POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 66
ZEVACHIM 66-68 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) "HAVDALAH" IN "CHATAS HA'OF" (cont.)
(a) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If we will say that "Lo
Yavdil" means, he need not Mavdil, we should also say
(regarding a pit) "V'Lo Yechasenu" means, he need not
***** PEREK CHATAS HA'OF ****
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): No - since it says "Ba'al ha'Bor
Yeshalem", clearly, it is incumbent on him to cover it;
1. Here, it says "V'Hikrivo", the Torah already taught
that Chatas ha'Of is offered differently than Olas
ha'Of (i.e. he does not cut both Simanim);
(c) (Mishnah): He squeezes out the blood from the body.
2. Therefore, "Lo Yavdil" teaches that he *need* not
(but may) Mavdil.
(d) (Beraisa): "Olah" - it is Kosher even if he squeezed out
the blood of the body but not of the head;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps it is Kosher even if he squeezed
out the blood of the head but not of the body!
2. Rejection: "Hu" (it is Kosher only if done
3. Question: How does this teach that the former is
Kosher but not the latter?
4. Answer (Ravina): Presumably, we are more concerned
for the blood of the body, for there is more blood
in the body than in the head.
2) DEVIATIONS IN THE "AVODAH" OF BIRDS
(a) If Chatas ha'Of was offered below, like (i.e. according
to the Avodah of) Chatas (ha'Of), l'Shem Chatas, it is
Kosher (this is no Chidush, it is merely for parallel
structure to the coming clauses);
(b) If it was offered (below) like Chatas but l'Shem Olah, or
like Olah but l'Shem Chatas, or like Olah l'Shem Olah, it
(c) If it was offered above, in any case it is Pasul.
(d) If Olas ha'Of was offered above, like Olah, l'Shem Olah,
it is Kosher;
(e) If it was offered (above) like Olah but l'Shem Chatas, it
is Kosher, but the owner did not fulfill his obligation;
(f) If it was offered (above) like Chatas, whether it was
l'Shem Olah or l'Shem Chatas, it is Pasul;
(g) If it was offered below, in any case it is Pasul.
(h) (Gemara) Question: (When it was done 'like an Olah',) how
did he deviate from the Avodah of a Chatas?
3) THE STATUS OF IMPROPERLY OFFERED BIRDS
(i) Answer #1: He did Melikah of an Olah (he cut both
1. Question: If so, our Mishnah is not like R. Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon, for he says that this is Kosher in
(j) Answer #2: (Our Mishnah can even be like R. Elazar) - he
deviated regarding Haza'ah (he omitted it, he only did
2. Answer: There is nothing wrong with this, we already
established the previous Mishnah unlike him!
(k) Support (a later clause of the Mishnah): If it was
offered above, in any case it is Pasul;
1. This is even if it was like Chatas l'Shem Chatas.
(l) Rejection of support: No, each clause refers to something
2. Question: Which Avodah was done above?
i. It cannot mean, he did Melikah above - we
learned that Melikah is Kosher anywhere on the
3. Answer: He did Haza'ah above.
4. Culmination of support: Just like the later clause
refers to (a deviation in) Haza'ah, also the former.
(m) (Mishnah): Olas ha'Of...
(n) Question: How did he deviate from the Avodah of an Olah?
(o) Answer #1: He did Melikah of a Chatas (he cut only one
(p) Rejection: If so, the coming Mishnah would be unlike R.
Yehoshua (this is difficult, for R. Yehoshua argues with
R. Eliezer, who is from Beis Shamai)!
1. (The coming Mishnah): In all of the above cases,
Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah (one who eats the Neveilah of
a Tahor bird (and his clothing) become Tamei) does
not apply, Me'ilah does apply (to one who benefits
from the bird);
(q) Answer #2: Rather, he deviated in Mitzuy (he omitted it,
he did Haza'ah instead - R. Yehoshua admits that Me'ilah
applies in this case, for it does not become Chatas
2. R. Yehoshua says that there is no Me'ilah (for it
becomes Chatas ha'Of, Kohanim eat it)!
(r) Question (later in the next Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If
Olas ha'Of was offered below like Chatas l'Shem Chatas,
there is Me'ilah;
1. R. Yehoshua: There is no Me'ilah.
(s) Answer: Indeed, this is so.
2. Question: How did he deviate from the Avodah of an
i. Suggestion: He deviated in Mitzuy.
3. Answer: He deviated in Melikah.
ii. Rejection: R. Yehoshua only exempts from
Me'ilah when Melikah was like a Chatas (for it
becomes a Chatas), otherwise he would agree
that there is Me'ilah!
4. Summation of question: Can we say that our Mishnah
and the end of the next Mishnah discuss (deviations
in) Melikah, and the beginning of the next Mishnah
(which is in between these) discusses Mitzuy?!
(a) (Mishnah): In all of the above cases, there is no Tum'as
Beis ha'Beli'ah and there is Me'ilah, except for Chatas
ha'Of offered below like Chatas l'Shem Chatas (since it
is permitted to Kohanim);
(b) R. Eliezer says, if Olas ha'Of was offered below like
Chatas l'Shem Chatas, there is Me'ilah;
(c) R. Yehoshua says, there is no Me'ilah.
1. R. Eliezer: There is no Me'ilah in a Chatas offered
Lishmah, but there is when it is offered l'Shem
something else - there is Me'ilah in an Olah
Lishmah, all the more so there is when it is offered
l'Shem something else!
2. R. Yehoshua: There is Me'ilah in Chatas l'Shem Olah,
for it was offered l'Shem something which has
Me'ilah - you cannot learn to Olah l'Shem Chatas,
for it was offered l'Shem something which has no