POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on 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
1) "MELIKAH PESULAH"
(a) Question (Mishnah): The general rule is - *any* Pesul
b'Kodesh, it is Metaher.
2) WHEN IS THERE "TUM'AS BEIS HA'BELI'AH"?
1. According to R. Yochanan, this comes to includes a
Zar - according to Rav what does it include?
(b) Answer (to both questions): 'Any Pesul b'Kodesh' includes
slaughter of Kodshim (birds) in the Mikdash, 'if the
Pesul was not b'Kodesh' includes Melikah of Chulin
outside the Mikdash.
2. Counter-question: What does 'if the Pesul was not
b'Kodesh, it is not Metaher' include?
(c) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Melikah of a Zar or
of a Pasul; Pigul, Nosar and Tamei are not Metamei b'Veis
1. R. Yitzchak: I heard that that either Kemitzah *or*
Melikah of a Zar (if brought up the ramp) is taken
down, not the other - I do not know which one.
(d) Question: What is the difference? Presumably, Melikah is
not taken down because a Zar is Kosher for Avodah on a
Bamah - the same applies to Kemitzah!
2. Chizkiyah: Presumably, Kemitzah of a Zar is taken
down, not Melikah.
1. Suggestion: (He holds that) Menachos are not brought
on a Bamah (therefore, we do not learn to Kemitzah).
(e) Answer: Since a Minchah brought on a Bamah is not
Mekudash in a Kli Shares, we do not learn from there.
2. Rejection: If so, he also holds that birds are not
brought on a Bamah!
3. (Rav Sheshes): According to the opinion that
Menachos may be brought on a Bamah, also birds may
be brought on a Bamah;
i. According to the opinion that Menachos are not
brought on a Bamah, also birds are not brought.
4. Question: What is the reason?
5. Answer: "Zevachim" - but not Menachos, "Zevachim" -
but not birds.
(f) (Mishnah): If he did Melikah with the left hand or at
(g) (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps (a bird killed through)
Melikah inside (the Mikdash) is Metamei b'Veis
(h) Rejection: (A bird that is) "Neveilah (is Metamei b'Veis
(i) Question: That was the suggestion, that Melikah is
(j) Correction: Rather, we learn from "Treifah" (in that same
verse) - just as Treifos (an injury that will cause the
bird to die) does not permit anything, also Neveilah
(that is Metamei) is when the death did not permit
1. Melikah inside permits the bird (to Kohanim or the
Mizbe'ach), so it is not Metamei;
2. Melikas Kodshim outside and Melikas Chulin inside or
outside do not permit anything, so they are Metamei.
(a) (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps a Chulin \bird slaughtered
inside, or a Kodesh bird slaughtered inside or outside is
Metamei (b'Veis ha'Beli'ah)!
3) DOES A SLAUGHTERED "TREIFAH" HAVE "TUM'AS BEIS HA'BELI'AH"?
(b) Rejection: "Neveilah".
(c) Question: That was the suggestion, that (Pasul) slaughter
(d) Correction: Rather, we learn from "Treifah" - Neveilah is
Metamei only if it is like Treifah, i.e. it is forbidden
inside and outside;
1. This excludes (slaughter of) Chulin inside and
Kodshim inside or outside, in which inside and
outside are not the same (as we shall explain), they
are not Metamei.
(e) Question: We understand Chulin inside - it is forbidden,
whereas Chulin outside is permitted;
1. But Kodshim (birds that were slaughtered) are
Pesulim inside and outside!
(f) (Partial) Answer (Rava): Since slaughter of Kodshim
outside is (considered slaughter) to Mechayev Kares, it
is considered slaughter to inhibit Tum'ah.
(g) Question: This answers for Kodshim outside - how can we
answer for Kodshim inside?
(h) Answer: Since the law outside (there is Kares) is
different than inside, the verse teaches that Tum'as Beis
ha'Beli'ah does not apply. (Alternatively - they cannot
be Teme'im inside, for then inside and outside would not
be the same!)
(i) Question: If so, Melikah of Kodshim outside should not be
Metamei, for it is different than Melikah inside (the
latter is Tahor)!
(j) Answer (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): We learn the improper from
the improper (e.g. slaughter of Kodshim inside from
outside, or slaughter of Chulin inside from slaughter of
a Treifah outside);
1. We do not learn the improper from the proper (e.g.
Melikas Kodshim outside from Melikas Kodshim
(k) Question: We (sometimes) learn improper from proper!
1. (Beraisa): If Yotzei (Eimurim that left the
Mikdash), were brought back and up the ramp, we do
not take them down, because Yotzei is Kosher on a
(l) Answer: The Tana relies on "Zos Toras ha'Olah".
(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If after Melikah the bird was found
to be Treifah, it is not Metamei (b'Veis ha'Beli'ah);
(b) R. Yehudah says, it is Metamei.
(c) R. Meir: Nivlas Behemah has Tum'as Maga (touching) and
Tum'as Masa (moving), yet slaughter is Metaher a Treifah
Behemah (from becoming Neveilah) - Nivlas Of has neither
Tum'as Maga nor Masa, all the more so slaughter should
Metaher a Treifah bird!
1. We find that slaughter permits eating, it is Metaher
Treifos - likewise, Melikah permits eating, it
should also Metaher Treifos!
(d) R. Yosi: Dayo (a Kal va'Chomer may not teach more than
either of the cases it is built on);
1. Your Kal va'Chomer learns from Nivlas Behemah, which
become permitted through slaughter - it cannot teach
about Melikah, which does not permit Behemos.
(e) (Gemara) Question: R. Meir should agree to the principle
of Dayo, it is mid'Oraisa!
1. (Beraisa): The source for Kal va'Chomer -
(f) Answer (R. Yosi bar Avin): He agrees with the principle,
here he learns from a verse:
2. (Beraisa): "V'Aviha Yarok Yarak b'Faneha ha'Lo
Sikalem Shiv'as Yamim" - all the more so, if Hash-m
is angry at her (Miryam), she should be shut up 14
days (R. Tam - for Hash-m makes as many
contributions to a baby (10) as both parents
together; R. Chayim - she should be shut up more
than for a parent, and we find regarding Metzora
that the Torah requires Hesger for a whole number of
1. We would have learned this way, but Dayo says that
we only learn as much as the source (i.e. seven
1. Question: "Zos Toras ha'Behemah veha'Of" - regarding
what law are animals equated to birds?
(g) Question: Why does R. Yehudah argue with R. Meir?
i. Their Tum'os are different - a Behemah has
Tum'as Maga and Masa but not Tum'as Beis
ha'Beli'ah, an Of has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah
but neither Maga nor Masa!
2. Answer: Just like what permits eating a Behemah
(slaughter) is Metaher (Behemos) Treifos, likewise,
what permits eating birds (Melikah) is Metaher
(h) Answer: He expounds a verse:
1. Question: "Neveilah u'Treifah" - why did the Torah
have to mention Treifah?
(i) Question (Rav Shizbi): Similarly, we can ask about
"V'Chelev Neveilah v'Chelev *Treifah* (is Tahor)"!
i. Version #1 (Rashi): If a Treifah can live
(Chachamim argue whether or not it can), it
will become a Neveilah when it dies;
2. Answer: The Torah teaches that a Treifah can live,
and that (Rashi; Rashi Kesav Yad - it teaches that
even if a Treifah can live,) it becomes a Neveilah
when it dies, even if slaughtered.
ii. If a Treifah cannot live, it is already (and
will never cease to be) Neveilah!
i. Version #2 (Tosfos): If the verse refers to
meat taken from a living Treifah, it is
3. Answer: The Torah teaches that even if a Treifah was
slaughtered, it becomes Neveilah. (End of Version
ii. If it refers to meat of a dead Treifah, it is
1. Version #1 (Rashi): If a Treifah can live, it will
become a Neveilah when it dies; if not, it is
(j) Answer: R. Yehudah excludes Tamei birds from "Neveilah":
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): Whether the verse refers to
meat taken from a living or dead Treifah, it is
3. Suggestion: We must say, it teaches that Chelev of a
slaughtered Treifah is Tahor.
4. Objection: This implies that the animal itself is
Tamei (but Rav Yehudah taught otherwise)!
i. (Rav Yehudah): "V'Chi Yamus *Min* ha'Behemah" -
some Behemos become Tamei when they die, others
5. Conclusion: Rather, "Treifah" (regarding Chelev)
excludes Tamei animals, in which there is no concept
ii. The latter refers to a slaughtered Treifah.
6. Summation of question: Likewise, "Treifah"
(regarding Nivlas Of) should exclude Tamei birds!
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah) Suggestion: Perhaps Nivlas Of
Tamei has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah!
2. Rejection "Neveilah u'Treifah Lo Yochal" - this
refers to birds forbidden on account of Neveilah,
not to Tamei birds which are forbidden only on
account of eating a Tamei species.