Chesed Club World Wide Center & Discussion Groups
Kitzurdaf

Back

03-15-2011
Title:
Zevachim 110 -

Message:
1) "HAKTARAH" OF "CHASER"

(a) Answer #4 (Rava): The case is, the full Shi'ur was put in a Kli Shares;
1. R. Elazar holds that this is Kove'a (anything less than this is not Haktarah), Chachamim hold that it is not Kove'a (a k'Zayis is still considered Haktarah).
(b) (Rava):According to Chachamim, who hold that a Kli Shares is not Kove'a, if six Lugim of wine were put in a Kli (for the Nisuch of a Par) and four of them were offered outside, he is liable, for this is the Nisuch for a ram;
1. If four Lugim were put in a Kli (for a ram) and three were offered outside, he is liable, for this is the Nisuch for a lamb;
2. If less than three were offered outside, he is exempt.
(c) Defense (of Answer #3 - Rav Ashi): Chachamim do not learn Nisuch from Haktarah, even though both of them are Chutz;
1. Chachamim do learn Haktarah from Haktarah, even Panim from Chutz.
(d) (Mishnah): If any of them became Chaser (before Haktarah, he is exempt for Ha'alas Chutz.)
(e) Question: If the full Shi'ur was taken outside and became Chaser there, what is the law?
1. Do we say, taking it outside was Posel (yet one is liable), an additional Pesul of Chaser does not change anything;
2. Or, perhaps Ha'alas Chutz only applies when the full Shi'ur is intact?
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): He is exempt, unless he offered all of it.
1. Objection (Rabah bar Rav Chanan): (R. Eliezer surely exempts, the question is according to Chachamim -) how can you learn from R. Elazar to Chachamim?!
2. Answer (Abaye): Rabah explicitly said, Chachamim only argue when the Kodesh is intact - if it is Chaser, they also exempt.
i. Suggestion: This is true even if it became Chaser outside.
3. Rejection: No, it is only if it became Chaser inside.
(g) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If it became Chaser and the rest was offered outside, he is exempt.
1. Suggestion: This is true even if it became Chaser outside.
(h) Rejection: No, it is only if it became Chaser inside.
(i) (Mishnah): If one offered Kodshim with the Eimurim attached, he is liable.
(j) Question: Why is he liable - the meat is a Chatzizah (between the Eimurim and the Ma'arachah!)
(k) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, he turned the meat over (so that the Eimurim touch the wood.)
(l) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who says that Ha'alas Chutz is liable, even on a rock. (We do not learn from Avodas ha'Mikdash that a Mizbe'ach is required - likewise, we do not learn that the Kodesh must touch the wood.)
(m) Answer #3 (Rav): Min b'Mino (the Eimurim are also meat) is not a Chatzizah.
2) OFFERING A "KOMETZ"
(a) (Mishnah): If a Minchah was offered outside and Kemitzah was never done, he is exempt (for it was not Kosher to offer inside);
(b) If a Kometz was taken and it returned to the Shirayim and they were offered outside, he is liable.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why is he liable? The Kometz should be Batul to the Shirayim, one is exempt for offering Shirayim (they are not offered inside!)
(d) Answer (R. Zeira): It says "Haktarah" regarding the Kometz and regarding Shirayim - just as Komtzim do not Mevatel Komtzim (we learn from the blood of the Par and Sa'ir that Olim do not Mevatel each other), also Shirayim do not Mevatel Komtzim.
(e) (Mishnah): If either the Kometz or Levonah of a Minchah was offered outside, he is liable;
(f) R. Elazar exempts, unless he offers both.
1. If he offered one of them inside and the other outside, he is liable.
(g) If one of the two spoons of Levonah (of Lechem ha'Panim) was offered outside, he is liable;
(h) R. Elazar exempts, unless he offers both.
1. If he offered one inside and the other outside, he is liable.
(i) (Gemara) Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): Does offering a Kometz permit half of the Shirayim (since it is one of the two Matirim)?
1. Does it permit half (Rashi - to be eaten; Tosfos - even if it permits half, we may not eat half, we do not know which half! The point of the question is, if it permits half, the other half remains fully forbidden, one who eats all the Shirayim is lashed for eating Kodshim before its Matirim)?
2. Or, does it weaken the prohibition on all the Shirayim (and one is not lashed for eating them)?
(j) Question: According to which opinion is this question?
1. It cannot be according to R. Meir - he says that intent in one of the Matirim is Mefagel, surely he holds that it permits half!
2. It cannot be according to Chachamim (that argue with R. Meir) - they say that intent in one Matir is not Mefagel, perhaps offering it neither permits nor weakens the prohibition!
(k) Answer #1: It is according to R. Elazar.
(l) Rejection: He exempts for partial Haktarah, surely he holds like the Chachamim of R. Meir (perhaps it neither permits nor weakens!)
(m) Answer #2: It is according to Chachamim of R. Elazar - does offering a Kometz permit half of the Shirayim, or weaken the prohibition on all them?
(n) This question is not resolved.
3) THE PROHIBITION OF "NISUCH B'CHUTZ"
(a) (Mishnah): If one threw some of the blood b'Chutz, he is liable;
110b---------------------------------------110b

(b) R. Elazar says, even one who is Menasech (b'Chutz) Mei ha'Chag (Nisuch ha'Mayim) on Sukos is liable.
(c) R. Nechemyah says, one who offers Shirayim of blood b'Chutz is liable.
(d) (Gemara - Rava): R. Elazar agrees regarding blood (that one is liable for partial Zerikah outside, for partial Zerikah inside in valid):
1. (Mishnah - R. Elazar and R. Shimon): (If the blood of an inner Chatas spilled in the middle of the Haza'os, those that were done are valid -) another Chatas is slaughtered, we use its blood for the remaining Haza'os.
(e) (Mishnah - R. Elazar): Even one who is Menasech Mei ha'Chag on Sukos is liable.
(f) (R. Yochanan citing R. Menachem Yudfa'ah): R. Elazar holds like his Rebbi, R. Akiva, who says that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa.
1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "U'Nsacheha" (plural) - the verse discusses two Nesachim, of water and wine. (Since water is offered in the Mikdash on Sukos, one is liable for it outside on Sukos.)
(g) Questions (Reish Lakish): If R. Elazar learns like R. Akiva, since the Torah teaches both Nesachim together, they should be the same!
1. Nisuch of water should be three Lugim, just like Nisuch of wine - but R. Elazar said Nisuch ha'Mayim (he did not fix the Shi'ur - presumably, he means that the Chiyuv b'Chutz is like the Mitzvah,) and one opinion says that this is one Log!
2. The Chiyuv for water b'Chutz should be every day of the year, just like that of wine (since Nisuch of wine applies every day) - but R. Elazar said (only) 'b'Chag'!
(h) Answer: R. Menachem (Rashi; Tosfos - Reish Lakish) did not know R. Asi''s teaching:
1. (R. Asi): The following are traditions from Moshe from Sinai:
i. Ten saplings (even though mid'Oraisa, one must add to Shemitah and cease working the land before Shemitah, if 10 saplings are evenly spaced over a square of 50 Amos by 50 Amos, the entire field may be plowed in Erev Shemitah until Rosh Hashanah);
ii. Taking an Aravah (in the Mikdash on Sukos, aside from the four species);
iii. Nisuch ha'Mayim. (Tosfos - R. Menachem meant, R. Elazar holds like R. Akiva that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa, but he knows this from tradition (unlike R. Akiva who expounded it), therefore it need not resemble Nisuch of wine. Rashi - R. Menachem erred, R. Elazar relies on the tradition, therefore it need not resemble Nisuch of wine.)

Back