Zevachim Daf 92 - Wine on Mizbei'ach, Kibus Begadim
Summary
- Shmuel states that one who brings wine as a voluntary offering sprinkles it on the fire of the altar, deriving this from ויין תקריב לנסך חצי ההין אשה ריח ניחוח לה', and the sugya addresses the apparent violation of לא תכבה with answers including partial extinguishing and the framework of עשה דוחה לא תעשה, then reframes the issue as a Tannaitic dispute hinging on Rabbi Yehuda versus Rabbi Shimon about *davar she-eino mitkaven*, alongside analysis of *psik reisha* and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and a ruling of Shmuel about extinguishing coals on Shabbat. The Rambam rules against Shmuel regarding wine of *nedavah*, despite ruling like Rabbi Shimon on *davar she-eino mitkaven*, and Acharonim probe this tension. Rav Huna and a supporting baraita rule that *nesakhim* that became *tamei* in the *azarah* are burned there on their own *ma’arachah*, and Shmuel publicizes this specifically for *nesakhim*. The new perek establishes that דם חטאת on a garment requires laundering for both חטאות החיצוניות and חטאות הפנימיות, excludes פסולים whether or not they had שעת הכשר, derives the exclusion of חטאת העוף through three approaches, and raises further inquiries about דם חטאת העוף entering the Heichal and cases of spilled blood.
- Shmuel says המתנדב יין מביא ומזלף על גבי אישים, deriving this from ויין תקריב לנסך חצי ההין אשה ריח ניחוח לה'. Rashi explains for those who reject Shmuel that אשה indicates נחת רוח like offerings on the fire or applies to elements actually offered on the fire, not to wine. Mekadesh David analyzes whether sprinkling wine on the *ishim* has the status of *haktarah* or remains *nisuch*, and he lists practical differences: measure for liability (e.g., *kezayit* versus *sheloshah logim*), liability of a *zar*, offering outside, requirement of a *kli sharet*, and whether it must be on the *ma’arachah gedolah* bounded by קרבן תמיד של שחר and קרבן תמיד של בין הערבים.
- The sugya raises the prohibition אש תמיד תוקד על המזבח לא תכבה against sprinkling wine onto the fire. It answers that partial extinguishing is not deemed *kibui* for the altar’s requirement of continuous fire, and alternatively that *kibui* done for a mitzvah is permitted, framed as עשה דוחה לא תעשה, with Or Sameach distinguishing the עשה applying to total extinguishing while the לאו applies even to partial *kibui*. The Sfas Emes notes that oil is flammable and ultimately fuels the fire and therefore is not considered *kibui*, unlike wine; the case of extinguishing a single coal is limited to the last burning coal, and the *terumat ha-deshen* baraita forbids extinguishing because אפשר דיתיב ונתר.
- A baraita states יין כדברי רבי עקיבא לספלים and another derives that יין נסך goes to the *sefalim* from לא תכבה, opposing Shmuel. The sugya resolves that this is a Tannaitic dispute aligned with Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids *davar she-eino mitkaven*, and Rabbi Shimon, who permits it, allowing Shmuel’s reading from אשה; Tosafot notes that sources differ on Rabbi Akiva’s stance and conclude it is a dispute what Rabbi Akiva held. Rashi addresses *psik reisha* by asserting a manner of sprinkling in tiny drops that need not inevitably extinguish, so the act is not classified as *psik reisha*.
- Shmuel permits extinguishing a גחלת של מתכת in *reshut ha-rabim* on Shabbat to prevent public harm, but forbids a גחלת של עץ because of creating פחם, demonstrating that he rules like Rabbi Shimon on *davar she-eino mitkaven* yet like Rabbi Yehuda on מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. The allowance concerning public harm does not extend to ספק פיקוח נפש, which overrides even איסורי דאורייתא.
- The Rambam rules in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:11 that יין של נדבה is poured into the *shittin* like other *nesakhim*, rejecting placing it on the *ishim*, while he rules in Hilchot Shabbat 1:5 that *davar she-eino mitkaven* is permitted. Acharonim note the difficulty reconciling these rulings with the sugya’s association of Shmuel’s position to Rabbi Shimon’s principle.
- Rav Huna rules that *nesakhim* that became *tamei* in the *azarah* are burned there on their own *ma’arachah*, as derived from בקודש באש תשרף. A baraita supports burning דם, שמן, מנחות, והנסכים that became *tamei* in the *azarah* on their own *ma’arachah*, and Shmuel instructs Rav Chana Bagdata’a to proclaim specifically the rule about *nesakhim* before ten people. Hasdei David explains that Shmuel publicized only the *nesakhim* ruling because the broader baraita was not universally accepted for practical ruling.
- The Mishnah states דם חטאת שניתן על הבגד הרי זה טעון כיבוס, and it applies אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות טעונות כיבוס through תורת החטאת. Rashbam explains that laundering ensures the time for eating the *korban* is not missed and avoids נותר within the garment, and Ramban writes that דם חטאת is treated as if in a *kli sharet*, preventing the garment from leaving the *azarah* until washed. The law excludes פסולים whether they had שעת הכשר or not, with examples of prior כשר status lost through *linah*, *tumah*, or *yetziah*, and of no שעת הכשר through intent of חוץ לזמנו, חוץ למקומו, or קיבלו פסולים את הדם.
- The sugya excludes חטאת העוף from כיבוס via זאת while including חטאות הפנימיות via תורת against the verse’s focus on נאכלות. Resh Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara derives from תשחט that the verse speaks of offerings with שחיטה, thus excluding עוף with מליקה. The sugya justifies including חטאות הפנימיות rather than חטאת העוף by enumerating greater similarity of *behemah* cases to חטאות החיצוניות: שכן בהמה, שחיטת צפון, קבלת כלי, קרן, אצבע, חודה, ואישים, against the fewer points of similarity for עוף such as חוץ and אכילה.
- Rav Yosef derives a מיעוט from יאכלנה to exclude one kind among the נאכלות from כיבוס—namely חטאת העוף—with זאת signaling that an exclusion is required and יאכלנה identifying it within what is eaten. Rava reads אשר יזה as indicating that the verse’s core case is חטאת פנימית with its הזאה שבע פעמים לפני ה', includes חטאת חיצונית via תורת, adjusts the Mishnah’s phrasing accordingly, and again uses זאת to exclude עוף while preferring inclusion of חטאת בהמה by the same list of similarities.
- Rabbi Avina inquires about חטאת העוף שנכנס דמה בפנים while the blood remains in the neck: whether its neck is like a *kli sharet* rendering it פסול upon entry or like the neck of a *behemah*, in light of מדם אמר רחמנא ולא בשרא. The sugya also raises whether spilled דם חטאת העוף gathered from the floor into a *kli sharet* becomes פסול, and the analysis continues into the subsequent discussion.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions