(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, 68

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 a Kohen does Melikah with his left hand or at night, the meat of the bird will not make the person who eats it Tumai (Tumas Neveilah) when it enters their Beis ha'Bliah, even though the Korban is Pasul. The Mishnah later declares a rule: whenever the case is Pesulo b'Kodesh (see Insight 68b for definition of Pesulo b'Kodesh), the Korban is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Bliah. What is the logic behind this rule? RASHI (DH v'Einan) explains that as we know the Melikah helps enough to make the bird stay on the Mizbe'ach once it was put there ("Im Alu Lo Yordu"), it follows that we do not consider it Neveilah either. This is apparently like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, whom we find in the Mishnah later (84a) as quoting this rule.

TOSFOS (DH Malak b'Semol) has difficulty with this approach according to the text of RABEINU TAM. Rabeinu Tam's text (24b) reads that there is a general argument between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon regarding Melikah done at night, with the Tana Kama saying that this is Pasul and Rebbi Shimon saying that it is Kosher. If Rebbi Shimon says that such a Melikah is Kosher, why do we need the reasoning mentioned above to say that it is not Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah? It is an entirely valid Korban!

(a) Tosfos answers that it must be that the author of our Mishnah holds of the logic of Rebbi Shimon, but does not agree with Rebbi Shimon in the case of performing Melikah to a bird at night.

(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Tana of our Mishnah could be Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah only argues (84a) that animals do not stay on the Mizbe'ach if they are Pesulo b'Kodesh. However, birds are able to stay on the Mizbe'ach, as the Psukim Rebbi Yehudah learns which tell us that Pasul Korbanos do not stay on the Mizbe'ach are mainly regarding animals, not birds. Even though one verse must be talking about birds, as otherwise no bird which is Pasul would ever be taken off the Mizbe'ach, that verse only applies where the Psul was not b'Kodesh (see Tosfos 84b end of DH u'Motzi" who is not pleased with this answer). This is the view of our Mishnah which concurs with that of Rebbi Yehudah.

Many commentaries use this answer of Tosfos to answer an apparent contradiction in the RAMBAM. The Rambam (Hilchos Psulei Hamukdashin 3:6) codifies that if an animal was slaughtered at night and subsequently put on the Mizbe'ach that it must be removed. This is apparently according to Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah later who does not hold that Pesulo b'Kodesh makes something remain on the Mizbe'ach. However he also Paskens (ibid. 7:1) like our Mishna, that a bird which had Melikah done at night is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Bliah, which applies the logic that Pesulo b'Kodesh makes something remain on the Mizbe'ach. The TOSFOS YOM TOV, BIRKAS HAZEVACH, CHOK NASAN and others explain that the Rambam holds of this second answer of Tosfos, which says that there is a difference between animals and birds, with both Mishnayos holding like Rebbi Yehudah. This is how the Rambam can Pasken like both of these Mishnayos.

The SFAS EMES, KEREN ORAH (in his first explanation), and others want to explain these Rambam's as hinging on a different point. Rebbi Yehudah really would say that these Korbanos which are Pesulo b'Kodesh should stay on the Mizbe'ach. The only reason he does not is that he has three Psukim which tell him that this is not true (see Gemara 84a). However, these Psukim only tell him that the Korban goes off of the Mizbe'ach, not that the Korban is Metamei b'Beis ha'Bliah. This is how the Rambam can understand Rebbi Yehudah as holding like our Mishnah as well, without differentiating between Korbanos of animals and birds. (See also LECHEM MISHNEH, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 7:1, and EVEN HA'AZEL there.) (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Mishnah declares a rule: whenever the case is Pesulo b'Kodesh, the meat of the Korban is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Beli'ah. Whenever the case is not Pesulo b'Kodesh, the Korban is Metamei in the Beis ha'Beli'ah. What is the definition of "Pesulo b'Kodesh?"
(a) RASHI (DH she'Pesulah b'Kodesh) explains that if when the animal came to the Azarah it was ready to be a Kosher Korban, and only afterwards became Pasul, this is a Korban whose meat is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Bliah. TOSFOS (DH Amar Rav) argues on Rashi (see SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN regarding why Tosfos quotes Rashi later as opposed to Rashi on the Mishnah here). We see that the Mishnah (84a) lists Rove'a and Nirva (animals which had relations with people) as examples of animals which are not Pesulo b'Kodesh. According to Rashi, it would seem that if the relations were had after the animal entered the Azarah this could also be an example of Pesulo b'Kodesh! The Mishnah indicates that these animals are never Pesulo b'Kodesh. The YAD BINYAMIN answers that Rashi's explanation is really that of the bhere in Pirush Hamishnayos. The Rambam explains that Pesulo b'Kodesh is when the person doing the Avodah has a Pasul thought or does the Avodah wrong. This makes the Korban Pasul, as the proper amount of Kedushah that one must have when bringing the Korban is violated. If the animal itself is lacking before one deals with the Avodah, that is not called Pesulo b'Kodesh. The Yad Binyamin points out that RAV OVADYA MI'BARTENURA defines Pesulo b'Kodesh using both the definition of Rashi and the Rambam. He concludes that Rashi's intention is not to differentiate between an animal who made it to the Azarah or not (as Tosfos understood), rather to differentiate between an animal whose problems began when it came to the Azarah and was not dealt with as befits a Korban.

(b) Tosfos (DH Amar Rav) argues that Pesulo b'Kodesh means that it became Pasul after it was slaughtered and was mes'Kadesh b'Kli (had Kabalah with a Kli). Tosfos' view seems to be supported by the Mishnah later (84a). The Mishnah there says that an animal which is a Ba'al Moom is not called Pesulo b'Kodesh. The Gemara earlier (25b-26a) said that an animal can be rendered unfit because it is a Ba'al Moom until the Kabalah of the blood is done. If all Balei Mumim are considered not to be Pesulo b'Kodesh, this clearly indicates that the cutoff point between Pesulo b'Kodesh and not Pesulo b'Kodesh is before Kabalah, unlike Rashi who says the cutoff point is when it enters the Azarah.

The Yad Binyamin states that if we use the explanation given above to understand Rashi, this is not a proof to Tosfos at all. Rashi does not say that Pesulo b'Kodesh can be related to a specific time frame, rather it is dependent on what caused the Korban to become Pasul. The reason a Ba'al Moom is not considered Pesulo b'Kodesh is because it was Pasul without having a bad thought or doing a method of Avodah which was not appropriate for the Korban.

(c) Tosfos advances a third definition of "Pesulo b'Kodesh." Any Korban which can possibly be a valid Korban in a different area of Kodshim, and is ruled to be Pasul when brought in the form of a certain Korban, is called "Pesulo b'Kodesh." Tosfos says that we see that the Gemara in many places (including here) discusses where these types of Avodos are indeed valid. This opinion is also that of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES, Tosfos earlier (61a, DH Kodem), and Tosfos in Me'ilah (3a, DH Chada). (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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