Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 81

1) BLOOD OF AN "OLAH" AND A "BECHOR" THAT BECAME MIXED

QUESTION: The Gemara cites an argument regarding whether or not the place on the Mizbe'ach where the blood of the Korban Olah is placed is the same place where the leftover blood ("Shirayim") is placed. Rav Huna bar Yehudah quotes a Beraisa to support the view that it is the same place. The Torah says, "Kodesh Hem" -- "they (the various types of Bechor) are holy" (Bamidbar 18:17). The Beraisa learns that the verse is teaching us that even if the blood of a Bechor was mixed up with blood from other Korbanos, it still should be offered. Rav Huna says that the case of the Beraisa must be when the leftover blood of an Olah was mixed with that of a Bechor, and the verse is teaching that the Kohen should still perform the Zerikah. We know that the primary Zerikah of the blood of a Bechor is performed in the same place as the primary Zerikah of an Olah. The Beraisa's statement proves that the original Zerikah of a Korban Olah itself may also be sprinkled in the same place as the leftover blood is placed. The Gemara answers that the case of the Beraisa is when the original Zerikah bloods from an Olah and a Bechor are mixed up, and we cannot infer whether the place on which the primary Zerikah is performed is the same as the place where the leftover blood is placed.

The Gemara asks what is the verse teaching us? Since we know that the place of the sprinkling of the blood of an Olah and a Bechor is the same, it is obvious that the bloods of each type of Korban should be sprinkled in the same place! The Gemara answers that the verse is teaching us that the blood of Korbanos do not cancel each other's status when mixed.

TOSFOS (DH Mai) asks that the Gemara's question is difficult to understand. What does the Gemara mean when it says that there is nothing novel about telling us that a mixture of blood of an Olah and a Bechor is sprinkled? There is an argument in the Mishnah here regarding whether there are issues of Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra when sprinkling a mixture of blood in a case in which one of the Korbanos requires four Zerikos (Olah), and one requires only one (Bechor). The verse is needed in order teach that the blood may be sprinkled!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS answers that because the extra Zerikos are supposed to be performed with intent that one is merely placing water on the Mizbe'ach if they are not necessary, there is no issue of Bal Tosif (see Tosfos 77b, DH b'Dam, and 79b, DH b'Mai). There is also no issue of Bal Tigra, since the Kohen is doing the minimum Zerikah in order to fulfill the obligation of the Korban. Since we know from logic that there is no problem of Bal Tosif or Bal Tigra, we do not need a verse to tell us that the mixed blood may be sprinkled.

The TZON KODASHIM has difficulty with the explanation of Tosfos. Rebbi Eliezer, who says in the Mishnah that one should do four Zerikos and is not concerned about Bal Tosif, obviously holds that the extra sprinkles are considered like water if indeed the Zerikah is not necessary. Nevertheless, we see that Rebbi Yehoshua argues on this logic, saying that one should perform only one Zerikah. Since this logic is not unanimously accepted, it is obvious that we need a verse to teach this concept. How, then, can the Gemara assume that there is no novel idea being expressed in this verse? (See KEREN ORAH who also has difficulty with the explanation of Tosfos.)

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES answers in the name of TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ that the Gemara understands that the verse is not relevant to the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, since it was not quoted in the Mishnah. It must be that we cannot learn any Halachic conclusion in this case based on the verse. This is why the Gemara looks for a different idea that we can learn from the verse.

The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Tosfos is actually giving the same answer as Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz. When Rebbi Eliezer states in the Mishnah that Bal Tosif is only "k'she'Hu b'Atzmo" (when it is by itself), he is explaining why -- when the blood of two Korbanos are mixed together -- there is no problem of Bal Tosif. As stated above, if the blood being sprinkled in the last Zerikos is that of the Korban which is supposed to have one Zerikah, it is done with intent that the blood is like water, and therefore there is no problem of Bal Tosif. Only when the sole intent is for Zerikah, as it is when there is only the blood of one Korban, is there a problem of Bal Tosif. Since this is the reason given by Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah, the verse cited must not give us the ability to decide the Halachah, as stated explicitly by Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz. The same applies to the reason Tosfos gives for Rebbi Yehoshua (which is more directly what Rebbi Yehoshua states in the Mishnah). (Y. Montrose)

81b

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a case of blood of a Korban which was supposed to be brought in the Heichal, which became mixed with blood from a Korban which was supposed to be placed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Mishnah states that when the blood was sprinkled first on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and only afterwards brought into the Heichal and sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, the Zerikos are valid. When, however, the Zerikos were done in the reverse order, there is an argument whether or not the Korban that requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is valid. The Chachamim maintain that both Korbanos are valid. Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Korban that requires the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not valid, because any blood that requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and that is brought into the Heichal becomes invalid.

TOSFOS (DH Nasan) explains that in the Mishnah's first case, in which the first Zerikah was done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, it must be that the sprinkling of the blood that was supposed to be done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi was done with intent that the blood is merely like water being sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara earlier (26b) quotes Shmuel who says that even when a Korban is supposed to have its Zerikah done in the Heichal, if the blood was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, the Korban remains valid. If, however, the first Zerikah was done with intention to attain atonement, then the Zerikah can no longer be done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, as the atonement was already attained.

Tosfos says that the second case, in which the blood was first brought into the Heichal, also must be referring to a case in which the Kohen brought the part of the blood that was supposed to atone on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon into the Heichal with intention that he was merely bringing water into the Heichal.

However, Tosfos is left with a question. If, in the second case, the blood of the Korban that needs to be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is brought into the Heichal with intention that it is merely water, then why should anyone say that it is Pasul? Rebbi Akiva derives his ruling -- that blood that must be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon but that is brought into the Heichal is Pasul -- from the verse, "Any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Ohel Mo'ed to attain atonement in the sanctuary may not be eaten" (Vayikra 6:23, see the Gemara later (82a) which explains how Rebbi Akiva extends this law to other types of Korbanos). The verse uses the word, "l'Chaper" -- "to attain atonement." Tosfos asks that if, in this case, the blood is not brought with intention to attain atonement but rather it is brought into the Heichal merely as water, then why should this invalidate the Korban even according to Rebbi Akiva?

The TOSFOS YOM TOV challenges Tosfos' question based on the words of Tosfos earlier. Tosfos earlier (26b, DH v'Iy) attempts to resolve a contradiction between Shmuel's comment there and a Mishnah (79b). Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah says that if the blood of a Korban that was supposed to be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra was mixed with blood that was supposed to be sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, we may view the blood as if it was water, and we may then sprinkle blood above the Chut ha'Sikra (viewing it as blood) and then sprinkle below the Chut ha'Sikra. This is because Rebbi Eliezer holds of the principle of "Ro'in," which enables us to view the temporarily unwanted part of the mixture like water. While the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer, they agree that when the Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra was already performed in such a manner, one should proceed and do the Zerikah below the Chut ha'Sikra. This contradicts Shmuel's view that a Zerikah performed at the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is nevertheless a valid Zerikah, b'Di'eved. The Rabanan do not hold of "Ro'in," and thus, in the case of the Mishnah there, both types of blood were sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra.

The Tosfos Yom Tov writes that he does not understand the words of Tosfos. Tosfos in our Gemara asserts that everyone should agree that we may view the blood as water, and therefore it should not matter that the blood was brought into the Heichal. Why, then, does he not answer simply that the case of the Mishnah (79b) is referring to when the blood is sprinkled with the intent that it is water? Based on what factor does Tosfos determine when blood may be considered water, and when it may not be considered water?

The Tosfos Yom Tov proceeds to explain the questions of Tosfos here and Tosfos earlier (26b). The Rabanan argue that the principle of "Ro'in" does not apply when we need to establish guidelines to determine how a person should act. Similarly, it does not apply when one acts without asking for a ruling about what to do. This is why Tosfos is unsure how the Mishnah (79b) can be reconciled with Shmuel's opinion. In contrast, when the Kohen views the blood as water (which, as Tosfos explains, is the case in our Gemara), even the Rabanan agree that "Ro'in" applies. This is why Tosfos remains with a question in our Gemara; everyone should agree that blood that is brought into the Heichal with intention that it is water is indeed considered water. How, then, can Rebbi Akiva say that this fulfills the verse of "l'Chaper?"

ANSWERS:

(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES answers that the verse of "l'Chaper" is fulfilled in this case as follows. Since the blood of this Korban is mixed with blood of a Korban which does require Zerikah in the Heichal, we can say that the mixture of blood is indeed being brought into the Heichal "l'Chaper." This answer is also quoted by the CHOK NASAN in the name of the RIVA.

(b) The ZEVACH TODAH says that had Tosfos not given this approach in the Gemara, he would have learned the Mishnah in an entirely different manner which would have avoided this question. Tosfos is left with a question on the Gemara because he learns that the first case must be referring to a when the first Zerikah was done with intention that the blood is water, for, otherwise, the Zerikah would not be necessary on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, due to the principle of Shmuel that a misplaced Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is valid b'Di'eved. This forces Tosfos to say that the second case must be similar.

The Zevach Todah says that the first case is *not* discussing a case in which the first Zerikah is performed with intention that the blood is like water. Why, then, is a second Zerikah necessary? The Gemara earlier (8b) states that a Chatas which is brought with intention to atone for a sin other than the sin for which it was designated is *not* effective. Accordingly, it is logical to say that in the case of the Gemara here, in which the blood of the Korban that was supposed to be brought in the Heichal is the blood of a Chatas, the Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon was most likely performed with intent for the Korban that is supposed to be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and not with intent for the Korban that is supposed to be offered in the Heichal. In such a case, even Shmuel would agree that such a Zerikah is not valid for a Korban Chatas. Even though the second case of the Mishnah, in which the second Zerikah is done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and could presumably be valid for any Korban (which does not need specific intent), the Mishnah retains the format of the first case in which the second Zerikah *must* be performed, since the first case is definitely discussing a Chatas. This avoids Tosfos' question regarding bringing od into the Heichal with intention that it is water. (Y. Montrose)