ZEVACHIM 35 (4 Sivan) - Dedicated by Mrs. David Kornfeld in memory of the members of her husband's family, Hashem Yikom Damam, who perished at the hands of the Nazi murderers in the Holocaust. (The exact date of their passing is not known; their Yahrzeit is observed on 4 Sivan.) May our Torah learning and teaching be l'Iluy Nishmas Mr. Kornfeld's mother (Mirel bas Yakov Mordechai), brothers (Shraga Feivel, Aryeh Leib and Yisachar Dov, sons of Mordechai), grandfather (Reb Yakov Mordechai ben David - Shpira) and aunt (Charne bas Yakov Mordechai - wife of Reb Moshe Aryeh Cohen z'l).

1)

TOSFOS DH Ein Dam Mevatel Dam

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ãí îáèì ãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Zerikah is permitted.)

åãí äúîöéú æø÷ ìéä ìùí îéí ëøáé àìéòæø ãô' äúòøåáåú (ì÷îï ãó òæ.) ãàéú ìéä øåàéï

(a)

Explanation: He throws the Dam Tamztis as if it were water, like R. Eliezer (below, 77a), who says [that if Chatas and Olah limbs became mixed, we are Maktir them, and] "we view" [the Chatas limbs like wood].

åñáø ðîé (äâäú òåìú ùìîä, éã áðéîéï) ëøáé àìéòæø ãàîø ðúòøá áãí äúîöéú ëùø

1.

He also holds like R. Eliezer, who says that if [Dam ha'Nefesh] became mixed with Dam Tamtzis, it is Kosher.

2)

TOSFOS DH veha'Tanya Mido k'Midaso

úåñôåú ã"ä åäúðéà îãå ëîãúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Makshan holds like one opinion above.)

äê ôéøëà àìéáà ãî''ã àáðè îéâæ âééæ ìòéì áôø÷ ùðé (ãó éç.)

(a)

Observation: This question is according to the opinion above (18a) that the Avnet cuts. (If one ties the Avnet tight to hold up the Kesones, and it does not reach down as far as it should, it is as if the Kesones is too short, and he is Mechusar Begadim.)

3)

TOSFOS DH Pigel b'Zevach Nispagel Shalil

úåñôåú ã"ä ôéâì áæáç ðúôâì ùìéì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains R. Elazar's opinion.)

ëéåï ãàéëà àéðùé ãàëìé ìéä çééá ëøú ãéøê àîå äåà ëå' ùàéï ãøëå ìàëåì ëå' ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since there are people who eat [a fetus], he is Chayav Kares, for it is like a thigh of its mother... What is not normal to eat (is not Mefagel the Korban).

åëòðéï æä âáé îåøàä ãìà çæéà ìàëéìä ãôéøùà áòìîà äéà äìëê îçùáä ãéãä ìà îéôâìà

1.

The same applies to the crop (innards of a bird), which is not proper to eat, for it is a mere secretion. Therefore, intent for it is not Mefagel.

åîéäå äéëà ãðúôâì äòåó ò''é ãáø àçø ëéåï ãàéëà àéðùé ãàëìé çééá òìéå ëøú

2.

However, when he was Mefagel a bird through something else, since there are people who eat it, he is Chayav Kares for it.

åùí ãç÷ áçðí ãàôéìå çæéà ëùàø áùø àéðä îôâìú àú äòåó ãîåøàä ìáéú äãùï àæìà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åàéï áä ìà àëéìú àãí åìà àëéìú îæáç

(b)

Rebuttal: There was no need [for Rashi] to say so [about the crop]. Even if it were like other meat (that everyone eats), it is not Mefagel the bird, since the crop goes to Beis ha'Deshen (it is burned with ashes of the Mizbe'ach), and people or the Mizbe'ach do not consume it.

åäééðå èòîà ãçéùá áôøéí ìà ðúôâìå àéîåøéí

(c)

Support: This is the reason why intent for Parim (inner Chata'os, in which the meat is burned outside) is not Mefagel Eimurim.

àáì áùìéì ìà àôùø ìåîø ëê

(d)

Distinction: However, one cannot say so about a fetus.

ãàò''â ãáô' ëéöã îòøéîéï (úîåøä ãó ëä:) âáé ùåçè àú äçèàú åðîöà áä áï àøáòä çé úðé çãà ðàëì ìëì àãí åáëì î÷åí åìòåìí

(e)

Implied question: In Temurah (25b), regarding one who slaughtered a Chatas and found inside a live four-month fetus (a Nefel), one Beraisa teaches that anyone may eat it, anywhere, at any time (it is Chulin);

åà''ë äééúé éëåì ìåîø ãäééðå èòîà ãìà ôñìà áéä îçùáä îùåí ãìàå âåôéä ãæéáçà äåà

1.

If so, I could say that the reason intent does not disqualify is because it is not part of the Korban itself!

àáì ò''ë ø''à ñáéøà ìéä ãâåôä ãæéáçà äåà ãäà àîø ôéâì áæáç ðúôâì ùìéì

(f)

Answer: You are forced to say that R. Elazar holds that it is part of the Korban itself, for he said that if he was Mefagel the Korban, the fetus became Pigul;

åñáø ìä ëàéãê áøééúà ãúðéà äúí ãàéï ðàëì àìà ìæëøé ëäåðä ìéåí åìéìä ìôðéí îï ä÷ìòéí åäúí ðîé îùðé ìäå

1.

He holds like the other Beraisa there (in Temurah), which teaches that only male Kohanim may eat it, for one day and a night, within the curtains (the Azarah). Also there we answer them. (The Gemara suggested that they argue about whether or not one can be Meshayer (if a fetus is not part of the mother, one could be Makdish an animal without its fetus). We reject and say that all could hold that one can be Meshayer. The mother was Hukdash, and then became pregnant. The Beraisos argue about whether the fetus becomes Kodesh in the womb, or not until it is born. Alternatively, the Tana of both Beraisos holds that it is Kodesh when it is born. In one Beraisa he was Makdish a pregnant animal. In the other, it became pregnant after he was Makdish it.)

äìëê öøéê ìôøù äèòí ëîå ùôé' á÷åðè'

(g)

Conclusion: Therefore, one must explain like Rashi.

åéù ãåç÷éí ëàï ìôøù îùåí ããøùéðï áúåøú ëäðéí áôøùú öå âáé ðåúø äæáç ôøè ìùìéì åìùéìéà

(h)

Explanation #2: Some give a difficult explanation. We expound in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Tzav regarding Nosar, "ha'Zevach" excludes a fetus and a fetal sac;

åòì ëøçéï ùééê ðåúø áùìéì ëãàéúà áúîåøä áôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï (âí æä ùí) âáé ùìéì ùáçèàú ãàéï ðàëì àìà ìéåí åìéìä

1.

Question: You are forced to say that Nosar applies to a fetus, like it says in Temurah (25b) regarding a fetus in a Chatas, that it is eaten only for one day and a night!

äéìëê àí àéðå òðéï ìðåúø úðäå òðéï ìîçùáú ðåúø

2.

Answer: Therefore, Im Eino Inyan (if it need not teach) about Nosar, we expound it to teach about intent for Nosar.

åàéï ðøàä ôéøåù æä ãîðà ìéä ìúðà äà ãìîà àéöèøéê ìâåôéä ìîòåèé ùìéà îðåúø

(i)

Rebuttal: What is the Tana's source for this? Perhaps we need it for it itself, to exclude a fetal sac from Nosar!

åðøàä ãîãéï ùøéôä ÷îîòè ùìéì åùéìéà ãùøéôä ëúéáà á÷øà

1.

It seems that [Toras Kohanim] excludes a fetus and fetal sac [that became Nosar] from the law of burning, for burning is written in the verse.

4)

TOSFOS DH Pigel b'Alal Nispaglah Mora'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä ôéâì áàìì ðúôâìä îåøàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what is Alal.)

áô' äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëà.) îåãå ëå''ò ãôìèúå ñëéï äééðå àìì åáääåà (äâää áâìéåï) îééøé äëà

(a)

Explanation: In Chulin (121a), all agree that meat that comes off the knife (and sticks to the skin) when flaying the animal, this is Alal. We discuss that here;

1.

Note: There, Reish Lakish said that this is Alal. Tosfos explains that even R. Yochanan, who said that Alal is Marteka (sinews of the spine or neck), means that also Marteka is Alal. The next line of Tosfos explains how Alal applies to birds, which are not flayed, and also Melikah is done with the fingernail, without a knife.

åáòåìú äòåó (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) àééøé ù÷åãø ìäñéø äîåøàä áðåöúä ãàé àôùø ùìà é÷ç îï äåùè òí äîåøàä

2.

We discuss Olas ha'Of, in which he bores through to remove the crop with its feathers. It is impossible not to take some of the foodpipe with the crop.

5)

TOSFOS DH b'Achilas Parim uvi'Sreifasan Lo Asah v'Lo Klum

úåñôåú ã"ä áàëéìú ôøéí åáùøéôúï ìà òùä åìà ëìåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why intent does not take effect.)

ãîçùáú àëéìä ìà îäðéà áäå ããáø ùàéï ãøëå ìàëåì äåà

(a)

Explanation: Intent for eating does not help for them, for it is something not normally eaten;

åîçùáú ùøôä ðîé ìà ãàîçùáú àëéìú îæáç ÷ôéã øçîðà àáì ùøôä ìàå ìùåï àëéìä äåà

1.

Also intent for burning [does not help for them], for the Torah was adamant about intent for consumption of the Mizbe'ach, but burning is not an expression of eating.

åàò''â ãàîøéðï áôéø÷éï ìòéì (ãó ìà.) çéùá ùúàëìäå àù ìîçø ãäåé ôéâåì (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(b)

Implied question: We said above (31a) that if one intended that fire consume it tomorrow it is Pigul!

äðé îéìé ãçéùá áìùåï àëéìä ëãàå÷éîðà äúí ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(c)

Answer #1 (Rashi): That is when he intended in an expression of eating, like we established it there.

åáçðí ãç÷ ãìòéì îééøé áîéãé ãøàåé ìàëéìú àãí åîçùá ùúàëìäå äàù ãäåé ôéâåì

(d)

Rebuttal (and Answer #2): There was no need to give this poor answer. Above, we discuss something proper for man, and he intended that fire consume it. It is Pigul;

àáì äàé ìà ùééê áéä ìà àëéìú àãí åìà àëéìú îæáç:

1.

However, this (inner Chata'os) consumption of man or the Mizbe'ach does not apply to them. (They are burned outside the city.)

35b----------------------------------------35b

6)

TOSFOS DH u'Shma Minah Migo d'Paslah Bah Linah Paslah Bah Machshavah

úåñôåú ã"ä åù''î îéâå ãôñìä áä ìéðä ôñìä áä îçùáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that below we do not say so.)

úéîä ãìéùðé ëãîùðé ì÷îï ôø÷ èáåì éåí (ãó ÷ã:) ãìîà îçùáä ìà ôñìä ìéðä ôñìä

(a)

Question: We should answer like we answer below (104b), that perhaps intent does not disqualify, but Linah disqualifies!

åé''ì îùåí ãìà áòé ìîôùè äà ãáòé ø' éøîéä ô' èáåì éåí ìéðä îäå ùúåòéì áôøéí äðùøôéí

(b)

Answer #1: [We did not] because we do not want to resolve the question of R. Yirmeyah [there], whether or not Linah disqualifies Parim ha'Nisrafim.

åòåã é''ì ã÷ñáø äù''ñ ãàé ìéðä îåòìú îåòéì ôéâåì ìòðéï ãàí ôéâì áàéîåøéí ôéâì äáùø ìëì äôçåú

(c)

Answer #2: The Gemara holds that if Linah helps, Pigul helps, so that if he was Mefagel in the Eimurim, at least the meat became Pigul.

7)

TOSFOS DH Le'echol Shalil Oh Shilya b'Chutz Lo Pigel

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàëåì ùìéì àå ùéìéà áçåõ ìà ôéâì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that also Chutz li'Zmano does not disqualify.)

äåà äãéï ìîçø

(a)

Remark: The same applies to [intent to eat] tomorrow.

8)

TOSFOS DH Ha Shalil v'Shilya Chayavin Ela Shma Minah Kan Machmas Zevach...

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ùìéì åùìéà çééáéï àìà ù''î ëàï îçîú æáç ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that really, one is exempt for Nosar and Tamei.)

åà''ú àëúé ðåúø åèîà ÷ùéà ãîùîò äëà (ãå÷à) [ãéå÷à] ãàùìéì åùéìéà çééáéï îùåí ðåúø åèîà åáøééúà ãìòéì ÷úðé åàéï çééáéï òìéäí îùåí ôéâåì åðåúø åèîà

(a)

Question: Still, Nosar and Tamei are difficult, for it connotes here that the inference is that one is liable for a fetus or fetal sac for Nosar and Tamei, and the Beraisa above teaches that one is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei!

åé''ì ãìòåìí àéï çééáéï àùìéì åùéìéà îùåí ðåúø åèîà åäàé (ãùéøééä) [ãùééøéðäå] îùåí ôéâåì

(b)

Answer: Really, one is not liable for a fetus or fetal sac due to Nosar and Tamei. They were omitted due to Pigul. (Pigul applies to them, if one was Mefagel in the mother. Regarding Nosar there is an exclusion 'ha'Zevach", like I explained above. We learn Pigul and Tamei from Nosar. However, we do not learn from Nosar to exempt for a fetus and fetal sac if one was Mefagel in the mother.

9)

TOSFOS DH Ela b'Dukin sheb'Ayin Ho'il v'Kesherim b'Ofos

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà áãå÷éï ùáòéï äåàéì åëùøéí áòåôåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the same applies to other blemishes, but not to Mechusar Ever.)

ìàå ãå÷à ãå÷éï ùáòéï ãä''ä ùàø îåîéï ùàéðï îçåñøé àáø ëãàîø áôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëã:) ãå÷à éáù âôä åðñîéú òéðä

(a)

Explanation #1: This is not only for Dukin (a film over the eye). The same applies to other blemishes in which no limb is missing, like it says in Kidushin (24b) that only if the wing dried or the eye was blinded (it is Pasul).

àé ðîé ùàø îåîéï ôñìé îãøáðï

(b)

Explanation #2: Other blemishes disqualify mid'Rabanan.

åîä ùôé' á÷åðèøñ ãîçåñø àáø ôñåì áòåó îùåí ä÷øéáäå ðà ìôçúê

(c)

Explanation (Rashi): A bird missing a limb is Pasul due to "Hakrivehu Na l'Fechasecha" (one would not give such a gift to a governor to favor in his eyes).

áçðí ôéøù ãáäãéà ãøéù ìä á÷ãåùéï (â''æ ùí) îãëúéá îï äòåó åìà ëì äòåó

(d)

Rebuttal: There was no need to explain so. We explicitly expound in Kidushin (24b) from the verse "Min ha'Of", but not all birds.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF