Daf 92 — Zevachim 92 Summary

Zevachim 92 – Good Morning Raboisai Summary of Reb Eli Stefansky’s Shiur Nedavas Shemen — What Do You Do With a Gift of Oil? We return to the machlokes between Shmuel and Abaye : • Shmuel: o From a voluntary gift of oil ( נְדָבַת שֶׁמֶׁן ), o The Kohen takes a kemitzah (three fingers’ worth) and places it on the Mizbeach, o The rest is eaten by the Kohanim . • Abaye: o The entire oil goes onto the Mizbeach. o Nothing is eaten. This becomes the core dispute of the daf. Attempted Proof from Nesachim — Wine vs. Oil A Beraisa describes the silver bowls on top of the Mizbeach where wine is poured. Rabbi Akiva holds: • Wine is poured entirely into the bowls (leading into the drainage system). Gemara asks: If wine is entirely “ לְאִשִים ”, shouldn’t oil be the same? Answer: • Wine ≠ Oil . • Wine always goes entirely to the Mizbeach, • Oil may be divided (kemitzah + leftovers), according to Shmuel. Thus, no proof against Shmuel. The Measurement Dispute — One Log or Three Log? Another machlokes: • How much oil must one bring for a Nedavas Shemen? Two views: • One Log — learned from Mincha • Three Log — learned from Nesachim (wine) This introduces the classic rule: ּדּון מִינָה ּומִינָה Learn everything from the original source (Mincha → one log, kemitzah, leftovers eaten) vs. ּדּון מִינָה ּומִקְצָת בָתְרָה Learn the concept from Mincha (that oil can be a nedavah), but learn the details from wine (three log, all burned). Shmuel follows the first approach . Abaye follows the second . Pouring Wine on the Fire — Isn’t That Extinguishing? Shmuel holds: • Voluntary wine is poured directly on the fire of the Mizbeach. Problem: Isn’t extinguishing even one coal forbidden? Gemara answers: 1. Many coals are burning — extinguishing one is insignificant. 2. Kibui shel mitzvah shani — extinguishing as part of a mitzvah is different. 3. The goal is not to put out fire, but to serve Hashem. This connects to Rabbi Shimon’s shita : • Davar she’eino miskaven → permitted • Melacha she’eina tzricha l’gufa → permitted Pouring wine is a mitzvah - action, not an act of extinguishing. Burning Tamei Wine and Oil If wine or oil became tamei : • You do not pour it on the Mizbeach. • Instead, you make a separate fire in the Azarah and burn it visibly. Why? Kedusha that became tamei must be destroyed publicly , so people understand it may not be used. Dam Chatas on Clothing — The Obligation of Kibbus The Torah states: If blood of a Chatas splashes onto a garment → requires washing . Key clarification: • The obligation is because of the blood , not the garment. • Once the blood becomes pasul (e.g., tumah, lina, pigul), → the obligation to wash falls away retroactively . Which Chatas Requires Washing? Outer, Inner, or Bird? We analyze the pesukim: • There is a ribui — “ ּתֹורָה אַחַת לְכָל חַטֹּאת ” • And a mi’ut — “ זֹּאת ” Candidates: 1. Chatas Chitzonah (outer) 2. Chatas Pnimis (inner) 3. Chatas HaOf (bird) Through comparison lists ( מִסְתַבְרָא ): • The inner and outer Chatas share more features: o Behemah o Shechita o Kabbalas dam in a kli o Applications with finger o Placement on keren • A bird Chatas lacks many of these. Conclusion: Both inner and outer Chatas require kibbus. Chatas HaOf does NOT. Final Machlokes — What Was the Pasuk Mainly Teaching? Two approaches: • One view: o The pasuk mainly teaches outer Chatas , o and includes inner Chatas via ribui. • Rabbi holds the opposite: o The pasuk is mainly about inner Chatas , o and outer Chatas is included secondarily. But all agree on the bottom line: Bird Chatas is excluded. Takeaway – Zevachim 92 • Nedavas Shemen: o Shmuel → kemitzah burned, rest eaten o Abaye → all burned • The dispute hinges on how far we extend a limud from Mincha vs. Nesachim. • Pouring wine on the Mizbeach does not violate extinguishing because it is a mitzvah act. • Tamei wine/oil is burned separately and visibly . • Kibbus of garments applies only while the blood is kosher . • Inner and outer Chatas require washing garments; Chatas HaOf does not . לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת הרב מנחם מנדל