ZEVACHIM 120 (30 Av) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer (Yahrzeit: 30 Av, Yom Kevurah: 1 Elul) by her son-in-law, Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel. Esther Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.

1)

(a)What does Rebbi Zeira ask in connection with an Olas Bamas Yachid that was taken into the confines of a Bamas Tzibur after the Shechitah, and then taken out again?

(b)We try to connect this She'eilah with the Machlokes Rabah and Rav Yosef in connection with a Mishnah in Me'ilah. What does the Mishnah in Me'ilah say about Kodshei Kodshim that are Shechted in the south of the Azarah?

(c)What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(d)Rabah maintains that if they were subsequently taken up on the Mizbe'ach, Im Alu, Yerdu. What does Rav Yosef say?

1)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asks whether, if an Olas Bamas Yachid that was taken into the confines of a Bamas Tzibur after the Shechitah, and then taken out again - we say Keivan de'Ayla, Kaltah lah Mechitzos (and it nevertheless retains the Din of an Olas Bamas Tzibur) or Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar (and it reverts to its original status of an Olas Bamas Yachid.

(b)We try to connect this She'eilah with the Machlokes Rabah and Rav Yosef in connection with a Mishnah in Me'ilah, which rules that - even if Kodshei Kodshim are Shechted in the south of the Azarah - they are subject to Me'ilah.

(c)The Chidush is that - we do not say that Shechting them in the south is akin to killing them without Shechitah (in which case they would no longer be subject to Me'ilah).

(d)Rabah maintains that if they were subsequently taken up on the Mizbe'ach, Im Alu, Yerdu. Rav Yosef rules - Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

2)

(a)How do we try to resolve our She'eilah based on the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Yosef?

(b)We reject this suggestion however. Why might ...

1. ... Rabah confine his ruling to the case of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-Hamikdash (conceding that in our case, we will say Keivan she'Hichnisah, Kaltah lah Mechitzos)?

2. ... Rav Yosef confine his ruling to the case of Mizbe'ach (conceding that in our case, we will say Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar)?

(c)What was obvious to Rabah (one way) and Rav Yosef (the other), was not so obvious to Rebbi Yanai. What does he ask in connection with the limbs of a Bamas Yachid?

(d)We remain with a She'eilah (Teiku), though we do qualify the She'eilah. In which case is it obvious (to Rebbi Yanai) that Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'?

2)

(a)Similarly, we suggest, in our case too, Rabah will hold Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar (since Shechitah in the wrong place removes their Kedushah; whereas Rav Yosef, who holds that it does not, holds Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

(b)We reject this suggestion however - in that ...

1. ... Rabah might well confine his ruling to the case of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-Hamikdash, (conceding that in our case, we will say Keivan she'Hichnisah, Kaltah lah Mechitzos) - because the Mizbe'ach only sanctifies Kodshim that are fit for it (as we already learned in ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh), whereas the Bamah Gedolah is Mekadesh even Kodshim that are not.

2. ... Rav Yosef confines his ruling to the case of Mizbe'ach (conceding that in our case, we will say Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar) - because both Kodshim that are Shechted in the north and Kodshim that are Shechted in the south, are brought on the same Mizbe'ach, whereas Kodshei Bamas Tzibur and Kodshei Bamas Yachid are brought on different Mizb'chos.

(c)What was obvious to Rabah (one way) and Rav Yosef (the other), was not so obvious to Rebbi Yanai (see Shitah Mekubetzes and Hagahos Rav Yitzchak Iyzak Chaver), who ask - whether the limbs of a Bamas Yachid that were taken up on to the Mizbe'ach of a Bamas Tzibur, must be taken down again.

(d)We remain with a She'eilah (Teiku), though we do qualify the She'eilah. It is obvious (to Rebbi Yanai) that - if the majority of the limb is already burning Im Alu, Lo Yerdu (and the She'eilah pertains to a case where it is not.

3)

(a)What do Rav and Shmuel say about Shechitas Laylah by a Bamah Ketanah?

(b)Rebbi Elazar referred to an apparent discrepancy between two Pesukim in Shmuel (in connection with Shechitas Laylah ... ). Which discrepancy?

(c)How do Rav and Shmuel resolve the discrepancy? If one of them distinguishes between Kodshim and Chulin, what distinction does the other one make?

3)

(a)Rav and Shmuel argue over Shechitas Laylah by a Bamah Ketanah - one validates it, the other, doesn't.

(b)Rebbi Elazar referred to an apparent discrepancy between two Pesukim in Shmuel - where on one occasion, when they were preparing for war, Shaul specifically ordered the people to Shecht by day, and then the Pasuk records that they actually Shechted by night.

(c)Rav and Shmuel answer the Kashya differently. One of them establishes the first Pasuk by Kodshim, and the second, by Chulin (because he holds that Shechitas Laylah is forbidden regarding Kodshim even by a Bamas Yachid) - the other establishes the first Pasuk by Kodshei Bamah Gedolah (which require day, even though they are being brought on a Bamah Ketanah); and the second Pasuk, by Kodshei Bamah Ketanah (which do not).

4)

(a)According to Rav, Kodshei Bamas Yachid do not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach. What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(b)They argue over a statement by Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili. What does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili say about the Olah which Yisrael brought in the desert? What does he mean by the desert?

(c)He concludes his statement with she'Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach Ela me'Ohel Mo'ed, which Rebbi Yochanan takes to the letter. How does Rav qualify his words?

4)

(a)According to Rav, Kodshei Bamas Yachid do not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach. Rebbi Yochanan says that - they do.

(b)They argue over a statement by Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says that - the Olah which Yisrael brought in the desert - at Har Sinai, did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

(c)He concludes his statement with she'Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach Ela me'Ohel Mo'ed, which Rebbi Yochanan takes to the letter. Rav qualifies his words - confining them to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

5)

(a)After listing the differences between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah, the Beraisa (which we cited already in Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha''Ma'aleh) lists the Halachos that they share. What does the Tana say about ...

1. ... Kiyor ve'Kano?

2. ... Shechitah?

3. ... Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach?

4. ... Dam Matir u'Mefagel?

(b)What does this Beraisa prove?

5)

(a)After listing the differences between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah, the Beraisa (which we cited already in Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha''Ma'aleh) lists the Halachos that they share. The Tana rules that ...

1. ... Kiyor ve'Kano - applies to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

2. ... Shechitah - applies to both Bamos, as does ...

3. ... Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach and ...

4. ... Dam Matir u'Mefagel.

(b)This Beraisa - proves Rebbi Yochanan right.

120b--------------------120b

6)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Z'man and Lan (Nosar) apply equally to a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah. How would we otherwise learn from a Binyan Av from Yotzei that Lan is Kasher by a Bamah Ketanah? In which issue do we already know that it has the same Din as Yotzei?

(b)How do we know that Yotzei is Kasher by a Bamah Ketanah?

(c)We refute this Limud however, by learning a Kal va'Chomer from Ofos. In which Halachah are Kodshei Bamas Yachid more stringent than Ofos?

(d)What is then the Kal-va'Chomer?

6)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Z'man and Lan (Nosar) apply equally to a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah. We would otherwise learn from a Binyan Av from Yotzei, that Lan is Kasher by a Bamah Ketanah. We already know that it has the same Din as Yotzei - regarding the obligation to burn it.

(b)We know that Yotzei is Kasher by a Bamah Ketanah - since a Bamah Ketanah does not require Mechitzos.

(c)We refute this Limud however by learning a Kal va'Chomer from Ofos - which do not become Pasul by means of a blemish, whereas Kodshei Bamas Yachid do ...

(d)... in which case, if Z'man applies to Ofos, Kal-va'Chomer to Kodshei Bamas Yachid.

7)

(a)How do we refute that Kal-va'Chomer. Which stringency do Ofos have that Kodshei Bamas Yachid do not?

(b)How do we finally learn the Din of Z'man from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim"?

(c)On what grounds do we confine this Limud specifically to Z'man, and not to all the other Dinim of Shelamim?

(d)And what is the source to extend this ruling to ...

1. ... Nosar?

2. ... Tamei?

7)

(a)We refute this Kal-va'Chomer however, on the grounds that Ofos also posses a stringency, inasmuch as - a Zar is forbidden to sacrifice Ofos, though he is permitted to sacrifice Kodshei Bamas Yachid.

(b)We finally learn the Din of Z'man from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim" which teaches us that - all Shelamim share the same Halachos, irrespective of whether they are brought on the Mizbe'ach or on a Bamas Yachid.

(c)We confine this Limud specifically to Z'man, and not to all the other Dinim of Shelamim - because the Limud pertains to the Halachos that are dealt with in that Parshah, which include Z'man and Pigul.

(d)And we extend this ruling to ...

1. ... Nosar - based on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" from Pigul.

2. ... Tamei - because it too, is written in that Parshah.

Hadran alach 'Paras Chatas' u'Selika Lah Maseches Zevachim

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF