ZEVACHIM 69 (8 Tamuz) - Today's Dafyomi study is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Moshe Gottlieb, Moshe Ze'ev ben Chaim Shlomo Yosef ha'Levi z'l, who healed the sick of Jerusalem and Israel with Chesed. Dedicated by his loving family on the day of his Yahrzeit.

1)

TOSFOS DH veli'Taimech she'Lo Hayah Pesulo b'Kodesh Le'asuyei Mai

úåñôåú ã"ä åìéèòîéê ùìà äéä ôñåìå á÷åãù ìàúåéé îàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we do not say that it includes a Ba'al Mum.)

úéîä ãéìîà ìàúåéé áòì îåí ãäà îùîò ãèòîà ãæø ìø' éåçðï îùåí ãéìéó îáîä åáòì îåí ìà äåúø ááîä ëãîåëç ìòéì áøéù ô''á (ãó èæ.)

(a)

Question: Perhaps it comes to permit a Ba'al Mum! It seems that the reason for a Zar according to R. Yochanan is because he learns from a Bamah, and a Ba'al Mum is not permitted on a Bamah, like is proven above (16a);

ãôøéê îä ìäöã äùåä ùáäï ùëï ìà äåúø ááîä

1.

[The Gemara] asked "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah (of a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei), for they are not permitted on a Bamah."

åàé äåä îôøùéðï áèòîà ãøáé éåçðï îùåí ãéìéó îùçéèä àò''â ãìàå òáåãä äéà äåä ðéçà

(b)

Answer: If we would explain that R. Yochanan's reason is because he learns from Shechitah, even though it is not an Avodah, this would be fine.

2)

TOSFOS DH Le'asuyei Shechitas Kodshim Bifnim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàúåéé ùçéèú ÷ãùéí áôðéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that even though it is Yered, it is not Metamei.)

åàò''â ãúøã îãúðï ô' äùåçè åäîòìä (ì÷îï ãó ÷éà.) ùåçè òåó áôðéí åîòìäå áçåõ ôèåø

(a)

Implied question: It is Yered, for a Mishnah (below, 111a) teaches that if one slaughtered a bird inside and offered it outside, he is exempt!

î''î àéï îèîàä ááéú äáìéòä ãéìôéðï ì÷îï îèøéôä

(b)

Answer #1: Even so, it is not Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, for we learn below from "Tereifah".

åòåã éù ìåîø ãìà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãîé ùåçè òåó áôðéí ãàéðå îèîà äééðå èòîà ãâí áçåõ àéðå îèîà

(c)

Answer #2: One who slaughtered a bird inside is different. The reason it is not Metamei is because also outside it is not Metamei.

åîèòîà ãäåòéìä äùçéèä ìçéåá ëøú áùáéì ëê àéï ìåîø ãàí òìä áäîä àå òåó ùùçè çåõ ãé÷øá

(d)

Implied suggestion: Since Shechitah [outside] helps to be Chayav Kares [for Shechutei Chutz], we should say that if a Behemah or bird slaughtered outside ascended [on the Mizbe'ach], it is offered!

àìà ôùéèà ãéøã ãîä òðéï æä ìæä çéåá ëøú ììà éøã ìåîø ãùåçè áäîä àå òåó áçåõ ãîùåí ùçééá ëøú àí (äâää áâìéåï îöàï ÷ãùéí) òìä ìà éøã

(e)

Rejection: Obviously, Yered. These are not related, Chiyuv Kares and Lo Yered, to say that if one slaughtered a Behemah or bird outside, because he is Chayav Kares, Im Alah Lo Yered;

åìòåìí ìà ðàîø ìà éøã àìà äéëà ùîöéðå ãåâîúå ëùø áôðéí

1.

Really, we say Lo Yered only when we find something like this Kosher inside.

åáøéù îòéìä (ãó á:) ãîùåä ìäå ãëì äéëà ãàéï îèîàéï àáéú äáìéòä äëé ðîé ìà éøãå

(f)

Implied question: In Me'ilah (2b, the Gemara) equates them! Whenever we say that it is not Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, also Lo Yered!

äééðå ãå÷à áãáø ùéù áôðéí ëùø ëååúééäå. áøå''ê

(g)

Answer: That is only when there is something like it Kosher inside. This is from R. Baruch.

3)

TOSFOS DH Melikas Zar Lo Tered

úåñôåú ã"ä îìé÷ú æø ìà úøã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is only according to R. Shimon.)

ìøáé ùîòåï àáì ìø' éäåãä úøã ëîå ìéìä åéåöà åãøåí ãòáåãú ãí ìà éìéó ø' éäåãä îáîä

(a)

Explanation: This is according to R. Shimon, but R. Yehudah holds that Yered, just like [Shechitah or Melikah at] night, Yotzei or [Shechitas Kodshei Kodoshim in] the south, for R. Yehudah does not learn Avodas ha'Dam from a Bamah.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ein Kidush Kli Shares b'Minchah b'Bamah

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ÷éãåù ëìé ùøú áîðçä ááîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not Pesulo b'Kodesh.)

úéîä ëéåï ãðú÷ãù áëìé ùøú äåà ôñåìå á÷åãù ÷øéðà áéä

(a)

Question: Since it became Kodesh in a Kli Shares, this is called Pesulo b'Kodesh!

åùîà ëéåï ãúçéìú òáåãúä áéã åìà ðú÷ãù áëìé ùøú áúçéìú òáåãä ìà çùéá ôñåìå á÷åãù

(b)

Answer: Since its initial Avodah is by hand, and it did not become Kodesh in a Kli Shares at the beginning of its Avodah, it is not considered Pesulo b'Kodesh;

åìà ãîé ìùçéèä ãñëéï î÷ãùà ìéä

1.

It is unlike Shechitah, for [there] the knife is Mekadesh it.

5)

TOSFOS DH Yachol Tehei Shechitah she'Hi Lifnim Metam'ah Begadim...

úåñôåú ã"ä éëåì úäà ùçéèä ùäéà ìôðéí îèîàä áâãéí...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need a verse for this.)

äà ãîöøëéðï äëà ÷øà ìùçéèú òåó ÷ãùéí ùîèäøú îéãé ðáéìä åìòðéï àéñåøé äðàä ìà îöøëéðï ÷øà ìùçéèúä ùîèäøú îéãé ðáéìä

(a)

Implied question: Why do we need a verse for Shechitah of a bird of Kodshim, that it is Metaher from [Tum'as] Neveilah, but regarding Isurei Hana'ah (e.g. Shor ha'Niskal), we do not need a verse that Shechitah it is Metaher from Neveilah?

ìà ãîé ã÷ãùéí àéï äëùø àëéìúï áùçéèúï

(b)

Answer: These are different. Kodshim [birds], the Heter to eat them is not through Shechitah;

àáì àéñåøé äðàä äëùø àëéìúï áùçéèúï àò''â ãäùúà îéäà àéï ùçéèúí îëùøúï áàëéìä î''î îèäøúï îéãé ðáéìä

1.

However, Isur Hana'ah (which are Chulin), the Heter to eat them is through Shechitah. Even though now [that they became Asur b'Hana'ah], Shechitah does not permit eating them, in any case it is Metaher them from Neveilah.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Ein Danin Davar she'Lo b'Hechshero mi'Davar she'Hu b'Hechshero

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéï ãðéï ãáø ùìà áäëùøå îãáø ùäåà áäëùøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos teaches a Chidush about what is considered Hechshero.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ åùçéèú çåìéï áôðéí ìàå îùçéèú çåìéï áçåõ éìôéðï àìà îùçéèú ÷ãùéí áôðéí éìôéðï

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): [Regarding birds,] Shechitas Chulin inside, we do not learn from Shechitas Chulin outside, rather, we learn from Shechitas Kodshim inside. (This is not in the standard text of Rashi. Rashi Kesav Yad says so.)

åàí úàîø àí ëï îìé÷ú çåìéï áôðéí å÷ãùéí áçåõ ðéìó ðîé îîìé÷ú ùîàì åìéìä ãäåé ùìà áäëùøå îùìà áäëùøå

(b)

Question: If so, also Melikas Chulin inside and Kodshim outside, we should learn from Melikas Smol and at night, which is improper from improper!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãàí òìä ìà éøã äëùøå ÷øéðà áéä:

(c)

Answer: Since [Melikas Smol and at night] Im Alah Lo Yered, this is called proper.

69b----------------------------------------69b

7)

TOSFOS DH R. Yehudah Omer Metamei b'Beis ha'Bli'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éäåãä àåîø îèîà ááéú äáìéòä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.)

úéîä àôéìå ðáéìä âîåøä ùì ÷ãùéí ìà úèîà ìøáé éäåãä ãìà çééì àéñåø ðáéìä åèåîàä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ààéñåø ÷ãùéí

(a)

Question: Even an absolute Neveilah of Kodshim should not be Metamei according to R. Yehudah, for the Isur of Neveilah and Tum'ah does not take effect on the Isur Kodshim!

ëããøéù øáé éäåãä áâîøà ãðáìú òåó èîà àéðä îèîàä áâãéí àáéú äáìéòä îùåí ãëúéá ðáìä åèøôä ìà éàëì ìèîàä áä îé ùàéñåøå îùåí áì úàëì ðáéìä

1.

This is like R. Yehudah expounds in the Gemara, that Nivlas Ohf Tamei is not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah because it says "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal Letam'ah Bah" - what is forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah";

éöà æä ùàéï àéñåøå îùåí áì úàëì ðáéìä àìà îùåí áì úàëì èîà

i.

This excludes [a Tamei bird], which is not forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah", rather, due to "do not eat Tamei."

åáô' âéã äðùä (çåìéï ãó ÷:) ãéé÷éðï îéðä ìø' éäåãä ãàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø âáé øáé éäåãä àåîø àó áèîàä

(b)

Strengthening of question: In Chulin (100b), we infer from this [Drashah of R. Yehudah] that [he holds that] Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, regarding R. Yehudah says that [the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applies] even to a Tamei [animal]!

åé''ì ããå÷à òåó èîà ùàéï áîéðå îùåí áì úàëì ðáìä ÷îîòè

(c)

Answer: Only regarding a Tamei bird, since "do not eat Neveilah" does not apply to its species, rather, due to "do not eat Tamei", we exclude [the Isur Neveilah. Ayeles ha'Shachar - the Torah would not put an Isur on a species if it never applies properly. It can put an Isur on a species, even if sometimes a member already became forbidden, and the latter Isur does not take effect for lashes, rather, only to make one who transgresses a bigger Rasha, to be buried with others who transgressed two Aveiros.]

åëï öøéê ìôøù áâîøà âáé çìá ðáìä

(d)

Support: We must say so in the Gemara regarding Chelev Neveilah;

ãìà àéöèøéê èøéôä ìàùîåòéðï ãçìá èøéôä èäåø åìà ãøùéðï îé ùàéñåøå îùåí áì úàëì ðáéìä éöà èøéôä ëé äéëé ããøùéðï âáé èîàä îé ùàéñåøå îùåí áì úàëì ðáéìä éöà áäîä èîàä

1.

We do not need Tereifah to teach that Chelev Tereifah is Tahor, and we do not expound 'what is forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah", to exclude a Tereifah' like we expound regarding a Tamei 'what is forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah", to exclude a Tamei animal.'

8)

TOSFOS DH Kal v'Chomer li'Shechinah Arba'ah Asar Yom

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ì åçåîø ìùëéðä àøáòä òùø éåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what the Kal v'Chomer would be without Dayo.)

àåîø ø''ú ãð÷è àøáòä òùø éåí îùåí ãàîøéðï áô' äîôìú (ðãä ãó ìà.) ãùìùä ùåúôéï áàãí ùä÷á''ä ðåúï áå òùøä ãáøéí ëðâã àáéå åàîå

(a)

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): It mentions 14 days because we say in Nidah (31a) that there are three partners in [formation of] a person - Hash-m contributes 10 matters, which is as much as his father and mother together (each of them contributes five).

åäùúà àîøé' ãéå ëàáéå ãîéðéä éìôéðï

1.

Now we say Dayo (it suffices) to be like his father, from which we learn.

åä''ø çééí îôøù ãîï äãéï äåä ìéä ìîéîø ÷''å ìùëéðä ìòåìí ãçîåøä ëì ëê àìà ð÷è é''ã ëðâã ùúé äñâøåú ãìà îöéðå éåúø îùðé äñâøåú

(b)

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): According to letter of the law, [the Tana] should have said "Kal v'Chomer to the Shechinah forever", for it is so severe. Rather, he mentioned two [periods] of Hesger (quarantine of a Metzora), for we do not find more than two Hesgeros (for Tzara'as of people).

åëìùåï äæä àéúà áôø÷é ãø' àìéòæø ÷''å ìùëéðä ùúé äñâøåú

(c)

Support: It says like this in Pirkei d'R. Eliezer "Kal v'Chomer to the Shechinah, two Hesgeros."

å÷ùä ãáé''â éåí ñâé ãéåí ùáéòé òåìä ìå ìëàï åìëàï ëãúðï áîñëú ðâòéí (ô''â î''ä) àéï áùúé äñâøåú ôçåú îé''â éåí

(d)

Question: It should suffice 13 days, for the seventh day counts for both (the last day of the first Hesger, and the first day of the latter Hesger), like a Mishnah in Nega'im (3:5) teaches "there are not in two Hesgeros less than 13 days"!

åé''ì ãìéùðà ã÷øà ð÷è àøáòä òùø îùåí ãëúéá ùáòú éîéí áëì äñâø

(e)

Answer: He said 14 like the wording of the verse, because it is written seven days about each Hesger.

9)

TOSFOS DH v'Chi b'Eizeh Torah Shavsah Behemah l'Of v'Of li'Behemah

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé áàéæå úåøä ùååúä áäîä ìòåó åòåó ìáäîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there are other Drashos from this verse.)

åà''ú åäà àéöèøéê ìëããøùéðï áçåìéï áøéù ô''á (ãó ëæ:) îä áäîä áùçéèä àó òåó áùçéèä

(a)

Question: We need this like we expound in Chulin (27b) "just like an animal [is permitted] through Shechitah, also a bird [is permitted] through Shechitah";

åø''à ãøéù îä áäîä îï äöåàø àó òåó îï äöåàø

1.

And R. Eliezer expounds "just like an animal [is slaughtered] from the neck, also a bird from the neck"!

åé''ì ãëì îéìé ãøùéðï ãäé÷ùà äåà åàéï äé÷ù ìîçöä

(b)

Answer: We expound for everything, for it is a Hekesh, and a Hekesh is not [expounded only] half-way.

10)

TOSFOS DH Iy Tereifah Chayah

úåñôåú ã"ä àé èøéôä çéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Perush of these words.)

à''ë àéðä îèîàä òã ìàçø îéúä åàæ äéà áëìì ðáéìä

(a)

Explanation #1: [If a Tereifah can live] it is not Metamei until after it dies, and then it is in the category of a Neveilah!

åàé èøéôä àéðä çéä äøé äéà áëìì ðáéìä

1.

And if a Tereifah cannot live, it is in the category of a Neveilah!

ìà îöéðå ìôøù ìàçø îéúä ãîùîò ùáà ìçãù èåîàä èôé àí àéðä çéä îàí çéä îãäãø åàîø (äúí) åàí èøéôä àéðä çéä äøé äéà áëìì ðáéìä

(b)

Source: We cannot explain after death, for it connotes that it comes to be Mechadesh more Tum'ah if it cannot live than if it can live, since it returns and says "and if a Tereifah cannot live, it is in the category of a Neveilah!"

ìëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ îùðèøôä éøãä ìä èåîàä åîäéëï úìê îîðä

1.

Therefore, Rashi explained that from when it became Tereifah, it became Tamei. To where will the Tum'ah go?!

åúéîä äåà ìåîø ëï ãìà îöéðå áòìé çééí îèîàéï

(c)

Objection #1: It is astounding to say so, for we do not find that living beings become Tamei!

åîéìúà ãôùéèà áëåìé äù''ñ ãàéï èøéôä îèîàä îçééí ãáñåó ô''÷ ãçåìéï (ã' ë:) àîø æòéøé ðùáøä îôø÷ú åøåá áùø òîä ðáìä àáì áìà øåá (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) áùø ìà àò''â ãîì÷ ñéîï àçã åîôø÷ú

1.

And it is obvious in the entire Gemara that a Tereifah is not Metamei in its lifetime, for in Chulin (20b) Ze'iri said "if the neckbone was broken, and the majority of flesh with it, it is Neveilah", but without the majority of flesh, no (it is not Metamei), even though he did Melikah of the first Siman and the neckbone;

ëãîùîò äúí ãôøéê åëé îúä (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) òåîã åîáãéì

i.

It connotes like this there. It asks "[according to Ze'iri,] does he divide (cut the second Siman of Olas ha'Of) on a dead bird?!" (Rava concluded that in Melikah he breaks the neckbone without the majority of flesh. Now we do not say that he divides on a dead bird, even though it is already Tereifah due to the neckbone and the first Siman.)

åø''î ðîé àùëçï ôø÷ àìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ãó ðæ:) ãàîø èøéôä àéðä çéä ã÷àîø ñéîï ìèøéôä ùìùéí éåí å÷àîø ìòéì ãîìé÷úä îèäøú èøéôúä îèåîàúä

(d)

Objection #2: Also R. Meir, we find in Chulin (57b) that he says that a Tereifah cannot live, for he said that a Siman for a Tereifah is [that it cannot live] 30 days, and he said above that Melikah is Metaher it from its Tum'ah. (Our text there says Rebbi. Mesores ha'Shas there points out that Tosfos' text there said R. Meir.)

åàé èîàä îçééí îùòú èøéôåú äéàê úìê äèåîàä îîðä ò''é äîìé÷ä

1.

If it was Metamei in its lifetime from when it became Tereifah, how does the Tum'ah away through Melikah?!

åäøá øáé çééí îôøù ãä''÷ àé èøéôä àéðä çéä åîééøé áúìù îîðä áùø çé åàëìå äøé äéà áëìì ðáéìä

(e)

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): It means as follows. If a Tereifah cannot live, and we discuss when one detached from it meat while it was alive, and ate it, it is in the category of a Neveilah;

ãáùø äôåøù îîðä ëôåøù îï äîúä åîèîà àò''â ùäáäîä òöîä àéðä îèîàä ìôé ùäéà áçééä òúä

1.

This is because meat that separates from it is like what separates from a Mesah. It is Metamei, even though the animal is not Metamei, since it is living now.

åòåã éù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìôøù àé èøéôä çéä ëìåîø ãîééøé áèøéôä ùòãééï çéä åúìù îîðä ëæéú áùø åàëìå äøé ðáéìä ãå÷à àîåøä

(f)

Explanation #3: "Iy Tereifah Chayah", i.e. we discuss a live Tereifah, i.e. it is still alive, and he detached a k'Zayis of meat and ate it. [It is not Metamei,] for only a Neveilah was said [that it is Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah];

åìà àééøé ëìì áôìåâúà ãèøéôä çéä

1.

We do not discuss at all the argument about whether or not a Tereifah can live.

åàé èøéôä àéðä çéä ëìåîø ãîééøé áèøéôä ùàéðä çéä ùîúä ùðúðáìä äøé äéà áëìì ðáéìä

(g)

Explanation #3 (cont.): "V'Iy Tereifah Einah Chayah", i.e. we discuss a Tereifah that is not alive. It died and became a Neveilah. It is in the category of a Neveilah.

åáú''ë âøñ àé èøéôä àéðä îúä

(h)

Remark: In Toras Kohanim, the text [in the Reisha] says "Iy Tereifah Einah Mesah."

åäìùåï îâåîâí ÷öú ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø àé áèøéôä çéä áá'

(i)

Objection #1: The wording is awkward. It should have said Iy b'Tereifah Chayah, with [the prefix] "Beis" [to show that we discuss a particular bird]!

åòåã äåä ìîéîø äøé äéà ðáéìä:

(j)

Objection #2: It should have said [in the Seifa] "it is a Neveilah" [and not "it is in the category of Neveilah]!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF