(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, 67

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


QUESTION: The Mishnah (66b) discusses an argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua regarding an Olas ha'Of which was offered with the Avodos of an Chatas ha'Of, and with the intention that it be a Chatas ha'Of. Rebbi Eliezer says that the bird is subject to the laws of Me'ilah, while Rebbi Yehoshua says that it is not subject to the laws of Me'ilah. The Gemara says that Rebbi Yehoshua's reasoning is that the bird, even though it was designated to be an Olas ha'Of, changes into a Chatas ha'Of through being offered as such. Since a Chatas ha'Of may be eaten by Kohanim, we apply the rule that anything which can be eaten by Kohanim is not subject to the prohibition of Me'ilah.

This seems difficult to understand. The Mishnah in Chulin (41b) states that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily. Rather, it can be offered only when one is obligated to bring a Chatas due to a sin that was committed. How, then, can the person's Olas ha'Of turn into a Korban that he is unable to offer voluntarily? The Mishnah does not specify that this argument applies only in a case in which the person happens to be obligated to bring a Chatas ha'Of and has not yet done so. How, then, can his Olas ha'Of turn into a Chatas ha'Of if he did not commit a sin?


(a) The commentaries deal with a similar question. We know that a person cannot consecrate an animal as a Korban if it does not belong to him (for example, an animal that he stole, or an animal that is Asur b'Hana'ah). However, there are situations in which an animal that does not belong to the person who declared it to be consecrated does seem to acquire the Kedushah of a Korban. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:7) says that if one offers a stolen Korban, the Korban is Pasul. The KEHILAS YAKOV (Nedarim 32:10) says that this implies that the animal has the Kedushah of a Korban but is Pasul (and not that it never became a Korban in the first place). How, though, can it become a Korban?

The CHAZON ISH (Nega'im 11:5) addresses this question with regard to an animal that is Asur b'Hana'ah. He writes that it is true that the Kedushah of such an offering cannot be achieved through a mere verbal declaration (as other Korbanos become consecrated). However, when the Avodah is performed, the *Avodah* itself gives the animal the Kedushah of a Korban.

SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests a similar approach to answer our question. It is possible that the rule that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily means that it cannot achieve the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas *through being consecrated* if the owner has no obligation to bring a Chatas. However, once the Avodah of a Chatas is performed with bird with intention that it be a Chatas ha'Of, it acquires the Kedushah of a Chatas ha'Of through the Avodah. (b) This question may also be answered based on the words of RASHI in Nedarim (6a, DH Devarav Kayamim). The Gemara in Nedarim quotes a Tosefta which states that if one who is obligated to bring a Chatas points to an animal and says, "Harei Zo Chatas" -- "this animal is a Chatas," the animal is not considered to be consecrated as a Chatas. Only by saying, "This is my Chatas," does the animal acquire the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas. Rashi comments that if the person would not be obligated to bring a Chatas, then his verbal designation of the animal would not be effective, because he did not say, "This animal is upon me (Alai) as a Chatas." Rashi implies that if he did use this phraseology, then the Korban *would* have Kedushas Chatas. This seems to contradict the aforementioned Mishnah in Chulin (41b) which explicitly states that the problem is not the lack of the word "Alai," but rather that a Chatas cannot be brought voluntarily!

The SHA'AR HA'MELECH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 14:8) answers this question in the name of the MAHARI IRGAS. He explains that when the Mishnah in Chulin says that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily, it means that the Korban will be Pasul if it is brought. It will, however, have the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas if one designates it as such, even though it may not be offered as a Korban.

Based on this interpretation, we can suggest that the Mishnah in Chulin (41b) only limits dedicating the Chatas in order to actually bring the Korban; such a Korban will be Pasul. It does not say that the animal does not attain Kedushah when the owner (who is not obligated to bring a Chatas) designates it as a Chatas (whether through words or Avodah). (See also TESHUVOS RAMA MI'PANO #26, KEHILOS YAKOV to Nedarim #7, MIKDASH DAVID 28:2). (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Kinim (3:6) that discusses a woman who, before giving birth, said that she will bring two birds as a Korban if she gives birth to a boy. When she gives birth to a boy, she is obligated to bring two Olos ha'Of for her vow, in addition to the standard Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of that every woman brings after giving birth. However, when she brought the birds to the Kohen to offer as Korbanos, the Kohen mistakenly thought that each pair of birds was comprised of a Chatas and Olah (and not one pair comprising a Chatas and Olah, and the other pair comprising two Olos), and he offered them accordingly. The Mishnah says that if all of the birds were Torim, or all were Benei Yonah, then the woman must bring only one replacement Korban for an Olas ha'Of, from that species. The problem arises when the birds were mixed; some were Torim and some were Benei Yonah. The Mishnah in Kinim (2:5) states that a bird which is being brought as a replacement must be of the same species as the bird that it is replacing. Since we are unsure which kind of bird was the one which became Pasul (i.e. which was brought as a Chatas instead of as an Olah), the woman must bring both a Tor and a Ben Yonah as replacement Olos.

The Mishnah then discusses two more cases. One is a case of "Pirshah Nidrah," meaning literally that the woman "verbally expressed her Neder." The second case is "Kav'ah Nidrah," meaning that the woman "established her Neder." Both of these cases result in the need to bring many more replacement Korbanos. What are these cases, and why do they result in the need to bring many more Korbanos?

(a) RASHI (DH Pirshah Nidrah) explains that "Pirshah Nidrah" means that the woman donating the Korbanos ha'Of specified in her Neder the species that she would bring to fulfill her Neder. She subsequently forgot which species she had intended to bring, and then brought all of her Korbanos to the Kohen (who was also negligent and offered two Chata'os and two Olos from the four birds, instead of one Chatas and three Olos). The Mishnah states that she now must bring three Olos ha'Of, because of the following reasoning. If all four birds that she brought were of one species (such as Torim,) then she must replace the one Tor, of the second pair, which was offered as a Chatas and not as an Olah. In addition, since it is possible that she specified that her Neder offering would be Benei Yonah, she must bring two Benei Yonah as Olos to fulfill her vow. Thus, she must bring a total of three additional birds.

If the birds that she brought were mixed (two Torim and two Benei Yonah), and the Kohen does not know which set he offered first, then she must bring four replacement birds -- two Torim and two Benei Yonah. If the two Benei Yonah were offered last, then she must bring one replacement Ben Yonah to be offered as an Olah (to replace the Ben Yonah that was offered as a Chatas). She must also bring two Torim, since perhaps her Neder was to bring two Torim as Olos, and not two Benei Yonah. She must also bring an additional Ben Yonah, since perhaps the two Torim were offered last, and while she is replacing the Tor that was offered as a Chatas with one of the two additional Torim that she is bringing, perhaps her Neder was to bring two Benei Yonah as Olos, and thus she must bring an additional Ben Yonah (so that she is bringing a total of two Benei Yonah and two Torim, to cover all of the doubts).

Rashi (DH Kav'ah Nidrah) explains that "Kav'ah Nidrah" means that she established in her Neder that her voluntary offering would be brought together, at the same time, with the offering that she was obligated to bring as a result of giving birth. In this case as well, she specified, but forgot, which type of bird she would bring as her Neder. In this case, merely bringing replacement birds is not enough. Since she said that her Neder would be brought with her obligatory Korban Olah, replacing just one at a later date is not a valid replacement. Therefore, she must bring *five* birds to be offered as Olos: four birds which cover the possible voluntary offerings of two Torim and two Benei Yonah, and one which represents her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Even though she already fulfilled her obligation of her Olas ha'Of, she established for herself an obligation to bring her voluntary offerings together with her obligatory Olah (or with a representative obligatory Olah). This is why she must bring an additional, fifth Olas ha'Of.

If the birds that she brought were of different species, then she must bring two birds in place of her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Since this is a replacement for her obligatory bird, if she is unsure which type of bird was brought originally, then she must bring one of each type to replace it, totaling six birds.

(b) The RA'AVAD, RAZAH, and BARTENURA (Kinim 3:6) explain the cases differently (with slight variations). They say that "Pirshah Nidrah" does not mean that the woman said, at the time of her Neder, what types of bird she would bring to fulfill her Neder. Her Neder was only that she would bring two Olos ha'Of if she had a boy (but not what type of bird). Upon bringing her birds to the Kohen, she explained ("Pirshah") that "these two birds are for my obligatory Korban, and these two are my voluntary offering." The Kohen mistakenly offered both sets of birds as if they were both obligatory offerings for births, offering one as a Chatas and one as an Olah from each pair.

According to the Bartenura, the three birds brought in the case of "Pirshah Nidrah" are not three Olos, but rather two Olos and one Chatas. Only the obligatory Olas ha'Of is valid when the Kohen offers two (from the two pairs) as an Olas ha'Of and two as a Chatas ha'Of. Therefore, the woman must bring replacements for the two birds of her Neder, which are Olos ha'Of, and one bird to replace her obligatory Chatas ha'Of.

If the birds that she brought were from different species (two Torim and two Benei Yonah), then she must bring four replacement birds. This is because it is possible that the Torim that she intended to be offered as Olos (for her Neder) were offered as her obligatory offering (with one as an Olah and one as a Chatas), while the Ben Yonah that she brought as a Chatas was offered as an Olah. Only her obligatory Olah is valid. However, it is also possible that her obligatory Olah was done like a Chatas. Since she specified that only the Torim are her Neder and the Benei Yonah are her obligatory Korbanos, and all of them might have been Pasul, she must bring all of her Korbanos again.

"Kav'ah Nidrah" means that she specified what type of birds she would bring for her Neder when she made the Neder. She then forgot which type she had pledged to bring. This adds to her replacement requirements two more Benei Yonah (to fulfill her Neder), besides her requirement to replace the two Torim which might be Pasul and the Chatas which might be Pasul (as described in the case of "Pirshah Nidrah"). If she brought two different types of birds, then she must bring four Olos and two Chata'os to account for the various possibilities. (See TOSFOS YOM TOV). (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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