(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, 69

ZEVACHIM 69 (19 Av) - dedicated by Nachum and Shoshana Katz in honor of the marriage of their daughter Tamar to Yehudah Brody, Sunday 19 Av 5763, in the Holy City of Yerushalayim. May they be Zocheh to be "Boneh Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael," and may the young couple and their parents be blessed with true Yiddishe Nachas!


OPINIONS: Rebbi Yitzchak said that he heard two Halachic rulings -- one concerning Kemitzah performed by a Zar (a non-Kohen), and one concerning Melikah performed by a Zar. He had heard that if the Minchah offering and bird offering were already placed on the Mizbe'ach, one must be removed while the other one may remain. He did not remember, though, which ruling applies to which case. Chizkiyah said that it is logical that the Kemitzah must be removed and not the bird. Why is this logical? The Gemara says that there is an opinion that maintains that it was permitted to offer both a Minchah offering and a bird offering on a Bamah. According to this opinion, it stands to reason that *both* the Kemitzah and Melikah of a Zar may remain on the Mizbe'ach once placed there. The Gemara concludes that a Kemitzah of a Zar must be removed from the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash, because a Minchah offering brought upon a Bamah needed no proper sanctification in a Kli Shares. What is the logic behind the Gemara's conclusion?
(a) RASHI (DH Ein Kidush) and the SHITAH MEKUBETZES explain that the Minchah offering brought upon a Bamah did not require the sanctification of a Kli Shares in order to be offered, and it therefore was different from the Kemitzah in the Beis ha'Mikdash which required the special degree of Kedushah that the Kli Shares gave it. Consequently, we cannot learn that the Kemitzah of a Zar for a Minchah offering in the Beis ha'Mikdash is valid from the fact that it was valid on a Bamah. A bird offering (and Melikah), though, was the same for both a Bamah and the Beis ha'Mikdash. No Kli Shares was necessary for Melikah in the Beis ha'Mikdash nor for a Bamah. Therefore, we may learn from the bird offering of a Bamah -- for which the Melikah of a Zar is valid -- that the Melikah of a Zar is also valid for a bird offering in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and thus it should not need to be removed from the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:15) learns the Gemara's conclusion differently. He understands that the reason why the Kemitzah performed by a Zar is removed from the Mizbe'ach is because "it is as if it was never made Kadosh." This seems to be referring to the Gemara later (83b) which states that a Kometz which was not sanctified in a Kli Shares is removed from the Mizbe'ach.

However, if this is the Gemara's logic, then why does it say that there was no Kidush of a Kli Shares for a Minchah offering of a *Bamah*? It should say that the Kemitzah performed by a Zar is as if it was not sanctified in a Kli Shares for the *Mizbe'ach*! It seems that the Rambam understands that had we found, somewhere else (i.e. the Minchah offering of a Bamah), that the Kemitzah of a Zar is valid even though his act of placing the offering in a Kli Shares does not sanctify the offering, then we would have learned from there that the same applies for the Kemitzah offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash. However, in the case of a Bamah, no Kidush of a Kli Shares is necessary at all, and therefore we cannot learn from there that the Kemitzah of a Zar is valid in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

The Rambam's explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara later (84a) says that if the Kabalas ha'Dam of a Korban was performed by a person who was ineligible to do it, the animal is not removed from the Mizbe'ach. If the Kemitzah of a Zar is not considered to have any Kedushah from the Kli Shares (since it was placed into the Kli by a Zar) and thus it must be removed from the Mizbe'ach, then why is the blood that is received in a Kli Shares by a Zar considered to have enough Kedushah to permit it to remain on the Mizbe'ach? Why is one Kidush of a Zar in a Kli Shares effective and one is not?

The CHAZON ISH (Kodshim 19:11) explains that blood attains the Kedushah of a Korban through two acts: the Shechitah, when the knife draws the blood, and the Kedushah of the Kli into which the blood falls. Even though the Kedushah of the Kli is not present in the case of the Gemara later (84b), the fact that the blood attains Kedushah by being drawn by the knife is enough of a reason to allow it to remain on the Mizbe'ach.

However, according to this explanation -- that only something which has received Kedushah in some way may remain on the Mizbe'ach -- why is the Melikah of a Zar enough to permit the bird to remain on the Mizbe'ach? Even though it the bird offering of the Mizbe'ach is comparable to the bird offering of a Bamah, where does it acquire the necessary Kedushah? The YAD BINYAMIN answers that since we find that the Melikah of a Zar is valid for a Bamah, this shows that the bird offering attains some degree of Kedushah. Thus, it also attains Kedushah when it is done this way (i.e. by a Zar) in the Beis ha'Mikdash. (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: In the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah learns that the meat of Neveilah of a Tamei bird (any species of bird that is not Kosher) does not cause Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah (the garment of a person who swallows such meat does not become Tamei). He derives this from the verse, "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal" -- "a Neveilah and Tereifah one may not eat" (Vayikra 22:8). Only an item which is prohibited because of the Isur of Neveilah is included in the verse, as opposed to something which is already forbidden because it is a species tbat is Tamei. The Gemara in Chulin (100b) deduces from Rebbi Yehudah's statement that he holds "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" -- once an object is prohibited with one Isur, it cannot become prohibited again with another Isur.

Does this mean that Rebbi Yehudah holds the same thing with regard to *animals* that are Tamei as well? In a practical sense, does Rebbi Yehudah maintain that the meat of a non-Kosher animal is forbidden only because of the Torah's prohibition against eating a species that is Tamei, or is there also an Isur of Neveilah?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:2) says that the prohibition against eating Neveilah applies only to Kosher species. Meat from non-Kosher species is forbidden only because of the Isur of eating a Tamei species. The MAGID MISHNEH says that the source of the Rambam's ruling is the Beraisa here.

The LECHEM MISHNEH has difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. The Gemara later (70b) differentiates between non-Kosher birds -- which do not cause Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah, and non-Kosher animals -- which do cause Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah. Since the Gemara says that the Beraisa's statement does not apply to animals with regard to Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah, how does the Rambam know that the Beraisa's statement still applies with regard to the Isur Neveilah? Furthermore, even if we say that the Beraisa's statement applies also to animals, the Gemara itself is only discussing Tum'ah, and not whether or not the *Isur* of Neveilah applies. Indeed, we find later that the Isur of Neveilah and the Tum'ah that it causes are not dependent on each other. The Gemara later says that the Chelev of a Neveilah is prohibited not only because of the Isur of Chelev, but also because of the Isur of Neveilah, even though it does not cause Tum'ah like Neveilah.

The MABIT in KIRYAS SEFER writes that the Rambam's source for his ruling here is his ruling that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur." He does not derive his ruling here from the Beraisa in our Gemara (which indeed is discussing only Tum'ah and not the Isur). (It could be that this is also the intention of the Magid Mishneh when he says that the source of the Rambam is the Beraisa in our Gemara. He might merely be saying that the source of the Rambam is the principle of "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur," which is deduced from the Beraisa.)

However, the Magid Mishneh himself remains with a different question on the Rambam's ruling. The Gemara in Makos (16b) says that if one crushes nine ants together and combines the mixture with a live ant and eats the entire mixture, he transgresses the five prohibitions against eating a live insect ("Biryah") and one transgression against eating a k'Zayis of Neveilah. The Gemara there is clearly stating that that the prohibition of Neveilah applies to non-Kosher species (i.e. ants) as well! Moreover, the Rambam himself rules in accordance with this Gemara (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 2:24)! How are we to understand the Rambam's ruling?

The KESEF MISHNEH avoids this question by saying that the Rambam understands that the Gemara in Makos does not mean that the person transgresses the Isur of Neveilah when he eats the ants, but rather he transgresses the prohibition against eating a k'Zayis of Basar Tamei. This is alluded to in the wording of the Rambam when he writes that "five [sets of Malkus] are given due to the one [live] ant, and one [set of Malkus] is given because of a k'Zayis from the Neveilah *of Teme'im*." The fact that the Rambam adds the seemingly unnecessary phrase "Neveilah *of Teme'im*" may allude to the fact that the Isur is Basar Tamei, and not Neveilah. (See also MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH 4:1, ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN YD 29:3.)

(b) The YAM SHEL SHLOMO (Chulin 100b) also asks how to reconcile the Beraisa here with the Gemara in Makos. He concludes that there *is* an Isur of Neveilah for all Tamei species besides birds, despite the fact that we would normally say "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur." This is because the Torah calls other Tamei species "Neveilah" (see Vayikra 5:2). Our Beraisa is exclusively stating that *birds* do not have an Isur Neveilah, while other Tamei species do have an Isur Neveilah. (See also TOSFOS to Makos 16b, DH Risek.) (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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