ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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
(a) If, in addition to specifying her Neder, the woman actually linked it to
her Chovah, but cannot remember what she specified - she needs to bring five
Olos, one for her Chovah, and four for her Neder, two pigeons and two young
(b) In a case where she only brought two Kinin, including three Olos,
assuming that all the birds that she brought consisted of the same species,
she will still need to bring - five Olos, one corresponding to her Chovah,
the other four, in the way that we just explained.
(c) It not suffice to bring one bird corresponding to the Chovah, and one
Kan consisting of the species that she did not being earlier - since we are
still speaking in a case where the Kohen brought two of the birds above the
Chut and two, below it, in which case, one of the Olos is Pasul, and the two
Olos that he brought above the Chut are of no value, seeing as she undertook
to bring the three together.
(d) Assuming that the Chovah and the Neder consisted of different species
(and that, like in the earlier case, she does not know which of the species
was brought last) - she will still need to bring to bring six birds, since
she doesn't know which species was brought first, in which case she has to
bring both a pigeon and a young dove together with the four birds that she
brings for her Neder.
(e) The second bird (the one that the Kohen actually brought already) that
she brings to correspond to her Chovah - she brings as an Olas Nedavah.
(a) The Mishnah then discusses what the Halachah will be if the woman gave
the birds to the Kohen, but doesn't remember what she gave him, neither does
she know what the Kohen did with them. The three possibilities with regard
1. ... what she gave him are - either two Kinin of pigeons, two Kinin of
young doves or one Kan of each.
(b) The Tana obligates her to bring four birds for her Neder, two for her
Chovah and one for her Chatas. She needs to bring ...
2. ... what the Kohen did with them are - whether he brought all the birds
above the Chut ha'Sikra, all of them below it or half above the Chut and
half below it.
1. ... four birds for her Neder - (two of each species) in case the Kohen
brought all the birds below the Chut ha'Sikra, and she has not yet even
begun to fulfill her Neder.
(c) ben Azai obligates her to bring two Chata'os - because he holds that
everything goes after the first bird. Consequently, seeing as the Kohen may
have brought the first Kan above the Chut ha'Sikra (or even half above and
half below), and she doesn't know which species that was, she is obligated
to bring one of each.
2. ... two birds for her Olas Chovah - because, according to the Tana Kama,
the Olah (of the Chovah) must follow the Chatas, even if it is brought last.
And even if the Kohen brought all the birds below the Chut ha'Sikra (or half
below and half above), she doesn't know which species he brought for the
3. ... only one bird for her Chatas - because she may bring whichever
species she chooses for her Chovah. Neither does she need to bring another
Chatas to match the Olah, in case it was the other species, because it is
the Chatas which determines the Chatas, and not vice-versa (as we just
(d) The Chata'os are not eaten by the Kohanim (as the Chatas ha'Of usually
is) - but is burned, because, seeing as the Chatas may well have been
brought in the first batch, it is only a Safek Chiyuv, and may not be eaten.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua declared 'Zehu she'Amru ke'she'Hu Chai, Kolo Echad,
u'che'she'Hu Meis, Kolo Shiv'ah'. In the context of the above Mishnah, he
meant - that (in the last case) even though initially, the woman was Chayav
to bring only four birds for her Neder, and two for her Chovah, now that she
already brought four birds, she becomes Chayav to bring another eight
(according to ben Azai).
(b) He was also referring - to a ram, which only has one voice whilst it is
alive, but seven voices after its death.
(c) If its two horns were used to make trumpets and its two calves to make
flutes, its ...
1. ... skin were used - to make a drum, and ...
(d) In spite of having proved that the author of Kinin is Rebbi Yehoshua,
Rav Ada bar Ahavah will now explain that in the Mishnah there that we cited
above, the Mefurashin are not Kasher in the case of 'Chetzyan Lema'alah
ve'Chetzyan Lematah - because although the Melikah of an Olah turns it into
a Chatas with regard to removing the Me'ilah, this does not mean that the
Korban becomes a Kasher Chatas, for how can an Olah suddenly become a Chatas
simply by changing the Avodah?
2. ... intestines - to make harp-strings.
(a) The Tana states that all Pesulin with which the Kohen performed Melikah,
remain Pasul. The Melikah does however remove the Din Tum'ah (that pertains
to whoever eats them), because he is talking about Pesulim ba'Kodesh, by
which we rule 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu'.
(b) And the same applies, he says, in a case where the Kohen ...
1. ... performed Melikah with his left hand or in the night, or where he ...
2. ... Shechted Chulin birds in the Azarah or performed Melikah on Kodshim
birds outside the Azarah?
(c) However, where a Kohen performed Melikah with a knife or even with his
fingernail, but on Chulin or on Kodshim outside the Azarah - our Tana rules
'Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah'.
(a) Our Mishnah includes Melikah with younger pigeons and older doves in the
list of the things that are not Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah - because they
are not eligible to be brought as a Korban, and therefore do not fall in the
category of 'Pesulo ba'Kodesh'.
(b) A pigeon whose plumage has not yet began to turn golden, is considered
too young to be brought as a Korban, whereas when some of the plumage around
the neck of a dove begins to turn golden, it is considered too old.
(c) He counts a bird whose wing has dried up, whose eye is blinded or whose
leg has been cut off - in the list of those which are not Metamei be'Beis
(d) ... because, unlike a bird with a regular blemish) they are Pasul,
because of the principle "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" (which means that
anything that one would not give a king, one shouldn't give Hashem either
(whilst the Dinim of regular Mumin do not pertain to birds).
(a) The Tana concludes with the princile 'Kol she'Pesulo ba'Kodesh Eino
Metamei (Begadim) be'Beis ha'Beli'ah, ve'Chol she'Eino ba'Kodesh ... '.
The criterion for 'Pesulo ba'Kodesh' is - that it entered the Azarah in a
state of kashrus, and became Pasul only afterwards (see also Tosfos DH
(b) The significance of the word 'Begadim' (which appears in the Sugya later
on the Amud) is - that the person who eats the Nivlas Of Tamei does not only
himself become Tamei, but so do the clothes that he is wearing.
(a) When Rav states that S'mol and Laylah (with regard to Melikas Of) are
Metamei be'Veis ha'Beli'ah, but that Zar and Sakin are not, he is coming to
teach us the Din of a 'Zar', since the others are already mentioned in our
(b) Besides the Melikah of a Zar - the Melikah of an Onan, an Areil and all
other Pesulim, is Pasul, too.
(c) Despite the fact that Melikah with the left hand or in the night is
Pasul, the Tum'ah is removed by ...
1. ... Melikas S'mol - because it is Kasher Lechatchilah with regard to the
Kaf and the Machtah on Yom ha'Kipurim.
(d) Melikas Zar however, does not remove the Tum'ah, despite the fact that
he is Kasher to Shecht Lechatchilah - since Shechitah is not considered an
Avodah (presumably, this answers the same Kashya that one could ask on
Melikas Sakin, too).
2. ... Melikas Laylah - because it is Kasher Lechatchilah with regard to the
burning of the Eivarim and the Pedarim.
(a) When Rebbi Zeira disqualified a Zar from Shechting the Parah Adumah, Rav
cited the source as - "Elazar" (ha'Kohen) and "Chukah" (which always comes
(b) We attempt to prove from here - that Shechitah must be an Avodah.
(c) We try to counter the answer that Parah is different in that it is
Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if Kodshei Bedek
ha'Bayis requires Kehunah, then how much more so Kodshei Mizbe'ach.
(d) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi proves from 'Mar'os Nega'im however - that
Kehunah is not necessarily connected with Avodah (but can also be an
independent requirement), in which case the 'Kal-va'Chomer' to include
Kodshei Mizbe'ach falls away.
(a) A Zar - is permitted to perform the Melikah of Olos ha'Ofos by a Bamah.
(b) Nevertheless, Rav does not place Melikas Zar on a par with S'mol and
Laylah (since it is Kasher by a Bamah) - because he holds that one cannot
learn Mikdash from Bamah (which is considered like Chol when compared to
(c) The Beraisa learns that a Korban that is Yotze (i.e. that left its
boundaries) 'Im Alah Lo Yeired' - from Bamah, where Yotze is permitted
(d) In light of what Rav just said, he will explain - that the Beraisa's
real source is "Zos Toras ha'Olah" (from which we learn that 'Kol she'Pesulo
ba'Kodesh, Im Alah Lo Yeired' [incorporating Yotze]), and that the Limud
from Bamah is an 'Asmachta'.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav. He holds - that Melikas Zar is not
Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah.
(b) And he learns it from - Bamah.
(c) It seems that the Reisha of our Mishnah "Kol ha'Pesulin she'Malku
Melikasan Pesulah, ve'Eino Metamei be'Beis ha'Be'li'ah' - comes to include
Melikas Zar, a proof for Rebbi Yochanan.
(d) We try to refute Rav's answer, that the Tana comes to include 'S'mol'
and 'Laylah' by pointing out that the Tana mentions them explicitly. We
dismiss that Kashya however - by applying the principle 'Tani ve'Hadar
Mefaresh' (the Beraisa first states the principle and then explains it).
(a) We ask again on Rav from the Seifa 'Zeh ha'K'lal Kol she'Hayah Pesulo
ba'Kodesh Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah ... '. But we counter this by
asking what the Seifa de'Seifa ('Lo Hayah Pesulo ba'Kodesh, Metamei ... ')
then comes to include according to Rebbi Yochanan.
(b) We conclude that the Reisha Seifa comes to include 'Shechitas Kodshim
bi'Fenim', and the Seifa de'Seifa - Melikas Chulin ba'Chutz.
(c) We learned a Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana rules that ...
1. ... if a Zar or a Pasul performed Melikah - it is not Metamei be'Beis
ha'Beli'ah, and neither is ...
2. ... a Korban ha'Of that is 'Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'.
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak heard - that, of Kemitzas Zar and Melikas Zar, the Din by
one of them is 'Im Alah Teired', and by the other 'Im Alah Lo Teired', but
he could not recall which was which.
Rebbi Yitzchak's reason for not learning the Kemitzah of a Zar in the
Beis-Hamikdash from Bamah is - because Bamah *does not require a K'li
Shareis*, which may well be the reason why a Zar is permitted to bring it,
in which case we cannot learn Beis-Hamikdash, *which does*, from it.
(b) Chizkiyah said that logically - 'Kemitzah Teired', and 'Melikah Lo
(c) We object to the suggestion that ...
1. ... the Melikah of a Zar is Metamei' because it is Kasher by a Bamah -
because then so is Kemitzah.
(d) This is based on a statement of Rav Sheishes, who learns from the Pasuk
"Va'yizbechu *Zevachim* Shelamim" - that at Har Sinai they sacrificed animal
sacrifices, to preclude bird-offerings and Menachos (and the Korbanos that
they brought at the foot of Har Sinai had the Din of a Bamah).
2. ... the Kemitzah of a Zar is not Metamei because a Minchah is simply not
brought on a Bamah - because if that is so, then neither is a bird.