.)

ìëàåøä àúéà ëáéú ùîàé ãáéú äìì ëéåï ãîëùøé áçèàú ì÷îï åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï àìà àçã ìà öøéê ÷øà ìùàø ÷øáðåú

(a)

Explanation #1: Seemingly, this is like Beis Shamai, for according to Beis Hillel, since they are Machshir regarding Chatas below, and he was Mechaper even though he put only once, they do not need a verse for other Korbanos.

åëï îùîò áñåó ùîòúéï ã÷àîø åëì äðê úðàé ãîô÷é ìéä ìäàé åãí æáçéê éùôê ìãøùà àçøéðà ëì äðéúðéï òì îæáç äçéöåï ùðúðï áîúðä àçú ùëéôø îðà ìäå

(b)

Support: It connotes like this at the end of our Sugya (37b). It says 'all these Tana'im who use "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" for a different Drashah, what is their source that anything that must be put on the outer Mizbe'ach, if it was put once, he was Mechaper?'

ñáøé ìä ëáéú äìì ãàîøé àó çèàú ùðúðä áîúðä àçú ëéôø åéìôé ëåìäå îçèàú

1.

Citation (37b): They hold like Beis Hillel, who say that even Chatas, if one Matanah was done, he was Mechaper, and they learn all of them from Chatas.

åðøàä ãàúéà àôé' ëá''ä

(c)

Retraction (Explanation #2): It seems that it is even like Beis Hillel;

å÷ñáø äàé úðà ãìà éìôéðï îçèàú îùåí ãùúé îúðåú ùäï àøáò ãùàø ÷øáðåú éìôé' áô' àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó ðâ:) îãëúéá ñáéá åäåä àîéðà ùúéí òùàï äëúåá ëîúðä àçú åìà ëéôø

1.

Possibility #1: This Tana holds that we do not learn from Chatas, because two Matanos that are four of [most] other Korbanos, we learn below (53b) since it is written Saviv, and one might have thought that the Torah made two Matanos like one, and he was not Mechaper.

àé ðîé îùåí ãèåáà ñáéá ëúéáé åùðä ìòëá

2.

Possibility #2: Saviv is written many times, and the Torah repeated it to teach that it is Me'akev.

åì÷îï ðîé àîøé' åëôø åëôø åëôø îôðé äãéï ëå' îä ãîéí äàîåøéí ìîèä ùðúðï îúðä àçú ëéôø àó ãîéí ùìîòìä (îëàï îãó äáà) ëï

(d)

Support: Also below (38a), we say [that the Torah said] v'Chiper v'Chiper v'Chiper to override a Kal v'Chomer that we would have made... just like blood that should be put below (on the bottom half of the Mizbe'ach), if he put it once, he was Mechaper, also blood that should be put above is so.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF