BACKGROUND ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf
Zevachim 30
|
ZEVACHIM 26-30 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
|
1) [line 6] "HAREI ZO TEMURAS OLAH TEMURAS SHELAMIM," HAREI ZO TEMURAS OLAH,
DIVREI REBBI MEIR (TEMURAH)
(a) The Torah prohibits making a Temurah, which is a Chulin animal exchanged
for an animal designated as a Korban in an attempt to transfer the Kedushas
ha'Guf of the Korban onto a replacement Korban. The verse states, "Do not
transfer or exchange it (an animal that has been designated as a Korban)
[for another animal], neither a good animal for a bad one nor a bad one for
a good one. If you do exchange an animal [of Kodesh] for another animal
[that is not], both the original animal and the one given in exchange for
it, will be Kodesh." (Vayikra 27:10). The Chinuch explains that the reason
for the prohibition of Temurah is to teach us the proper reverence that we
must have for objects of Kedushah (SEFER HA'CHINUCH #351, #352). (For a
definition of Kedushas ha'Guf as opposed to Kedushas Damim, see Background
to Avodah Zarah 13:16:c-e.)
(b) For example, the Mishnah (Temurah 26b) teaches that a person can make a
Temurah by taking two animals, one of which was designated as a Korban, and
saying "Zo Tachas Zo" - "This [animal] is instead of this [animal]" or "Zo
Temuras Zo" - "This is in place of this" or "Zo Chalifas Zo" - "This is in
exchange for this." The second animal, or the Temurah, is *usually* a valid
Korban. If it has no Mum (blemish that invalidates it), it must also be
offered on the Mizbe'ach (unless the original Korban was a Chatas or an
Asham).
(c) A person who intentionally makes a Temurah receives Malkus (lashes).
Sometimes, even if a person makes a Temurah b'Shogeg (unintentionally), he
receives Malkus (see Chart to Temurah 17a). (For a discussion of the
difference between Temurah and Chilul (redemption), see Background to Bava
Metzia 57:2.)
(d) Our Gemara cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi
regarding a case in which a person declared an animal to be "Temuras Olah
Temuras Shelamim." This statement seems inherently contradictory, since one
animal cannot be both an Olah and a Shelamim. Rebbi Meir maintains that we
follow the first part of a person's statement ("Tefos Lashon Rishon"), and
the animal is a Temuras Olah. Rebbi Yosi maintains that the person meant to
make the animal *both* types of Korban, and therefore he must put the animal
out to pasture until it develops a blemish, and then he must sell it and buy
with half of the money an animal to be brought as an Olah, and with the
other half he must buy an animal to be brought as a Shelamim.
2) [line 10] DEVARAV KAYAMIN - [all of] his words are binding (lit.
established) (see previous entry, (d))
3) [line 11] V'NIMLACH - and he changed his mind
4) [line 13] LA'CHATZOS MAHU? - What is the Halachah if a person says, (a)
"This animal is a Temurah, *to be split* in place of those two animals, such
that one half of it should be in place of the Olah and one half of it should
be in place of the Shelamim" (RASHI); (b) "This animal is a Temurah of an
Olah and a Shelamim *for half* of the day" (RABEINU CHANANEL)
5) [line 17] HAREI SHECHITAH DEL'CHI LA'CHATZOS DAMI U'PELIGEI? - here is
the case of Shechitah, which is similar to la'Chatzos, and they do argue!?
(This is referring to the case in the Mishnah (Daf 29b) in which the Korban
is slaughtered with the intention of eating a k'Zayis of it Chutz li'Zemano
and a k'Zayis of it Chutz li'Mekomo. It is similar to la'Chatzos since it is
evident that the one who slaughtered the animal did not retract his original
intention; had he wished to retract, he would have uttered more than this
one phrase.)
6) [line 18] MI SAVART, EINAH LI'SHECHITAH ELA LEVA'SOF? YESHNAH
LI'SHECHITAH MI'TECHILAH V'AD SOF - Why do you reason [according to the view
that maintains] "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof" - "the act of Shechitah is
not considered to be Shechitah until the end?" (According to this opinion,
only the final bit of the Shechitah constitutes Shechitah.) [On the
contrary, our Mishnah follows the view that maintains] "Yeshnah li'Shechitah
mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof," - "the entire act of slaughtering, from beginning to
end (and not just the final bit of the Shechitah) constitutes Shechitah."
(As such, Shechitah is not similar to la'Chatzos, since the Mishnah could be
referring to a case where he intended to cut the first Siman with the
intention of Chutz li'Zemano and the second Siman with the intention of
Chutz li'Mekomo.)
7a) [line 20] SIMAN RISHON /SIMAN SHENI (SHECHITAH: SHENEI SIMANIM)
(a) The laws of Shechitah (proper ritual slaughter) that permit an animal to
be eaten are a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, a tradition that was handed down
to us from Moshe at Har Sinai (Chulin 28a, based on Devarim 12:21).
(b) There are two "Simanim," or parts of the animal that must be sliced
through when performing Shechitah: the Kaneh (trachea) and the Veshet
(esophagus). Five of the most important laws of Shechitah are the following:
1. "Shehiyah" - One may not "pause" in middle of a Shechitah.
2. "Derasah" - One may not "press" the knife into the neck, but must use a
sliding, cutting motion.
3. "Chaladah" - One may not insert the knife into the middle of the
thickness of the neck and cut from there outwards.
4. "Hagramah" - One may not cut the Simanim such that part of the cut
"slants" above the point that delimits the part of the neck upon which
Shechitah may be performed.
5. "Ikur" - One may not "rip out" the Simanim from the neck and then cut
them. Similarly, one may not cause the Simanim to tear during Shechitah,
such as by cutting them with a dull blade.
8) [line 21] HAREI KEMITZAH - here is the case of Kemitzah (which is closer
to la'Chatzos than Shechitah, since the Kemitzah does not have anything
similar to the two Simanim of Shechitah) (MENACHOS)
(a) When an individual who is not a Kohen offers a Korban Minchah (flour
offering), a Kohen must take off a Kometz (handful), which is burned upon
the Mizbe'ach.
(b) A Kometz is the amount that can be held by the middle three fingers when
they are pressed upon the palm. The Kohen puts his hand in the dough or
baked goods and removes one handful. Using the thumb and smallest finger of
the same hand, he next wipes off the dough or baked goods that stick out,
until only the Kometz remains.
(c) A Kometz of Levonah (frankincense or oliban, a gum resin from trees of
present-day Arabia and India) is placed on top of most Menachos
(meal-offerings), which is later offered upon the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.
(d) The remainder of the Minchah (the Sheyarei ha'Minchah) is eaten by male
Kohanim in the Azarah, since it is Kodshei ha'Kodashim.
9a) [line 22] KOMETZ MINCHAH - the Kometz of the baked goods
b) [line 23] KOMETZ LEVONAH - the Kometz of the Levonah that is brought
together with the Minachah offering (Abaye answers that the Tana'im do not
argue only with regard to the Kemitzah of a Minchah. Rather, they argue with
regard to the offering of the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach, which consists of
*two parts*; offering the Kometz, and offering the Levonah. As such, the
Mishnah could be referring to a case where he intended to offer the Kometz
with the intention of Chutz li'Zemano and the Levonah with the intention of
Chutz li'Mekomo.)
10) [line 23] KOMETZ D'MINCHAS CHOTEI D'LEIKA LEVONAH BAHADEI - the Kometz
of the Minchas Chotei, which is not offered with Levonah (MINCHAS CHOTEI:
KORBAN OLEH V'YORED B'DALEI DALUS)
(a) A person brings a Korban Oleh v'Yored in three specific cases: Shevu'as
ha'Edus (see Background to Shevuos 30:1), Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav (see
Background to Shevuos 2:2) and Shevu'as Bituy (see Background to Shevuos
2:1).
(b) What constitutes a Korban Oleh v'Yored varies based on the means of the
penitent. If he is wealthy, he brings a female sheep or goat as a Chatas
(Korban Ashir). If he cannot afford this, he brings two Torim or two Benei
Yonah, one as an Olah and one as a Chatas (Korban Oleh v'Yored b'Dalus). If
he cannot even afford the birds, he brings one tenth of an Eifah of fine
flour as a Minchas Chatas (Korban oleh v'Yored b'Dalei Dalus). (Vayikra
5:6-13)
(c) The Minchas Chatas is not mixed with oil, and Levonah (frankincense) is
not sprinkled on top of it (Vayikra 5:11). When a non-Kohen brings a Minchas
Chatas, a Kometz of the flour alone is burned on the Mizbe'ach and the
Kohanim receive the Shirayim (the rest of the flour, which they must eat
before the following sunrise -- RAMBAM Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 10:7).
11a) [line 26] MASNI KED'ABAYEI - teaches the Mishnah like the opinion of
Abaye (that Rebbi Meir does not argue in the case of la'Chatzos)
b) [line 27] MASNI KED'RAVA - teaches the Mishnah like the opinion of Rava
12) [line 27] KI ASA RAV DIMI - when Rav Dimi came to Bavel (from Eretz
Yisrael)
30b---------------------------------------30b
13) [line 2] KI MAGA'AS LEHU REBBI MEIR V'REBBI YOSEI BAHADEI HADADEI - if
you were to place side by side (lit. touch) Rebbi Meir['s opinion] and Rebbi
Yosi['s opinion]
14) [line 12] MIHADAR KA HADAR BEI - he has retracted [his original
statement]
15) [line 19] CHAVRIN BAVLA'AH - our colleagues in Bavel
16) [line 22] PERATA HEVEI - it (each statement) is a singular expression
(that is considered a separate intention, and Rebbi Yehudah would rule
"Tefos Leshon Rishon")
17) [line 35] V'HAI ASNEYEI - And which case did he (Rebbi) teach him (Levi)
(such that he could not learn from it the Halachah in the case of "k'Zayis
l'Machar ba'Chutz." Was it the case of "k'Zayis k'Zayis" or "k'Zayis
uk'Zayis")?
18) [line 38] KELALA - (lit. a general expression) a statement that is
considered one intention, which is considered "Eruv Machshavos" such that
even Rebbi Yehudah would rule that one is not liable to Kares for eating it
(it is not considered Pigul), even if the intention of "Chutz li'Zemano"
preceded the intention of "Chutz li'Mekomo."
Next daf
|