(Permission is granted to redistribute this material as long as the Kollel
header and the subscription info at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Email - daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Zevachim Chart #8

Zevachim Daf 15b-24b

1) ZAR 1. "v'Yinazru..."(2)
(Vayikra 22:2)
2. Kal v'Chomer(3)
Lav(4) Yes(5)
2) ONEN 1. "Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei..."(6)
(Vayikra 21:12)
2. "Hen ha'Yom Hikrivu..."(7)
(Vayikra 10:19)
3. Kal v'Chomer(3)
Aseh(8) No(9)
3) TEVUL YOM "Kedoshim Yiheyu... v'Lo Yechalelu"(10)
(Vayikra 21:6)
Lav(10) Yes(11)
4) MECHUSAR KIPURIM "v'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah"(12)
(Vayikra 12:8)
Lav(13) Yes(14)
5) MECHUSAR BEGADIM(15) 1. "v'Hayesah Lahem Kehunah..."(16)
(Shemos 29:9)
2. "v'Nasnu Benei Aharon ha'Kohen"
(Vayikra 1:7)
3. "v'Archu Benei Aharon ha'Kohanim"
(Vayikra 1:8)
Lav(17) Yes(18)
6) LO RACHUTZ YADAYIM V'RAGLAYIM "Chukah - Chukah"(19) Aseh(20) Yes(21)
7) AREL(22) 1. Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai
2. "v'Erel Basar Lo Yavo"(23)
(Yechezkel 44:9)
Lav(24) No(25)
8) TAMEI "v'Yinazru..."(2)
(Vayikra 22:2)
Lav(26) Yes(27)
9) YOSHEV "la'Amod l'Shares"(28)
(Devarim 18:5)
Aseh(29) No(30)
(between the Kohen's feet & the floor, or between his hands & the Avodah)
"v'Lakach ha'Kohen"(31)
(Vayikra 4:5)
Aseh(32) No
11) SEMOL(33)
(use of the left hand)
"v'Lakach ha'Kohen... b'Etzba'o"(34)
(Vayikra 4:5-6)
Aseh(35) No
- - - - - - - -
12) BA'AL MUM (36) "Ki Mum Bo v'Lo Yechalel"
(Vayikra 21:23)
Lav (Machlokes)(37)
13) SHASUY YAYIN(38) "Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht... ul'Havdil"(39)
(Vayikra 10:9)
Lav Yes(40)
(1) This refers to Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim. It is important to note that a Pasul who performs the Avodah is Chayav Misah only if he performs one of the four Avodos which are classified as "Avodah Tamah" (which means that this Avodah is the last Avodah in the procedure). These are Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin (RASHI 18a, DH Iy me'Hasam, and Gemara Sanhedrin 83a).
(2) The inference is from the end of the verse which says, "...Benei Yisrael, v'Lo Yechalelu." (Zevachim 15b)
(3) The Kal v'Chomer is learned from Ba'al Mum or from Yoshev: Ba'al Mum and Yoshev are permitted to eat Kodshei Kodashim, and nevertheless their Avodah is disqualified, so certainly the Avodah of a Zar, who cannot eat Kodshei Kodashim, is disqualified. (Zevachim 16a; see Insights there.)
(4) The Torah says, "v'Zar Lo Yikrav Aleichem" (Bamidbar 18:4). (Zevachim 16a)
(5) The Torah says, "v'ha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas" (Bamidbar 18:7). (Sanhedrin 83b)
(6) The verse continues, "v'Lo Yechalel," teaching that the Avodah of a Kohen Hedyot who remains in the Mikdash despite the fact that he is an Onen, *is* disqualified. (Zevachim 16a)
(7) The verse implies that if the children of Aharon would have performed the Avodah in a state of Aninus, their Aovdah would have been disqualified.
(8) We do not find an explicit Lo Sa'aseh in the Torah for an Onen who does the Avodah. The Isur is derived through an inference in the verse and a Kal v'Chomer. Consequently, it should not have the severity of a Lo Sa'aseh, and one would not receive Malkus for transgressing it. (This, in fact, seems to be the view of the RAMBAM in Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:4, who does not mention an Onen who serves in the Beis ha'Mikdash in his list of those who are punished with Malkus.) According to this, when the Gemara in Sanhedrin (83a) and Zevachim (23b) says that an Arel, Onen, and Yoshev "are not punished with Misah but rather are prohibited only by an Azharah," the reference to an Azharah does not apply to Onen, and the inclusion of Onen in the statement is Lav Davka. It is the Arel who is prohibited by an Azharah (see footnotes #25 and #30), while the Onen is prohibited only with an Aseh.
(9) Sanhedrin 83a.
(10) From this verse we also learn that a Tevul Yom who performs the Avodah transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh (Zevachim 17a).
(11) Sanhedrin 83a. This is derived from the fact that the verse (Vayikra 21:6) equates a Tevul Yom with a Tamei, and a Tamei is punished with Misah (see footnote #27).
(12) The verse implies that until a Yoledes brings her Korban for atonement, she is considered to be Tamei (Zevachim 19b).
(13) This is derived from the fact that the verse equates one who is Mechusar Kipurim with a Tamei, who is prohibited from performing the Avodah by a Lo Sa'aseh (see footnote #26). This is clearly implied by the Gemara and Rashi (19b, DH Michlal). This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:2; see following footnote).
(14) This is the ruling of the Beraisa in Sanhedrin 83a. The source for this punishment can be found in the verse which equates a Mechusar Kipurim with a Tamei, who is punished with Misah. This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM in Hilchos Sanhedrin (19:2).
(However, the Rambam elsewhere (in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 4:4) exempts Mechusar Kipurim from Misah, as the RA'AVAD there point out. The Ra'avad alludes to the fact that the punishment of a Mechusar Kipurim depends on the Machlokes Tana'im (see Zevachim 17b) whether a Mechusar Kipurim of Zav has the status of a Zav himself. Accordingly, perhaps the Rambam in Hilchos Bi'as Mikdash maintains that a Mechusar Kipurim is *not* considered like a Zav. However, this contradicts the ruling of the Rambam himself in Hilchos Sanhedrin, where he writes that the Mechusar Kipurim *is* Chayav Misah! For this reason, the MAHARI KURKUS (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikash 9:11) and the RADBAZ (Leshonos ha'Rambam #106) emend the text of the Rambam in Hilchos Sanhedrin and omit the words "Mechusar Kipurim" from the Rambam's list of those who are punished with Misah.)
(15) The same applies to a Kohen who serves with *extra* garments, "Meyutar Begadim" (Zevachim 18a). However, there are some who understand from the words of the Rambam (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Mitzvos Aseh #33) that one who serves while wearing extra garments is not Chayav Misah.
(16) The Gemara explains that all of the verses are necessary; One is necessary for the actual Isur and the fact that the Avodah is Mechulal, and one verse is necessary to prohibit a Mechusar Begadim even from performing an Avodah on which the Kaparah does not depend (such as bringing the fire to the Mizbe'ach). The third verse is necessary to prohibit one who is *Meyutar* Begadim from performing the Avodah.
(17) This is the implication of the Gemara (17b), which says that a Kohen who performs Avodah while Mechusar Begadim is like a Zar who performs Avodah, and thus the Lo Sa'aseh which prohibits a Zar from performing Avodah (see above, footnote #4) also prohibits a Mechusar Begadim. This is also the way the RAMBAM rules (in Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:2).
(When the Rambam in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 10:4, and in Sefer ha'Mitzvos (ibid.) writes that it is a "Mitzvas Aseh" that a Kohen serve while wearing the Bigdei Kehunah, he means that the Torah commands the Kohen to wear the Bigdei Kehunah only with an Aseh and not with a Lo Sa'aseh. Nevertheless, since a Kohen who is not wearing all of the Bigdei Kehunah is compared to a Zar, he transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh of a Zar who performs Avodah as well.)
(18) Sanhedrin 83a. The Gemara there (83b) learns this from the fact that the verse equates a Mechusar Begadim with a Zar. (Tosfos there, and Tosfos in Zevachim 17b, DH Ein, and 23b, DH Eima, points out that even had the verse not compared the Mechusar Kipurim to a Zar, the verse explicitly states that he is Chayav Misah, in Shemos 28:43.)
(19) The Torah says "Chukah" with regard to a Mechusar Begadim (Shemos 29:8), and it says "Chukah" with regard to the Kohen's obligation to wash his hands and feet (Shemos 30:21). We learn from this that just as a Mechusar Begadim is Mechalel the Avodah, so, too, a Kohen who did not wash his hands and feet.
(20) This is the way the Rambam rules (in Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:3, Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 5:1, and Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Mitzvos Aseh #24).
(Even though we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah that "she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim v'Raglayim" is Mechalel the Avodah like Mechusar Begadim, we do not learn an *Azharah* from the Gezeirah Shavah, since there is no Azharah written explicitly with regard to Mechusar Begadim; see above, footnote #17. When the Rambam mentions (in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:10-11) "she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim v'Raglayim" among those that are forbidden with an "Azharah," he does not mean that it is literally prohibited with a Lo Sa'aseh. Rather, he mentions it only tangentially along with the rest of the disqualified Avodos in his list there ("Agav Gerara"), as the MINCHAS CHINUCH (end of Mitzvah #106) writes. The MAHARI KURKUS (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:11) comes to a similar conclusion.)
(21) The verse says, "v'Rachatzu Aharon u'Vanav Mimenu... v'Lo Yamusu" (Shemos 30:19-20).
(22) Rashi, throughout the Gemara, explains "Arel" in this context to refer to a man whose older brothers died as a result of Milah, and therefore he was not allowed to receive a Milah. It cannot be referring to a person who willfully chose not to have a Milah, because such a person is considered a Mumar and is Pasul from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash aside from being an Arel. See also Tosfos 22b, DH Arel.
(23) Even though a Navi is not permitted to create a new Halachah, this Isur existed even before the times of Yechezkel; it was a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, and Yechezkel merely recorded it explicitly in his Sefer (18b).
(24) The Gemara in Sanhedrin (83a) states clearly that an Arel is prohibited with an Azharah. This is also the ruling of the Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 19:4). Even though we find no Lav for this in the Torah, nevertheless we learn from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that an Arel is considered like a Zar (as the Rambam implies in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 6:8, and as the MAHARI KURKUS writes there; see also the following footnote). However, Rashi in Sanhedrin (84a, DH Lo Yavo) writes that an Arel is prohibited only with an Azharah from *Divrei Kabalah*, and not from the Torah, and thus he does not receive Malkus.
(25) Sanhedrin 83a. Even though we wrote above that an Arel is considered to be like a Zar, nevertheless he is excluded from Misah because the two verses which give a Chiyuv Misah to a Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim v'Raglayim are "Shenei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad" which exclude everything else from that Halachah. (We find a similar logic applied by the Gemara on 23b with regard to Yoshev, who is like a Zar only with regard to the Azharah but not with regard to the Chiyuv Misah). (M. Kornfeld)
(26) The verse says, "v'Yinazru... v'Lo Yechalelu" (Vayikra 22:2), as mentioned above.
(27) Sanhedrin 83a. The Gemara there says that we learn this from a Gezeirah Shavah from Terumah ("Chilul - Chilul"), which a Zar is Chayav Misah for eating.
(28) We infer from here that a Kohen who is not standing when he performs the Avodah is considered like a Zar and is Mechalel the Avodah (Gemara and Rashi, 23b).
(29) As the Rambam writes (in Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 5:17), "his Azharah is implied by an Aseh." (When the Gemara on 23b, and in Sanhedrin 83a, states that an Arel and Yoshev are prohibited from serving by an *Azharah*, it is not teaching that there is a *Lav* per se for Yoshev, but rather it mentions Yoshev only "Agav Gerara". Alternatively, it is saying that there is an "Azharas *Aseh* for Yoshev." See Birkas ha'Zevach 23b, and see above, footnote #8.)
However, there seems to be a difficulty here: What is the difference between a Yoshev and a Mechusar Begadim? There is no explicit Lo Sa'aseh written with regard to a Mechusar Begadim, and nevertheless a Mechusar Begadim receives Malkus because the Torah equates him with a Zar (see above, footnote #18). A Yoshev, too, is compared to a Zar, as the Gemara (23b) says, and thus a Yoshev should be punished with Malkus like a Zar! It must be that the Rambam maintains that since the Torah excludes a Yoshev from the Chiyuv Misah of a Zar (see following footnote), it also excludes him from the punishment of Malkus. The Torah is teaching that a Yoshev is compared to a Zar only with regard to Chilul Avodah. (Perhaps this reasoning is the subject of dispute between Rashi and Tosfos, see Tosfos 23b, DH Eima.)
(30) Zevachim 23b. He is excluded from Misah because the two verses which give a Chiyuv Misah to a Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim v'Raglayim are "Shenei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad" which exclude everything else from the Chiyuv Misah (see Tosfos there, DH Eima).
(31) This is written with regard to a Chatzitzah between the Kohen's hand and the Avodah, and we learn from there that it is also prohibited to have any intervention between the Kohen's feet and the floor, as Rashi writes (24a, DH Lo Yehei).
(32) This is obvious, since we do not find any explicit Lav. (However, it is not clear how we learn from here that he is Mechalel the Avodah even b'Di'eved. Apparently, an Avodah performed with a Chatzitzah is lacking the entire essence of the Avodah, and is not merely lacking a detail of the Avodah. Therefore, it is no different from a Kohen who does not perform Kabalas ha'Dam at all, which obviously is Me'akev. (See SHITAH MEKUBETZES 4b #10, and Insights there.) Rashi in Pesachim (65b) writes that an Avodah done with a Chatzitzah is "not Derech Sherus" -- it is not done in the "proper manner of service.") See below, footnote #35.
(33) According to the Rabanan (24b), performing the Avodah with the left hand invalidates all of the Avodos which (a) require a Kohen and which (b) are Me'akev the Kaparah. According to Rebbi Shimon, the only Avodos which are invalidated when done with the left hand are the Haza'os of the Chatas (for which the Torah requires "Etzba") and the Kemitzas ha'Minchah (which the verse compares, with a Hekesh, to Chatas). According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the only Avodah which is invalidated when done with the left hand is Kabalas ha'Dam.
(34) We learn this from the word "Etzba" written with regard to a Metzora (Vayikra 14:16), where the Torah says "Etzba ha'Yemanis," the right finger, must be used. According to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Shimon (see previous footnote), wherever the Torah says "Kohen" with regard to an Avodah, it requires that the Avodah be performed with the right hand, as is learned from Metzora.
(35) This is obvious, since we do not find any explicit Lav (as mentioned above, in footnote #32). (The source that it is Mechalel the Avodah is apparently the same as we explained above, footnote #32.)
(36) This refers to a visible Mum that will not heal. This Pesul is not mentioned in the Mishnah here (15b) nor in Menachos (6a), even though it is obvious, from many places, that a Ba'al Mum is Mechalel the Avodah. Tosfos in both places (see there) asks about this.
(37) This is a Machlokes Tana'im in Sanhedrin (83a). The Rambam (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 6:2) rules like the Chachamim who exempt a Ba'al Mum from Misah.
(38) This, too, is not mentioned in the Mishnah. See above, footnote #36. (Tosfos, as cited in the footnote above, writes that Peru'ei Rosh is also not mentioned in our Mishnah. However, the Gemara in Ta'anis (17b) states clearly that Kohanim who are Peru'ei Rosh who do the Avodah are *not* Mechalel the Avodah, even though they are Chayav Misah. See the Acharonim who discuss this at length.
(39) Zevachim 17b.
(40) Sanhedrin 83a. This is written explicitly in the verse (Vayikra ibid.).

Zevachim Page
List of Charts
and Graphics
to the Daf
to the Daf
Review the Daf
Questions and Answers
Point by Point

For questions or sponsorship information, write to daf@shemayisrael.co.il