(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 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!



(a) Discussing the Melikah of a Korban Of, the Beraisa tries to prove from the Pasuk "ve'Nefesh Asher Tochal Neveilah" - that Melikah removes the Tum'ah, since the bird is no longer a Neveilah.

(b) When the Tana asks 'Ha Nami Neveilah Hi', he is referring to an Olas ha'Of, which is not eaten. Perhaps, he is asking, it is considered a Neveilah (even if a Chatas ha'Of [which is eaten by the Kohanim] is not).

(c) So he ends up learning it (that Melikah removes the Tum'ah) from the Hekesh of Neveilah to T'reifah - inasmuch as just as T'reifah is not Matir anything, so too, is Neveilah Metamei only when it is not Matir anything (to preclude Melikah, which is Matir the Korban to go on the Mizbe'ach).

(d) The Tana knows that the word "T'reifah" is not coming to teach us that ...

1. ... T'reifah is Metamei bib's ha'Beli'ah' - because 'Mah Nafshach', if T'reifah is considered alive, then how can it possibly be Metamei, whereas if it is not, then it is indeed synonymous with Neveilah, in which case it is superfluous (see Tosfos Amud Beis, DH 'I T'reifah Chayah').
2. ... if one Shechted a T'reifah it is nevertheless Metamei - because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Meir, who holds that it is not (as we will see on the following Amud).
(a) The connection between the above D'rashah (from "T'reifah") and Molek Kodshim ba'Chutz and Molek Chulin anywhere is - that they are what it comes to include, since, like T'reifah, they are not Matir anything.

(b) Another Beraisa discusses Shechitas Chulin bi'Fenim and Shechitas Kodshim (of a bird) anywhere. When the Tana attempts to learn from "Neveilah" that they are not Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah, we object - on the grounds that since the Shechitah is not valid by any of them, perhaps they are indeed considered Neveilah.

(c) The Tana therefore precludes them from the word "T'reifah" - in that like T'reifah, Tum'ah will apply if it will extend to both bi'Fenim and ba'Chutz.

(d) Shechitas Chulin bi'Fenim fits smoothly into this Limud - since Shechitas Chulin ba'Chutz is not Metamei even by a Pasul Korban (i.e. when it is a T'reifah, according to Rebbi Meir, as we explained above).

(a) Rava therefore precludes Shechitas Kodshei Of (which is Neveilah wherever it is) from Tum'ah - from the fact that such a Shechitah is effective to be Mechayev the Shochet for Shechutei Chutz.

(b) From there we will be able to learn Shechitas Kodshei Of ba'Chutz. We will learn Shechitas Kodshei Of bi'Fenim - from the fact that, like T'reifah, Neveilah will only be Metamei both ba'Chutz and bi'Fenim, but not just one of them (as we explained above, and as the Beraisa explicitly states).

(c) Nevertheless, Rav Shimi bar Ashi explains that Melikas Of Kodshim ba'Chutz is Metamei (and we do not learn it from Melikas Of bi'Fenim) - because in the previous cases, we learned P'nim bi'Pesul from Chutz bi'Pesul. But we cannot learn Chutz bi'Pesul from P'nim be'Hechsher.

(d) We query Rav Shimi bar Ashi from the Beraisa which learns that a Korban that became Pasul be'Yotze 'Im Alah Lo Yeired', from the fact that it is Kasher by a Bamah Lechatchilah. And we answer that the Tana does not really rely on that Limud at all, but - on the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah" which includes all cases of P'sulo ba'Kodesh in the Din of 'Im Alah, Lo Yeired' (as we explained on the previous Amud, according to Rav).




(a) We have already cited Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who holds 'Malak ve'Nimtza'as T'reifah Eino Metamei'. He learns ...
1. ... the Shechitah of a T'reifah Chulin bird via a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Shechitah of a T'reifah animal - which is Metamei through touching and carrying, yet its Shechitah removes the Tum'ah, 'Kal-va'Chomer' that of a T'reifah Chulin bird, which is not (only be'Beis ha'Beli'ah, as we have already explained), should certainly lose its Tum'ah through Shechitah.
2. ... the Melikah of a T'reifah Kodshim bird - via a 'Binyan Av' from the Shechitah of a Chulin bird.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees entirely with Rebbi Meir. According to him, neither the Shechitah of a Chulin bird nor the Melikah of an Kodshim bird, removes the ensuing Tum'ah.

(c) Rebbi Yossi rejects Rebbi Meir's final Limud (from the 'Binyan Av') on the basis of 'Dayo' - restricting the removal of Tum'ah to Shechitah (like its source), and not Melikah.

(a) Based on the Pasuk (Hashem's words to Moshe in connection with Miriam's sin) "ve'Avihah Yarok Yarak be'Fanehah ha'Lo Sikalem Shiv'as Yamim", Miriam ought to have been quarantined - for fourteen days (seeing as against the five things that a father implants into a child, Hashem implants ten).

(b) The reason that she wasn't is - because of the principle 'Dayo' (restricting what we learn with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' or a 'Binyan-Av' to the extent that it applies to the source).

(c) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah - who Darshens a 'Binyan-Av' (Melikah from Shechitah) in spite of 'Dayo'.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Avin answers the Kashya with the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" - which initially appears problematic - due to the differences between them (the one is Metamei through Maga u'Masa, the other, through eating be'Beis ha'Beli'ah).

(b) Rebbi Meir therefore interprets the Pasuk to mean - that just as the Mitzvah that one performs with an animal (Shechitah) removes Tum'as Neveilah, so too, will the Mitzvah that one performs with the bird (Melikah) will remove Tum'as Neveilah.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah counters this with a Pasuk of his own. The problem with the Pasuk "Neveilah *u'Tereifah* ... " (that we discussed on the previous Amud) - is that 'Mah Nafshach', if a T'reifah is considered alive, then why should it be Metamei, whereas if it is considered dead, then it is included in "Neveilah".

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from there - that even if one Shechted a T'reifah bird, it is nevertheless Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah.

(b) Because he holds - 'T'reifah Chayah' ...

(c) ... and the reason that the Shechitah does not remove the Tum'ah is - because if one were to cut off a piece from the animal and eat it (even not a complete limb), he would be Tamei, and the Shechitah only has the power to remove the Tum'ah of Neveilah, but not that of T'reifah.

(a) Rav Shizbi queries this interpretation of the Pasuk from a Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah ... Ve'achol Lo Sochluhu" - which comes to teach us that the Cheilev of a Neveilah and a T'reifah animal is not Tamei.

(b) When the Torah inserts the word "T'reifah", it must be referring to - a T'reifah that was Shechted (because otherwise 'Mah Nafshach ... ' as we asked above) ...

(c) ... inferring - that the animal itself is Tamei.

(d) We query this however, from a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (or by a Beraisa), which learns from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Tum'as Neveilah of an animal) "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah" - that some animals are not Tamei when they die (i.e. a T'reifah animal that has been Shechted.

(a) So we learn from "T'reifah" (in Tzav [not 'T'reifah she'Shachtah, Tamei', but]) - that only the Cheilev of a Kasher Neveilah animal (which is subject to T'reifus), is Tahor, but not the Cheilev of a T'reif Neveilah.

(b) The Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah is - that the same D'rashah is applicable to the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (to preclude T'reif birds from the Tum'ah of Nivlas Of Tahor from "T'reifah") in which case it is not superfluous to learn his D'rashah ('T'reifah she'Shachtah Metam'ah').

(c) When we answer that Rebbi Yehudah learns this from "Neveilah" (which does not apply to a T'reif animal) - we counter this by observing that, by the same token, we can learn the Din by Beheimah from "Cheilev Neveilah", leaving "T'reifah" open to interpretation (and however we interpret that, we will interpret "T'reifah" by Of.

(a) So we Darshen "T'reifah" by Beheimah to include the Cheilev of a (Kasher) Chayah in the Din Taharah - because whatever is subject to the Din of T'reifah is included in the leniency of Cheilev.

(b) We would have otherwise thought that it is not included since, when it is Shechted, its Cheilev is permitted, and therefore, we would consider its Cheilev and its Basar as one and both would be Tamei.

(c) We query this from the Cheilev of a T'reif animal (which we just declined to learn from "T'reifah") - precisely because its Cheilev is part of the Isur of the Basar, and "ve'Achol Lo Sochluhu" does not pertain specifically to it (in which case the same S'vara applies to the Cheilev of a Chayah).

(d) And besides, the Pasuk "ve'Achol Lo Sochluhu" - cannot refer to the Cheilev of a Chayah any more than to the Basar.

Next daf


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