Zevachim Daf 95 - Kibus, Shevirah, Merikah in the Azara
Summary
- This shiur surveys the Mishnah and Gemara on Zevachim 95a–96a about how to perform the mandated purifications—*kibbus* for stained garments, *shevira* for a *kli cheres*, and *merika v’shetifa* for a *kli nechoshet*—when the items left the Azarah or became *tamei* outside, while preserving the required status of “beged” or “kli” and avoiding bringing *tumah* into the Mikdash. The sugya presents solutions such as tearing a *beged* to remove *tumah* without nullifying its “beged” status, piercing or reshaping vessels to remove *tumah* without losing “kli” status, and special handling for the Me’il of the Kohen Gadol due to “*lo yikra*.” The Gemara resolves how to conduct *kibbus* in a sacred place despite the requirement of *mei raglayim* by using *rok tafal*, codifies which vessels require *merika v’shetifa*, and analyzes whether obligations depend on *bishul* and/or *beliah*. The sugya also yields principles for kashering ovens and addresses related halachic frameworks about destruction prohibitions from the Rambam and later Poskim.
- The Mishnah states that a *beged* with *dam chatat* that left the curtains reenters and has *kibbus* done “in a sacred place.” If it became *tamei* outside, they tear it to remove *tumah* and then reenter and perform *kibbus* “in a sacred place.” A *kli cheres* that left reenters and is broken “in a sacred place,” but if it became *tamei* outside, they make a hole to remove *tumah* and then reenter and break it. A *kli nechoshet* that left reenters for *merika v’shetifa*, but if it became *tamei* outside, they make a larger defect to remove *tumah* and then reenter for *merika v’shetifa*.
- Ravina challenges tearing the *beged* because the Torah said “beged,” yet post-tear it is no longer a “beged,” and the Gemara answers they leave *kedei meforas* so it remains a “beged.” The Gemara tests this against Rav Huna’s statement that leaving *kedei meforas* is a “chibur,” and resolves that Rav Huna’s stringency is *derabanan*, while on a *de’oraita* level once torn mostly it is *tahor*, and the *mitzvah* of *kibbus* allows reentry despite the residual *derabanan*. The Acharonim ask why a *kli cheres* that is only prohibited to enter *derabanan* still requires making a hole, and Chemdat Daniel distinguishes between cases where the residual *tumah* itself is only *derabanan* (where leniency applies) and where the *tumah* is *de’oraita* but entry is only *derabanan* (where we still require fixing).
- The sugya references Shabbat 95 about five levels of perforations, from *motzi mashkeh* up to *ke-rimon*, and applies them to remove *tumah* by rendering the *kli* functionally broken according to its use. The Gemara answers the *shevira*-status objection by proposing a hole of a “*shoresh katan*,” sufficient to remove *tumah* while not nullifying “kli” for *shevira*, and Tosafot questions this since *tumah v’taharah* measures are typically *koness mashkeh* for liquid-use and *kezayit* for food-use. Tosafot suggests that a vessel designated for both liquid and food—as with cooking *chatat* with gravy—may have a distinct *de’oraita* measure like “*shoresh katan*,” with larger measures possibly *derabanan*, allowing reentry to fulfill *shevira* on a *de’oraita* basis despite a residual *derabanan* concern.
- The Gemara answers the *kli* status problem for *kli nechoshet* by “*drutza u-m’ratzif*,” which Rashi understands as making and then hammering out the hole to restore *kli* status for *merika v’shetifa*. Tosafot objects that if repair after total destruction reinstates the *mitzvah*, this should apply equally to a *beged*, so Tosafot reinterprets “*pachas’o*” as reshaping the vessel—turning inside to outside—such that it loses *tumah* without losing “kli” status, enabling proper *merika v’shetifa*.
- Reish Lakish states that the Me’il that became *tamei* outside is not torn due to “*lo yikra*”; instead, they bring in less than *shalosh al shalosh* *etzba’ot* at a time and perform *kibbus* segment by segment. Tosafot notes that for a *beged* we do not apply *bi’ah b’miktzat shmah bi’ah*, permitting partial entry without violating entry of *tumah*. The challenge that thick or thin fabrics lack the *shalosh al shalosh* patch-utility fails because the Me’il’s segments retain significance as parts of a highly significant whole, so the incremental-entry method stands.
- The Rambam rules that one who demolishes even a single stone of the Heichal or the Azarah receives lashes due to “u’mezbachoteihem titotzun” and “lo ta’asun ken laHashem Elokeichem,” and the Beit Yosef cites the Mordechai extending this to a Beit Knesset, codified by the Rema, with the Taz prohibiting making permanent holes (e.g., for a shtender) unless rebuilding the very damage, while the Eliyah Rabba permits when done *letzorech*. The Avnei Nezer argues, based on the sugya’s treatment of the Me’il, that the general prohibition is limited to “*derech hashchata*,” thus permitting destruction *letzorech mitzvah*, whereas the Me’il alone is uniquely prohibited by “*lo yikra*,” which generates lashes even absent *derech hashchata*.
- Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha states that *dam chatat* and *mar’ot nega’im* require *shiv’a samanin* for valid *kibbus*, paralleling Niddah’s stain protocol. The Baraita in Pitum haKetoret prohibits bringing *mei raglayim* into the Mikdash “mipnei ha-kavod,” and the Gemara rejects mixing all *samanim* at once or combining with one agent due to the required order and triple-application per agent. The solution is to combine each agent with *rok tafal*, as Reish Lakish requires *rok tafal* with each of the *samanim*, which removes the objection to *mei raglayim* in the Mikdash.
- The Mishnah rules that both a vessel in which one cooked and a vessel into which one poured boiling meat require *merika v’shetifa*. The Mishnah includes both *kodshei kodashim* and *kodashim kalim*, while Rabbi Shimon exempts *kodashim kalim* from *merika v’shetifa*. The Gemara derives from “asher bo yishaver” that even *irui roteach* into a *kli cheres* obligates *shevira*.
- Rami bar Chama asks whether suspending *chatat* meat on a spit inside an earthen oven’s airspace, achieving *bishul* without *beliah*, obligates *shevira*, and the Gemara distinguishes cases of *beliah* without *bishul* from *bishul* without *beliah*. Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha states the Mikdash’s oven was metal so it could be kashered, since certain Minchah remnants cause both *bishul* and *beliah*, necessitating a non-*cheres* oven. There was an oven smeared with animal fat, and Rav bar Ilai forbade its bread forever due to concern of eating it with dairy, but the Gemara rejects him from the rule that smearing with *chelev* forbids bread only until the oven is re-fired. Ravina asks why Rav requires breaking year-round *cheres* pots for Pesach, and the Gemara answers either that the lenient oven case was metal whereas the Pesach case is *cheres*, or that an oven is heated from inside while pots are heated from outside, with internal heating effecting proper kashering and external heating insufficient; hence a tile used with external heat is not kashered by firing.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions