Chesed Club World Wide Center & Discussion Groups


Zevachim 69 -


(a) Question (Mishnah): The general rule is - *any* Pesul b'Kodesh, it is Metaher.
1. According to R. Yochanan, this comes to includes a Zar - according to Rav what does it include?
2. Counter-question: What does 'if the Pesul was not b'Kodesh, it is not Metaher' 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.
(c) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Melikah of a Zar or of a Pasul; Pigul, Nosar and Tamei are not Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah.
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.
2. Chizkiyah: Presumably, Kemitzah of a Zar is taken down, not Melikah.
(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!
1. Suggestion: (He holds that) Menachos are not brought on a Bamah (therefore, we do not learn to Kemitzah).
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.
(e) Answer: Since a Minchah brought on a Bamah is not Mekudash in a Kli Shares, we do not learn from there.
(f) (Mishnah): If he did Melikah with the left hand or at night...
(g) (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps (a bird killed through) Melikah inside (the Mikdash) is Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah!
(h) Rejection: (A bird that is) "Neveilah (is Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah)".
(i) Question: That was the suggestion, that Melikah is Neveilah!
(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 anything;
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)!
(b) Rejection: "Neveilah".
(c) Question: That was the suggestion, that (Pasul) slaughter is Neveilah!
(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 inside).
(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 Bamah.
(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 -
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 weeks,
1. We would have learned this way, but Dayo says that we only learn as much as the source (i.e. seven days.)
(f) Answer (R. Yosi bar Avin): He agrees with the principle, here he learns from a verse:
1. Question: "Zos Toras ha'Behemah veha'Of" - regarding what law are animals equated to birds?
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 (Ofos) Treifos!
(g) Question: Why does R. Yehudah argue with R. Meir?
(h) Answer: He expounds a verse:
1. Question: "Neveilah u'Treifah" - why did the Torah have to mention Treifah?
i. Version #1 (Rashi): If a Treifah can live (Chachamim argue whether or not it can), it will become a Neveilah when it dies;
ii. If a Treifah cannot live, it is already (and will never cease to be) Neveilah!
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.
i. Version #2 (Tosfos): If the verse refers to meat taken from a living Treifah, it is Neveilah;
ii. If it refers to meat of a dead Treifah, it is Neveilah!
3. Answer: The Torah teaches that even if a Treifah was slaughtered, it becomes Neveilah. (End of Version #2)
(i) Question (Rav Shizbi): Similarly, we can ask about "V'Chelev Neveilah v'Chelev *Treifah* (is Tahor)"!
1. Version #1 (Rashi): If a Treifah can live, it will become a Neveilah when it dies; if not, it is already Neveilah!
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): Whether the verse refers to meat taken from a living or dead Treifah, it is Neveilah!
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 do not;
ii. The latter refers to a slaughtered Treifah.
5. Conclusion: Rather, "Treifah" (regarding Chelev) excludes Tamei animals, in which there is no concept of Treifah.
6. Summation of question: Likewise, "Treifah" (regarding Nivlas Of) should exclude Tamei birds!
(j) Answer: R. Yehudah excludes Tamei birds from "Neveilah":
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.