(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 66

ZEVACHIM 66-68 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff


OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that if the blood of a Chatas ha'Of was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Korban is Pasul. The Mishnah earlier (26a) discusses various cases of Zerikos of Korbanos that were not performed on the proper part of the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah there states that all of these Korbanos are Pasul. Shmuel (26b) explains that when the Mishnah says that these Korbanos are Pasul, it means that these Korbanos may not be eaten. The owner of the Korban still fulfills his obligation, though. Shmuel is of the opinion that all parts of the Mizbe'ach are considered the proper place for the Zerikos, b'Di'eved (see Insights to 26b with regard to whether or not Shmuel intends this leniency to apply to all cases listed in the Mishnah).

The Mishnah here similarly discusses performing the Zerikah of a bird offering in the wrong. Does Shmuel's ruling -- that the Korban is valid but may not be eaten -- apply to the case of a bird offering as well?

(a) TOSFOS (DH l'Ma'alah) says that Shmuel's ruling does apply to a Korban ha'Of. When the Mishnah says that the Zerikah of a Chatas ha'Of done above the Chut ha'Sikra is Pasul, it means that the Korban may not be eaten by Kohanim. The owner of the Korban, though, still fulfills his obligation. The BEN ARYEH asks that there are a number of Mishnayos in Kinim (some of which are cited later, on 67b) which seem to contradict the view of Tosfos. A number of Mishnayos in Kinim deal with the problem of a bird offering which might be an Olas ha'Of and might be a Chatas ha'Of, and the Mishnayos there often rule that because the Zerikah was done in the wrong place, a new Korban must be brought! According to Tosfos, why should the owner need to bring a new Korban? (See SEFAS EMES to 67b, and NETZIV in MEROMEI SADEH, who also have difficulty with the view of Tosfos.)

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES suggests that Shmuel's ruling does *not* apply to a Korban ha'Of. This is because the source from which Shmuel derives his principle (that all of the Mizbe'ach is considered like the proper place for Zerikah) is a verse regarding *animal* offerings, and not birds. Therefore, when the Mishnah says that the Chatas ha'Of is Pasul, it means that it is entirely Pasul, and the owner must bring a new Korban. This also seems to be the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 7:5) who says that this type of Chatas ha'Of is Pasul, and he does not differentiate between the status of the meat and the owner's fulfillment of his obligation. In addition, the CHAFETZ CHAIM in LIKUTEI HALACHOS (26b) points out that the Rambam equates this case with that of a Chatas ha'Of which was offered with intention that it should be an Olas ha'Of, a case in which the Korban certainly become Pasul entirely.

The CHAZON YECHEZKEL (Tosefta Zevachim, Chidushim 7:3) writes that the position of the Rambam requires more explanation. Why should the entire Mizbe'ach be considered as the proper area for any Zerikah in the case of an animal offering, but not in the case of a bird offering?

He explains that, in essence, the Mizbe'ach should be considered a valid area for all Zerikos of both types of Korbanos. However, we find that the Torah specifically separates its description of the laws of an Olas ha'Of from the laws of a Chatas ha'Of. The Gemara in Chulin (21a) teaches that there is a verse ("v'Hikrivu") which differentiates between a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas ha'Of. When one performs the Zerikah of a Chatas ha'Of above the Chut ha'Sikra, the problem is *not* that he failed to do the Zerikah in the right place, because the entire Mizbe'ach should be considered a valid area, as it is for the Zerikah of animal offerings. Rather, the problem is that he is performing the Avodah of the Chatas ha'Of *in the manner* of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of. Since the Torah states that the Avodah of a Chatas ha'Of cannot be performed in the same manner as that of an Olas ha'Of, it makes sense that the Korban is entirely Pasul and the owner must bring another Korban. (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Mishnah (66a) says that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered in the manner of an Olas ha'Of is Pasul. The Gemara inquires as to the nature of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of which makes a Chatas ha'Of Pasul. If the Mishnah means that doing Havdalah (severing both Simanim in the bird's neck) disqualifies a Chatas ha'Of because this act is the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of, then this would be unlike the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says that he heard that Havdalah may be done for a Chatas ha'Of and the Korban remains valid (see Insights to 65b). The Gemara says instead that the Avodah of the Olas ha'Of that disqualifies the Chatas ha'Of is the sprinkling of the blood. For the Olas ha'Of, only Mitzuy (pressing the bird against the Mizbe'ach such that its blood oozes out) is done, instead of Haza'ah (sprinkling the blood).

