ZEVACHIM 93 (3 AV) - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New York), who passed away on 3 Av 5761, by his daughter Diane Koenigsberg and her husband Dr. Andy Koenigsberg. May his love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael continue in all of his descendants.

1)

TOSFOS DH Mei Chatas she'Nitm'eu Metaherin

úåñôåú ã"ä îé çèàú ùðèîàå îèäøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Yevamos.)

åà''ú à''ë ìîä âæøå ùìà éòáéø àãí îé çèàú åàôø çèàú áðäø åáñôéðä ëîòùä ùäéä ëãàéúà áéáîåú ôø÷ äàùä ùìåí (ãó ÷èæ: åáçâéâä ëâ.)

(a)

Question: If so, why did they decree not to take Mei Chatas or Efer Chatas (the ashes of Parah Adumah) on a river or in a boat, like the episode that occurred, like it says in Yevamos (116b, Chagigah 23a)!

åé''ì ãäúí ÷åãí ÷éãåù åäëà ìàçø ÷éãåù

(b)

Answer: There, it was before Kidush (putting the ashes on the water. "Mei Chatas" is Mayim Chayim proper for Kidush). Here is after Kidush.

2)

TOSFOS DH Nitaz Min ha'Tzavar Al ha'Beged Ein Ta'un Kivus

úåñôåú ã"ä ðéúæ îï äöåàø òì äáâã àéï èòåï ëéáåñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not know this from the Reisha.)

îøéùà ìà ùîòéðï

(a)

Implied question: Why don't we know this from the Reisha? (Since it splashed on a garment, the blood is Pasul for Haza'ah!)

ãäåä àîéðà äëà ùàðé îùåí ãááú àçú:

(b)

Answer: One might have thought that here is different, for [the Pesul and splashing on a garment] are at once. (In the Reisha, it was Pasul beforehand.)

93b----------------------------------------93b

3)

TOSFOS DH Mah Ta'am ka'Amar

úåñôåú ã"ä îä èòí ÷àîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers what the question was.)

îúåê äúéøåõ îùîò ãäà ã÷ùéà ìéä äà úå ì''ì ÷àé àìôé ùàéï èòåï ëéáåñ ëå'

(a)

Inference: The answer connotes that the question "why is also this needed?" refers to "Kivus is needed only for..."

åúéîä åðùôê òì äøöôä ìîä ìé äà ùîòéðï ìä îðéúæ îï äöåàø

(b)

Question: Why must it teach when it spilled on the ground? We know this from when it splashed from the neck!

4)

TOSFOS DH Ela Etzba'o b'Mai Mekane'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àöáòå áîàé î÷ðç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he cannot clean it on the Parah Adumah itself.)

áô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó æ:) ôé' á÷åðèøñ ìôé ùäéä îæä îãîä áäø äîùçä àì ðëç ôðé àäì îåòã åôøä ìôðéå ðùøôú ìàçø ùéåøã îï ääø

(a)

Explanation #1: In Menachos (7b), Rashi explained that [we ask] because he sprinkled the blood on Har ha'Mishchah facing Pnei Ohel Mo'ed, and the Parah Adumah was burned in front of him after he descended from the mountain;

åäéàê äéä éåøã áéï ëì äæàä åäæàä îäø äîùçä ì÷ðç áâåó äôøä

1.

How could he descend between each Haza'ah and the next from Har ha'Mishchah to clean [his finger] on the cow itself?

å÷ùä îäà ãàîø ì÷îï áøéù ôø÷ áúøà (ãó ÷éâ.) ùçèä ùìà ëðâã äôúç ôñåìä ùðàîø åùçè åäæä îä äæàä ëðâã äôúç àó ùçéèä ëðâã äôúç

(b)

Question: It says below (113a) that if he slaughtered it not facing the opening [of Ohel Mo'ed] it is Pasul, for it says "v'Shachat v'Hizah" - just like Haza'ah is opposite the opening, also Shechitah is opposite the opening;

ãîùîò ùäéä äëì áî÷åí àçã

1.

Inference: Everything (Shechitah and Haza'ah) was in one place!

åðøàä ëîå ùôéøù ëàï á÷åðèøñ ùìà äéä éëåì ì÷ðç àöáòå áâåó äôøä ùìà éúìëìê àöáòå îï äðéîéï

(c)

Explanation #2: What Rashi explained here is correct. He could not clean his finger on the cow itself, lest his finger get dirty from hairs.

åäëé ðîé àùëçï ãçééùéðï ìðéîéï ôø÷ ëì ëúáé ä÷ãù (ùáú ÷èæ:) âáé îôùéèéï àú äôñç òã äçæä

(d)

Support: We find that we are concerned for hairs in Shabbos (116b) regarding "they flayed the Pesach until the chest (lest hairs stick to the Eimurim)."

5)

TOSFOS DH Minayin Lerabos Sak v'Chol Minei Begadim v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìøáåú ù÷ åëì îéðé áâãéí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Tum'ah and Kivus Dam Chatas apply to hide.)

îãàå÷é øéáåéà ìù÷ åëì îéðé áâãéí îùîò ãòåø àó îùäåôùè ìà áòé ëéáåñ ìøáé àìòæø

(a)

Inference: Since we establish the inclusion for Sak, this implies that hide, even after it was flayed, need not be laundered according to R. Elazar;

åâøñé' áîéìúéä éëåì ùàðé îøáä àú äòåø îùäåôùè ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ åì''â òã ùìà äåôùè ãà''ë äåä îùîò îùäåôùè áòé ëéáåñ åæä àéðå ãø''à ìà îáéà (îøáä - ùéèä î÷åáöú) àìà ù÷ åîéðé áâãéí

1.

The text of his teaching is "I might think to include hide after it was flayed." The text does not say "until it was flayed", for if so it would connote that after flaying it must be laundered. This is not so, for R. Elazar includes only Sak and kinds of garments;

åùîòéðï ìéä ðîé áîúðé' ãàó îùäåôùè àéï èòåï ëáåñ

2.

We know also from our Mishnah that he holds that even after it was flayed it need not be laundered.

æä àéðå ãéå÷ ãàãøáä ãòåø îùäåôùè åàéðå îçåñø ùåí ãáø ìà úé÷åï åìà îçùáä ì÷áì èåîàä èòåï ëáåñ àôéìå ìø''à

(b)

Rebuttal: This is not an inference. Just the contrary, hide after it was flayed and it is not lacking anything - not fixing and not intent in order to receive Tum'ah, it must be laundered even according to R. Elazar;

ãäà (îùäåôùè ðîé) ìà îîòè àìà îèòí ãáòéðï ãáø äî÷áì èåîàä ëãàéúà ááøééúà àìîà àé î÷áì èåîàä äùúà èòåï ëéáåñ

1.

He excludes only because we require something that receives Tum'ah, like it says in a Beraisa. This shows that if it receives Tum'ah now, it must be laundered!

åáñîåê ðîé ÷àîø òåöáà ùçéùá ì÷öòä àéëà áéðééäå ãìøáé àìòæø ìà áòé ëéáåñ îùåí ãàéðå î÷áì èåîàä òã ùé÷öòðä

2.

Also below (94a), it says that they argue about a cloth mat that he intended to cut it [before using it]. R. Elazar does not obligate laundering, because it is not Mekabel Tum'ah until he cuts it;

àáì àí ÷öòä àå ìà çéùá ì÷öòä ãäùúà àé (ùéèä î÷åáöú åöàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷éí "àé") î÷áì äòåø èåîàä èòåï ëéáåñ

i.

Inference: If he cut it, or he did not intend to cut it, that now the hide is Mekabel Tum'ah, it must be laundered.

åäà ãîøáé ù÷ åùàø îéðé áâãéí

(c)

Implied question: Why does [the Beraisa] include [only] Sak and other kinds of garments?

îùåí ãàôéìå äðé ãàéðï (àéðï - öàï ÷ãùéí) áëìì áâã ëé àí öîø åôùúéí ëãôøù''é åöøéê éúåø ìøáåú' åä''ä ãîääåà éúåø ðîé àúé òåø

(d)

Answer: It is because even these are not included in "Beged." Only wool and linen are, like Rashi explained, and we need an inclusion to include them. Likewise, from that inclusion we include also hide.

åàé âøñé' áø''à îùäåôùè îééøé ùòãééï öøéê îçùáä ÷åãí ùé÷áì èåîàä àé (àå - öàï ÷ãùéí) öøéê ùéáèì îçùáúå ùçéùá äòåöáà ì÷öòä

(e)

Alternative text: If the text of R. Eliezer says "from when it was flayed", we discuss when it still needs intent before it is Mekabel Tum'ah, or he needs to nullify his intent to cut the mat.

åëï ôøù''é ãäùúà àéðå î÷áì èåîàä (åîùåí äëé - ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìà áòé ëéáåñ

(f)

Support: And so Rashi explained, that now it does not receive Tum'ah, and therefore it need not be laundered;

åìøáé éäåãä áòé ëéáåñ ëéåï ãøàåé ì÷áì áìà îòùä ò''é ééçåã îåãé (ìçåãà - äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

1.

And according to R. Yehudah it needs to be laundered, since it is proper to receive [Tum'ah] without an action, through designation alone.

àáì ø''à ìà îééøé áòåø ùöøéê úé÷åï åîòùä ÷åãí ùé÷áì èåîàä

2.

However, R. Elazar does not discuss a hide that needs fixing or an action before it receives Tum'ah;

ãääåà àôé' øáé éäåãä îåãä ãìà áòé ëéáåñ ãäà àéðå øàåé ì÷áì ãäà îçåñø îòùä

i.

Such [a hide], even R. Yehudah agree that it need not be laundered, for it is not proper to receive [Tum'ah], for it is Mechusar Ma'aseh.

àáì ÷ùä àé âøéñ îùäåôùè îàé áòé îàé áéðééäå ìéáòé ôéøåù ãø''à

(g)

Question: If the text says "from when it was flayed", why did [the Gemara] ask (94a) "what do they argue about? It should ask the Perush of [the words of] R. Elazar!

òåø îùäåôùè ãàéðå î÷áì èåîàä äùúà àáì øàåé ì÷áì ò''é îçùáä äéëé îùëçú ìä ãàé îçåñø îòùä àôé' øáé éäåãä îåãä ãäà àéðå øàåé

1.

A hide that was flayed that is not Mekabel Tum'ah now, but it is proper to receive through intent - how do we find this?! If it is Mechusar Ma'aseh, even R. Yehudah agrees, for it is not proper!

îéäå äééðå ðîé îàé áéðééäå ã÷àîø ùöøéê ìòùåú äáòéà îëç ãáøé ùðéäí

(h)

Answer #1: This is what it means "what do they argue about?" The question must be based on both of them. (I.e. how can we find something proper for Tum'ah according to R. Elazar, that does not receive Tum'ah? It cannot be Mechusar Ma'aseh, for then R. Yehudah would not obligate laundering!)

åàé âøñéðï àó áîéìúéä ãø''à òã ùìà äåôùè à''ù ãáòé îàé áéðééäå

(i)

Answer #2: If the text says even in R. Elazar's words "until it is flayed", it is fine that [the Gemara] asks "what do they argue about?"

àáì ÷ùä îîúðéúéï àé âøéñ (ãâøéñ - öàï ÷ãùéí) àó îùäåôùè

(j)

Objection: However, this is difficult from our Mishnah, in which the text is "even after it was flayed."

äâ''ä äùúà àôéìå âøñ îùäåôùè ò''ë ìà ôìéâé ø''é åø''à àìà ãø''é ãøéù îä áâã øàåé ì÷áì èåîàä åø''à ãøéù îä áâã î÷áì èåîàä

(k)

Comment: Now, even if the text says "after it was flayed", R. Yehudah and R. Elazar argue only about this - R. Yehudah expounds "just like a Beged is proper to receive Tum'ah", and R. Elazar expounds "just like a Beged receives Tum'ah";

åîùåí äëé ø''é ããøéù øàåé îøáä òåø îùäåôùè ãøàåé ì÷áì èåîàä áîçùáä åàéï îçåñø îòùä

1.

Therefore, R. Yehudah who expounds proper [to receive Tum'ah]" includes a hide after it was flayed, for it is proper to receive Tum'ah through intent, and it is not Mechusar Ma'aseh;

åø''à ããøéù î÷áì îîòè òåø ùäåôùè àò''â ãøàåé îùåí ãáòé ãáø äî÷áì èåîàä ùàéï îçåñø àôéìå îçùáä

2.

R. Elazar expounds that it receives Tum'ah. He excludes a hide after it was flayed, even though it is proper, because he requires something that receives Tum'ah. It is not lacking even intent;

àáì ìàçø îçùáä î÷áì èåîàä áìà ùåí îòùä ãàé îçåñø îòùä àôéìå ø''é îåãä ãìà áòé (îëàï îãó äáà) ëéáåñ ãäà àéðå øàåé

i.

However, after intent it receives Tum'ah without any action. If it were Mechusar Ma'aseh, even R. Yehudah would agree that it need not be laundered, for it is not proper [for Tum'ah].

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF