Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 13

1) THE DEFINITION OF "KLEI SHARES"

OPINIONS: The Beraisa records an argument between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Akiva concerning the source in the Torah from which we learn that the Avodah of Kabalas ha'Dam must be performed by an eligible Kohen and with "Klei Shares." What is the Gemara referring to when it says "Klei Shares?"

(a) RASHI (DH ub'Klei Shares) explains that "Klei Shares" in this context refers to the Bigdei Kehunah, the priestly garments, that the Kohanim must wear when performing the Avodah of Kabalas ha'Dam. Rashi comments that whenever the phrase "Kohen Kasher ub'Klei Shares" appears, the words "Klei Shares" refer to the Bigdei Kehunah. In this sense, the words are translated as "the garments (Kelim) which are worn when performing the service (Shares)." This is also the understanding of the RITVA and ME'IRI in Yoma (24b), where the Gemara teaches that lighting the fire of the Mizbe'ach with twigs must be done "b'Kohen Kasher ub'Klei Shares." This is also the opinion of the RASH in Toras Kohanim (4:4).

TOSFOS (DH b'Kohen Kasher) questions Rashi's explanation. The Gemara later (17b) discusses the source for the law that Kohanim must wear the Bigdei Kehunah while performing the Avodah, and if they perform the Avodah without wearing the Bigdei Kehunah (Mechusar Begadim), the Avodah is Pasul. The verses (Shemos 29:5-9) describe the Bigdei Kehunah and conclude (29:9), "... and the office of Kehunah shall be theirs for an everlasting statute." The Gemara understands from this verse that the status of Kehunah and the Bigdei Kehunah are interconnected; without the Bigdei Kehunah, the Kohanim are considered to be lacking their Kehunah, and they have the status of a Zar (a non-Kohen). This is how we know that a Kohen must wear the Bigdei Kehunah when he performs the Avodah, and without the Bigdei Kehunah the Avodah is Pasul. Furthermore, the Gemara there is teaching that the Bigdei Kehunah are necessary even for an Avodah which does not provide atonement. Certainly, then, we may learn from there that Kabalas ha'Dam, which involves the attainment of atonement, is not valid without the Bigdei Kehunah. Why, then, do the Tana Kama and Rebbi Akiva, according to Rashi's explanation that "Klei Shares" refers to Bigdei Kehunah, need different sources to teach that the Avodah of Kabalas ha'Dam requires Bigdei Kehunah?

Tosfos answers that we need another source to teach that the lack of Bigdei Kehunah invalidates the Kabalah and we would not have known it from the source taught later (17b), because we might have thought that only where the verse mentions "Begadim" with regard to the Kohen's Avodah is the Avodah invalid without the Bigdei Kehunah. With regard to Kabalas ha'Dam, or with regard to lighting the fire on the Mizbe'ach (as mentioned in Yoma 24b; see Rashi there, DH ub'Klei Shares)), the Torah does not mention the "Begadim" of the Kohen. We know that the Bigdei Kehunah are necessary for all other Avodos only from the Gezeirah Shavah according to Rebbi Akiva, or from the extra word "Kohen" according to the Tana Kama. (See also CHAZON ISH, Kodshim 1:14.)

The TZON KODASHIM rejects the question of Tosfos in the first place. He explains that the Gemara later says that a Kohen must wear the Bigdei Kehunah only for an Avodah that can be done by a Kohen. Without the Bigdei Kehunah, the Gemara says, the Kohen is considered a Zar and the Avodah is Pasul, as if it was performed by a Zar. Since the Avodah of Kabalas ha'Dam is *valid* if performed by a Zar, we would not have known that it cannot be done by a Kohen who is not wearing the Bigdei Kehunah! Therefore, we need a different source (that of the Tana Kama, or of Rebbi Akiva) to teach that a Kohen must perform the Kabalah while wearing the Bigdei Kehunah.

The CHOK NASAN and KEREN ORAH are perplexed by this assertion of the Tzon Kodashim. While it is true that if a Zar performs the Kabalah, he is not punished with death, the Kabalah itself is Pasul unless it is performed by a Kohen! This is stated clearly by the RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:5).

(b) RABEINU HILLEL in his commentary to Toras Kohanim (4:4) says that "Klei Shares" refers to the sanctified vessels of the Beis ha'Mikdash, which is the normal meaning of the words "Klei Shares." The Beraisa is teaching that when performing the Avodah of Kabalah, the blood must be received in a sanctified vessel. Similarly, the TOSFOS RID and RABEINU ELYAKIM in Yoma explain that the vessel with which one lights the fire on the Mizbe'ach must be a Kli Shares. The CHOK NASAN infers from the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:1) that he also understands "Klei Shares" in this way, since he writes that "all of the Korbanos must have their blood accepted in a Kli Shares *in the hand* of the Kohen." (Y. Montrose)

13b

QUESTIONS: Rav Mari suggests that we can prove from the Mishnah in Menachos (12a) that the laws of Pigul apply during the stage of the Avodah of Tevilas Etzba, dipping one's finger into the blood of a Chatas in order to perform the Zerikah. The Mishnah there states that Pigul applies any time the Kohen is performing the Avodos of the Minchah offering -- Kometz, Nosen b'Kli, Molich, and Maktir. The Gemara shows how each of these stages of offering a Minchah corresponded to a parallel stage of the offering of a regular Korban. The Kometz of a Minchah parallels the Shechitah of a Korban. Molich, bringing the Minchah to the Mizbe'ach, parallels Holachah. Maktir, burning the Minchah, parallels the Zerikah of a Korban. What, though, is the counterpart for Nosen b'Kli, placing the Minchah offering into a vessel? The Gemara says initially that the corresponding Avodah cannot be the Kabalah, because receiving the blood of a Korban in a vessel is a passive act, while placing the Minchah into a vessel is done actively. The Gemara suggests that the act of Nosen b'Kli must correspond to the act of dipping one's finger into the blood, Tevilas Etzba, prior to the Zerikah (this act is termed Holachah, since it brings the blood closer to the Mizbe'ach; see RASHI DH Ela), whereby the blood is brought towards the Mizbe'ach in an active manner. Since the Kohen must put the blood onto the Mizbe'ach, this is an important, indispensable Avodah which should be subject to the laws of Pigul. The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah in Menachos might mean that Nosen b'Kli corresponds to Kabalah, and the fact that Kabalah is done passively is not relevant.

From the Gemara here and later (14a), we see that the Gemara maintains that according to both Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan, the stage of dipping one's finger into the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah in order to do Zerikah is *not* a time during which Pigul can occur. Reish Lakish (14a) states that Rebbi Shimon agrees that wrongful thoughts at this stage of a Chatas Penimis *does* make it Pasul (although not Pigul, because it is not brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon), since it is impossible to bring the Korban without this stage of the Avodah.

The Gemara (13b) entertains the possibility that Rebbi Shimon -- who maintains that the Avodah of Holachah is subject to Pigul -- also maintains that during this stage of the Avodah, a Chatas cannot become Pigul. How, though, can the Gemara entertain this possibility when Reish Lakish (14a) clearly states that Rebbi Shimon agrees that Pigul can occur during an important, indispensable Avodah?

In addition, the SHITAH MEKUBETZES asks that these conclusions seem contradictory. If we see that the Gemara states that the stage of Tevilas Etzba is an important Avodah (which is the definition of an Avodah which is subject to Pigul), and Rebbi Shimon himself agrees that any necessary Avodah is subject to Pigul if the Korban is one that is brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon), then how can we conclude that this stage of a Chatas Chitzonah is *not* subject to Pigul?

ANSWERS:

(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#10) answers in the name of RABEINU MEIR that the answer is based on the verses in the Torah regarding the Chatas Chitzonah. The verses regarding the Chata'os Penimiyos (such as the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elem Davar, in Vayikra 4:6 and 4:17, respectively) include the word "v'Taval" ("and he will dip") when describing how the Kohen is to dip his finger into the blood and then sprinkle it. In contrast, the verses regarding the Chatas Chitzonah (Vayikra 4:30) omit the word "v'Taval," using only the word "v'Lakach" ("and the Kohen *will take* from its blood with his finger..."). This change of wording, with the omission of "v'Taval," teaches that the dipping of the finger is not considered a vital Avodah of a regular Chatas (even though the Korban cannot be offered without it), and we do not apply the logic that an indispensable Avodah is subject to Pigul. This explanation is similar to RASHI's understanding of the Rabanan (14a, DH b'Chata'os ha'Chitzonos), and it explains the view of Rebbi Shimon as well. (b) The PANIM ME'IROS explains that the answer of the Gemara -- that Rebbi Shimon maintains that the Chatas does not become Pigul -- refers back to the earlier premise of the Gemara. The Gemara understood that we learn the stages of the Korban at which Pigul can affect the Korban from the stages stated with regard to a Korban Shelamim. If, according to Rebbi Shimon, the Avodah of Holachah is not subject to the effects of Pigul, then we have no source to teach that any act that constitutes Holachah is subject to Pigul, even if it is an important Avodah. This part of the Gemara argues with Reish Lakish.

(c) The CHOK NASAN, TZON KODASHIM, and others give a simple answer to the first question. When the Gemara (13b) assumes that Rebbi Shimon maintains that the Chatas cannot become Pigul, it was totally correct. This is because the Gemara was referring only to a Chatas Penimis (as indicated by the question of "Mai Irya") which Rebbi Shimon admits becomes Pasul through a Machshavah of Pigul (or Lo Lishmah). The Beraisa which is now being attributed to Rebbi Shimon says only that the Korban *cannot become Pigul,* and not that it cannot become *Pasul*. (Y. Montrose)