Zevachim Daf 96 - Merikah U'shetifah
Summary
- This shiur on Zevachim daf tzadi vav presents the sugya of why one performs shevirah of a kli cheres used for kodshim rather than restoring it in a kivshan, develops Rishonim’s frameworks (Rashi, Tosafot, Rabbeinu Tam) about beliot versus gezerat ha-katuv and the limits of libun/hachzarah la-kivshan, answers that kilns are not made in Yerushalayim, and explains why shards remained in the Azarah without causing ashpatot due to a miracle that they were swallowed in place. It establishes that the Mikdash oven was metal because shtei ha-lechem and lechem ha-panim consecrate in the oven, making it a keli sharet that cannot be cheres, and it ties the material-drashot to the menorah via ribui mi’ut ribui versus klal ufrat uklal. It records a narrative between Rami bar Chama and Rav Yitzchak bar Yehuda that culminates, via a beraita and the pasuk “u’vekheli nechoshet bushela,” in the ruling that bisheshel be-miktzat keli requires merika vesh’tifa for the entire vessel. It analyzes the machloket whether kodshim kalim require merika vesh’tifa, excludes terumah from merika vesh’tifa while requiring hag’alah, and details practical nafka minot between hag’alah and merika vesh’tifa. It also surveys the halachic scope of not making kilns or gardens in Yerushalayim then and nowadays, parallels to batei kenesiot regarding smoke damage, and positions on kri’ah for Yerushalayim and Har HaBayit visibility.
- Today’s daf is Zevachim daf tzadi vav, beginning at the top of amud alef. The shiur is dedicated by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and le’iluy nishmas his mother Golde bas Simcha, aleha hashalom, and by Esti and Avi Goldstein on the seventh yahrzeit of their son Zachary, Chaim Tzvi ben Avraham, whose yahrzeit is next Wednesday.
- The Gemara asks why a kli cheres from the Mikdash is broken; it proposes restoring it in the kivshan to effect libun instead. Rashi explains that the maskanah is that shevirah is due to beliot and is not a mere gezerat ha-katuv, so the question of an alternative kashering path is coherent. Tosafot cite Rabbeinu Tam that returning to the kivshan creates panim chadashot and removes the chiyuv shevirah, then reject it and add that the Torah’s mandate of merika vesh’tifa for metal and shevirah for cheres shows that beliot of cheres are not yotzei midei dofno, and that even where there is no beliah the Torah is mechadesh to treat it ke-ilu there is beliah, which grounds the question of whether libun could address it. The sugya answers that this option is unavailable because kilns are not made in Yerushalayim.
- R. Zeira states that kilns are not made in Yerushalayim due to smoke damage. The Chemdat Daniel explains that removing these kelim outside Yerushalayim is prohibited because the kodshim beliot in their walls would be subject to psul yotzei. The Nimukei Chaim explains the Yerushalayim-wide restriction (and not only the Azarah) because the Mishnah’s shittat Tanna Kamma applies the din to kodshim kalim, which are eaten throughout Yerushalayim.
- The Rambam (Hilchot Beit HaBechira 7:4) codifies not making kilns in Yerushalayim. The Radvaz (II, siman 403) writes that gardening and kilns were prohibited due to smell and smoke aesthetics for olei regalim and walls, and rules that when Yerushalayim is bi-yad goyim these practical gezeirot lapse; the Kaftor VaFerach concurs that only ikar kedushat Yerushalayim dinim remain noheg bizman hazeh. R. Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash) invokes the Rambam’s rule that ta’am-based urban yishuv/’yofi ha’ir takanot fall away without need for a beit din gadol, whereas Pe’at HaShulchan argues that these prohibitions remain even nowadays as expressions of kedushat Yerushalayim itself.
- Abaye’s challenge about creating ashpatot from endless broken shards in the Azarah is resolved by Shemaya be-Kal Nevo: shivrei kli cheres were swallowed b’mekoman miraculously. Rashi attributes the miracle to preserving the dignity of the Azarah from becoming a dump, while the Ritva and Rabbeinu Eliyahu attribute it to protecting barefoot kohanim from injury. A question is raised why the nes pach ha-shemen merited a yom tov despite greater daily nissim in Bayit Rishon and notes that oil longevity is not an obvious nes.
- Rav Nachman said the Mikdash oven was metal; although hasiko mi-bifnim could kasher cheres, the oven became a keli sharet through afiyat shtei ha-lechem and lechem ha-panim and thus could not be cheres. Even according to R. Yosi b’R. Yehuda, who permits eitz for the menorah via ribui mi’ut ribui, cheres remains excluded from kelim sharet, whereas according to klal ufrat uklal only metals akin to zahav are included for the menorah.
- Rav Yitzchak bar Yehuda left Rami bar Chama for Rav Sheshet because Rav Sheshet resolved questions with precise beraitot rather than pure sevara, emphasizing the need to know exact source-language. Rami bar Chama analogized bisheshel be-miktzat keli to dam chatat on a beged to limit cleaning to the affected area, but this was rejected because dam is not mefape’a whereas bishul is mefape’a. A beraita explicitly states that bisheshel be-miktzat ha-keli ta’un merika vesh’tifa kol ha-keli, and the pasuk “u’vekheli nechoshet bushela” includes even partial cooking as generating a chiyuv for the entire vessel.
- The Mishnah states אחד קדשי קדשים ואחד קדשים קלים require merika vesh’tifa, and R. Shimon says קדשים קלים אין טעונים מריקה ושטיפה. R. Yehuda derives from “kodesh kodashim hi” that the din extends from chatat to all kodshim and uses “otah” to be mema’et terumah, implying that kol she-ken kodshim kalim are included. R. Shimon uses “otah” for dam chatat beged—kesheirah velo pesulah—and reads “kodesh kodashim” as limiting merika vesh’tifa to kodshei kodashim.
- The beraita that forbids using a pot of basar for chalav and a pot of terumah for chullin shows that terumah beliot aser b’notein ta’am and require hag’alah, but terumah does not require merika vesh’tifa. One nafka minah is scope: merika vesh’tifa extends to the whole kli when bisheshel be-miktzat, whereas for terumah hag’alah addresses only makom ha-bishul. Another nafka minah is medium: merika vesh’tifa is specifically b’mayim and not b’yayin or b’mezug, whereas hag’alah for terumah can be even with yayin or mezug. A further nafka minah is temperature: merika vesh’tifa entails a tzonen rinse (and, according to one view, merika b’chamin followed by shtifa b’tzonen), while terumah needs only hag’alah b’chamin without an added tzonen rinse; the minhag is to rinse with cold after hag’alah.
- The Mekor Chayim (author of Chavos Yair, Orach Chayim siman 151) rules that shul lighting should use wax rather than oil to avoid smoke damage to walls, drawing a parallel from the care taken in Yerushalayim. The Maharam of Rothenburg permits redirecting donated oil funds when smoke causes damage and drives people away from the beit knesset.
- Rav Shternbuch cites the Brisker Rav that kri’ah for the Makom HaMikdash applies when one sees the ground of Har HaBayit, whereas most poskim rule that seeing the Dome of the Rock suffices because kol ha-mechubar la’karka ke’karka and because the mosque itself manifests churban ha-Mikdash. Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that Yerushalayim nowadays is not considered bechurbana due to Jewish control and thus no kri’ah for the city, while the Steipler and others maintain that widespread avodah zarah in the city renders it bechurbana notwithstanding political control.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions