Chesed Club World Wide Center & Discussion Groups
Kitzurdaf

Back

03-17-2011
Title:
Zevachim 114 - LIABILITY FOR

Message:
1) LIABILITY FOR "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ"

(a) (Mishnah): (One is exempt for...) Rove'a or Nirva...(we learn from "Lifne Mishkan Hash-m").
(b) Question: These are not fitting for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, why don't we learn from "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed..."?
(c) Answer - part 1: Regarding Rove'a and Nirva, another verse is needed to teach about when the Aveirah was done after it was Hukdash;
1. This answer does not suffice for Ne'evad and Muktzeh - since an action was not done to the animal itself, only the owner can forbid it (and once it is Hekdesh, he ceases to own it!)
(d) Answer - part 2: Also regarding Ne'evad and Muktzeh, another verse is needed to teach about when the Aveirah was done after it was Hukdash;
1. The case is, the Korban is Kodshim Kalim, the Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that Kodshim Kalim are considered to be the property of the owner.
2. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "U'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Sh-m" - this includes Kodshim Kalim, which are the property of the owner.
(e) The prohibitions of Rove'a and Nirva take effect on Kodshim, for it is Ervah; (we learn from "Mashchasam (Arayos or idolatry) Bam Mum Bam");
(f) The prohibitions of Ne'evad and Muktzeh take effect on Kodshim Kalim, for it is idolatry;
(g) The prohibitions of Mechir, Esnan, Kilayim, and Yotzei Dofen take effect on the child of a Korban;
1. The Tana holds that the child of a Korban does not become Kodesh until it is born (the prohibition of Mechir or Esnan cannot take effect unless the owner can sell or give it.)
(h) (Mishnah): (One is exempt for) a Ba'al Mum...for Oso v'Es Beno...
(i) We must teach all these cases:
1. If we only taught Ba'al Mum, one might have thought that Chachamim exempt for it because it is repulsive - but Torim (that are too young) are not repulsive, they would admit to R. Shimon that one is liable for them!
2. If we only taught Torim, one might have thought that R. Shimon obligates for them because they were never fit to be offered - but a Ba'al Mum was fit and Nidcheh, he would admit to Chachamim that one is exempt for it!
3. If we only taught these two, one might have thought that Chachamim exempt for them because they are intrinsically forbidden - but Oso v'Es Beno is forbidden on account of something else (the slaughter of its mother or son), they would admit to R. Shimon that one is liable for it!
2) LIABILITY FOR "MECHUSAR ZEMAN"
(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): (Anything fitting to be offered later, one transgresses a Lav, there is no Kares.
(b) Question: What is his reason?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Ilai): "Lo Sa'asun k'Chol Asher Anachnu Osim Po ha'Yom" - Moshe told Yisrael that when they enter Eretz Yisrael (and set up the Mishkan in Giglal), one may offer "Kol ha'Yashar b'Einav" (voluntary offerings, i.e. Nedarim and Nedavos), but not obligatory offerings;
1. Obligatory offerings will be Mechusar Zeman they may not be offered until a Mikdash will be built in Shilo, and they are forbidden by a Lav "Lo Sa'asun"!
(d) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If so, one should be lashed for this;
114b---------------------------------------114b

1. But R. Zeira taught, the Torah reduced the severity (of Mechusar Zeman from a Lav) to an Ase!
(e) Answer #1: R. Zeira's teaching is according to Chachamim, R. Shimon holds that he is lashed.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): (Even R. Shimon exempts for Mechusar Zeman of obligatory offerings offered in Gilgal) - since they may be offered only (in "Menuchah", i.e. the Mikdash) in Shilo, it is as if they were offered outside the Mikdash;
1. He is Mechayev for Shechutei Chutz at the time the Mishkan was in Gilgal.
(g) Answer #2 (to Question (k) - Rabah): R. Shimon learns as follows:
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach Es ha'Posach" - this is a Lav against slaughtering Pesach on a private Bamah when Bamos are forbidden;
2. Suggestion: Perhaps this applies to even when Bamos are permitted!
3. Rejection: "B'Echad Sh'arecha" - the Lav is only when all of Yisrael enter one gate, i.e. there is a Mikdash and Bamos are forbidden. (End of Beraisa)
4. Question: What time is discussed?
5. Answer #1: It discusses the afternoon (of Erev Pesach).
6. Rejection: Pesach is fully fitting inside the Mikdash, one who slaughters it outside is Chayav Kares!
7. Answer #2: Rather, it discusses the morning (of Erev Pesach - even though it is Mechusar Zeman, a Lav forbids it!)
(h) Rejection (and defense of Answer #1): Really, it discusses the afternoon, and at a time when Bamos are permitted.
(i) Question: But the Beraisa expounds that the verse discusses when Bamos are forbidden!
(j) Answer: It means, the Pesach is forbidden on this (i.e. a private) Bamah and permitted on another one (of the Tzibur.)
3) "MECHUSAR ZEMAN" OF THE OWNER
(a) (Mishnah): Mechusar Zeman (of the owner - if a Zav, Zavah or Yoledes offered his (or her) Chatas or Asham, he is exempt.)
(b) Question: These people do not offer an Asham!
(c) Answer (Ze'iri): The Mishnah should also include a Metzora (who brings an Asham.)
(d) (Mishnah): If he offered his Olah or Shelamim (he is liable...)
(e) Question: These people do not offer Olah or Shelamim!
(f) Answer (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah should also include a Nazir.
(g) Ze'iri's correction was adopted by people (they would include Metzora when reciting the Mishnah), Rav Sheshes' correction was not. (Tosfos - because Nazir is less similar to the others, he is not Tamei.)
(h) (Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi): (The Mishnah exempts for an Asham Mechusar Zeman, e.g. of a Metzora -) this is only if it was offered Lishmah;
1. If it was offered Lo Lishmah, he is liable, since if offered Lo Lishmah inside, it would be Kosher.
(i) Question: If so, also if it was offered Lishmah, he should be liable, since it was fitting to be offered inside Lo Lishmah!
(j) Answer: Until one is Oker it (changes it to a different Korban), we consider it like the original Korban, it is unfit to be offered inside.

Back