(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 doves.

(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 to ...
1. ... what she gave him are - either two Kinin of pigeons, two Kinin of young doves or one Kan of each.
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.
(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 ...
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.
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 Chatas.
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 explained).
(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.

(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 ...
2. ... intestines - to make harp-strings.
(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?
(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 ha'Beli'ah ...

(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 'Amar').

(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 Mishnah.

(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.
2. ... Melikas Laylah - because it is Kasher Lechatchilah with regard to the burning of the Eivarim and the Pedarim.
(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).
(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 'Le'akev').

(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 Mikdash).

(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 Lechatchilah.

(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.

(b) Chizkiyah said that logically - 'Kemitzah Teired', and 'Melikah Lo Teired'.

(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.
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.
(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).
13) 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.

Next daf


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