Can we infer from the fact that the Gemara does not want to say that the Mishnah is not in accordance with the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, that the Gemara maintains that the Mishnah *is* following the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?

(a) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos) and BARTENURA apparently hold that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is the Tana of the Mishnah. This is evident from their answer to a different on the Mishnah. The first case in the Mishnah makes the apparently superfluous statement that when the Zerikas ha'Dam of a Chatas ha'Of is done below the Chut ha'Sikra (in the manner in which it is supposed to be done), with intention that the Korban is a Chatas ha'Of, the Korban is valid. Why does the Mishnah need to express such an obvious Halachah?

The Rambam and Bartenura explain that the Mishnah is advancing a novel thought. The Mishnah is teaching that even if Havdalah, which is prescribed only for an Olas ha'Of, is done for a Chatas ha'Of, the Korban is still valid. This novel thought, thought, is true only according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, because the Tana of an earlier Mishnah (64b) expresses that Havdalah disqualifies a Chatas ha'Of.

The TOSFOS YOM TOV asks several questions on this approach. As mentioned above, the Mishnah at the end of the previous Perek explicitly argues with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. Just because the Gemara here says that the case of our Mishnah is not directly arguing with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon does not mean that we should refer to him as the Tana of our Mishnah! In addition, when the Gemara says that the Mishnah would not be in accordance with the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon if it is referring to Havdalah, the Gemara itself responds that we already established the earlier Mishnah as not in accordance with his view, and thus it should not bother us that the Mishnah is not following his view (as RASHI here also explains). Rather, the Gemara is trying to find a way to establish the Mishnah according to everyone, *even* Rebbi Elazar.

However, the Tosfos Yom Tov seems to be left without an answer to the question of the Rambam and Bartenura. If Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is not the Tana of the Mishnah, then why does the Mishnah bother telling us that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered properly is Kosher?

(b) The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that TOSFOS (66a, DH Chatas) addresses this point without requiring that Rebbi Elazar be the Tana of the Mishnah. Tosfos says that when the Mishnah says that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered properly is Kosher, the Mishnah is simply stating the Mitzvah of how to bring a Chatas ha'Of; it is giving an introduction to the cases that it will describe of offering a Chatas ha'Of incorrectly.

The CHIDUSHEI MAHARICH (on the Mishnah) follows the Rambam's approach. He says that the Rambam was not satisfied with Tosfos' answer, because if the Mishnah is merely expressing the best way to offer a Chatas ha'Of, then it should not use the past tense. The past tense indicates that it is only b'Di'eved and not the ideal way to offer the Korban. This is why the Rambam learns that the Mishnah is telling us that even though Havdalah was done, the Chatas ha'Of is valid b'Di'eved. In addition, he presents an alternative way of learning the opening statements of our Gemara. Unlike Rashi, he understands that the Gemara is saying that we cannot accept that the Mishnah is not like Rebbi Elazar, because the first case in the Mishnah is clearly telling us a novel thought using Rebbi Elazar's approach. This is why the Gemara gives another explanation for the Mishnah, according to which the Mishnah is following the view of Rebbi Elazar.

However, if we learn Tosfos according to the commentary of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES (66a), then we will find that Tosfos indeed addresses the first point of the Chidushei Maharich. The Shitah Mekubetzes learns that Tosfos is making two different statements. First, Tosfos is saying that the Mishnah is describing the proper way to offer the Chatas ha'Of. Second, Tosfos addresses why the Mishnah uses the past tense, indicating a Halachah that is b'Di'eved. Tosfos answers that since the other cases will deal with improper actions, the first case in the Mishnah follows a similar wording, even though it is expressing the correct way, l'Chatchilah, to offer a Chatas ha'Of. This way of learning Tosfos clearly refutes the first proof of the Chidushei Maharich. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,