Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 112

1) "ZERIKAH BA'CHUTZ" WITH BLOOD OF "SHIRAYIM"

QUESTION: The Gemara inquires who the author of the Mishnah (111b) is. The Mishnah states that one who performs the Kabalas ha'Dam of a Chatas with one cup, and then performs Zerikas ha'Dam with the blood in that cup first inside the Beis ha'Mikdash and then outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, transgresses the prohibition of Zerikah ba'Chutz, performing the Avodah of Zerikas ha'Dam outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why is this considered Zerikah ba'Chutz? When blood leftover in the cup after Zerikah was performed is not poured on the Mizbe'ach, it does not disqualify the Korban. The blood is not the blood of Zerikah, and the act of sprinkling it outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash does not constitute an act of "Zerikah" of a Korban. Consequently, sprinkling that blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash should not be a transgression of Zerikah ba'Chutz!

The Gemara answers that the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Nechemyah, who maintains that the placing of the leftover blood on the Mizbe'ach is essential to the Korban, and failure to place it on the Mizbe'ach disqualifies the Korban.

The Gemara asks that if Rebbi Nechemyah is the Tana of the Mishnah, then how can the Mishnah say that one is Patur when one performs the Kabalas ha'Dam with two cups, and then sprinkles the blood of one cup inside and the blood of the other cup outside? The blood in the second cup (that was sprinkled outside) should also be considered essential to the validity of the Korban, and the person should be Chayav! The Gemara answers that Rebbi Nechemyah agrees with this Halachah, because he holds like the Tana Kama in a Beraisa cited earlier (34b) who says that if the blood is received in two cups, performing Zerikah with the blood of the first cup completely invalidates the blood in the second cup from being considered valid blood of Shirayim.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 19:13) rules in the first case that sprinkling the leftover blood from a Kabalah that was done with a single cup can be called "Zerikah ba'Chutz" only if it is done before the Zerikah inside the Beis ha'Mikdash is done, since it is still fit to be offered inside the Beis ha'Mikdash. He does not rule like Rebbi Nechemyah, and, therefore, he says that once the Zerikah was done inside, the remaining blood cannot be used, since the Shirayim are not essential to the Korban. However, the Rambam then states that if the Kabalas ha'Dam was done with two cups, then in any case the blood of the second cup is subject to the Isur of Zerikah ba'Chutz.

Based on our Gemara, the RA'AVAD dismisses the Rambam's conclusion unconditionally. Our Gemara says that *even* according to Rebbi Nechemyah, the second cup is not essential and cannot be used for Zerikah ba'Chutz. Why does the Rambam differ from the apparent conclusion of our Gemara?

ANSWERS:

(a) The KESEF MISHNEH quotes the MAHARI KURKAS who says that the Rambam's source is the Mishnah itself. The Mishnah compares this case to a case of one who dedicated an animal as a Chatas, lost it, dedicated another animal as a Chatas, and then found the first animal. The Gemara asks, what is the Mishnah teaching us with this analogy? The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is teaching us that only if the first Chatas was lost does the second animal have the Kedushah of a Chatas. If the first animal was not lost, the second animal that the person dedicates has the status of an Olah (similarly, when one is Chayav to bring a Chatas and he dedicates two animals, one becomes a Chatas and one becomes an Olah). Since a Chatas cannot be donated voluntarily, only one animal can have the Kedushah of a Chatas.

Although this case teaches us something about dedicating a Chatas, what does the Mishnah intend for us to learn from this case about performing Kabalas ha'Dam with two cups? The Mahari Kurkas explains that the Rambam understands that the Mishnah wants to stress that receiving the blood in two cups is similar to dedicating a second Chatas after losing the first Chatas. This means that just as both animals have Kedushas Chatas, because the second one was needed to insure that a Chatas would be brought, so, too, a second cup of blood has the status of valid blood for Zerikah since it is needed to insure that the Zerikah will be done in case the first cup spills. The Gemara concludes unlike Rebbi Nechemyah (who says that the first cup causes the second one to become invalid for Zerikah), and that is why the Rambam rules that the second cup is always Chayav for Zerikah ba'Chutz.

The KEREN ORAH and CHOK NASAN argue that this cannot be the intention of the Rambam. The Rambam himself (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:21) rules that the first cup of blood *does* cause the second cup to be no longer part of the Korban. In addition, it is not reasonable to suggest that the Rambam is altering the conclusion of the Mishnah -- that one is Patur for using the blood of the second cup for Zerikah outside the Beis ha'Mikdash -- based on an analogy that the Mishnah itself uses to illustrate that very point!

(b) The Mahari Kurkas (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 19:13) himself concludes that this explanation seems forced into the Gemara, and perhaps the Rambam has a different Girsa in the Gemara. The CHAZON ISH (Zevachim 20:1:8) also suggests that there is a mistake in the text of the Rambam.

(c) RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI SOLOVEITCHIK (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos) suggests a novel principle in order to explain the words of the Rambam. There is a fundamental difference between Shirayim and blood that is "Nidcheh" from being Shirayim. For Shirayim, a requirement to be poured on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach takes effect. This means that it is no longer supposed to be used for Zerikah. This is the reason why the Rambam rules that such blood is not subject to the Isur of Zerikah ba'Chutz. Rav Chaim suggests that this has even broader implications. After the first sprinkle of blood, a vessel of blood from a Chatas (which, b'Di'eved, is valid with only one Matanah) becomes blood which has the status of both blood of Zerikah and blood of Shirayim. On the other hand, blood from a second cup which is "Nidcheh" is not blood which has a different Halachah from that of Zerikah; rather, it is ordinary blood of the Korban which is no longer needed because the Korban was completed without it. It does not have any Halachah saying that it is not supposed to be used for Zerikah. Indeed, until the Avodah of the Korban is finished, it is blood that still may be used for Zerikah.

Based on this difference, Rav Chaim explains the words of the Rambam as follows. The Rambam begins by saying that one who sprinkles some of the Zerikos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is Chayav. He continues with this case, stating that one who does the first Zerikos outside is Chayav. However, one who does only the *rest* of the Zerikos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is Patur, since the blood attains the status of Shirayim *after the first Zerikah.* This is not so in the case of two cups of blood. Since both cups of blood are valid for Zerikah until all of the Zerikos are completed, and the Rambam is discussing his original case in which all of the Zerikos have not been completed yet, it follows that at any time the second cup is subject to the Isur of Zerikah ba'Chutz. (See CHAZON YECHEZKEL 12:5 who argues with Rav Chaim's principle and asserts that blood after the first Zerikah is *not* called Shirayim.) (Y. Montrose)

112b

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that one who is "Mechusar Zeman" who offers his Korban outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash is not Chayav for Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, since his Korban is not fit to be offered right now. The examples of "Mechusar Zeman" that the Mishnah mentions are Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, and Metzora. If someone in any of these four categories offers his Chatas and Asham outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, he is Patur. However, if he offers his Olah or Shelamim while he is "Mechusar Zeman," he is Chayav, because these Korbanos (which may be offered voluntarily, as Nedavos) may be offered while one is "Mechusar Zeman."

The Mishnah seems to contradict a Gemara in Moed Katan (15b). The Gemara there cites a Beraisa that says that a Metzora cannot send any of his Korbanos while he is a Metzora. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 2:11) seems to understand that this means that he cannot offer his Korbanos even b'Di'eved during this time. How can we reconcile the Mishnah here with the Gemara in Moed Katan?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MIKDASH DAVID (27:5) suggests a simple solution. When the Gemara in Moed Katan says that a Metzora cannot send his Korbanos, it means that he cannot fulfill his obligation to bring his Korbanos at that time. This is also the explanation of the Rambam. However, we know that there is a concept that a Korban can be valid even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation with that Korban, as we learned at the beginning of Zevachim (2a). The Mishnah here is saying that because a Metzora can bring Korbanos in such a manner during this time, if he brings his Korbanos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, then he transgressed the Isur of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. This explanation is based on the words of the Tosefta (1:2) which explicitly states that the Olah of a Metzora is valid but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner.

The Mikdash David is not satisfied with this explanation. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 18:9) says that the reason why one who is "Mechusar Zeman" is Chayav for Ma'aleh ba'Chutz is "because an Olah is a present." This implies that the Rambam here rules that the basis for this Halachah is that the Olah counts towards its designated purpose, as a present to Hashem. The TOSFOS YOM TOV also cites a text of the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos (Eretz Yisrael edition) which contains a similar statement. Not only does this leave us with our original question, but it also contradicts the aforementioned Rambam (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 2:11) that implies that one cannot fulfill his obligation to bring his Korbanos at all while he is "Mechusar Zeman." The LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Nezirus 10:6) and the RASHASH also infer from the words of the Rambam that the person's Korban fulfills his obligation.

(b) The YAD BINYAMIN says that the previous explanation is valid. When the Rambam says that "an Olah is a present," he does not mean that the Metzora fulfills his obligation to bring his Korban which is a present. Rather, he means that an Olah is always fit to be placed on the Mizbe'ach, since it is a present, even if it will not be considered to be fulfilling his obligation. He says that this is also the implication of the KIRYAS SEFER. (See AVI EZRI, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 18:9, who discusses both possibilities.) (Y. Montrose)