Zevachim 118
Summary
- This segment continues analyzing five shittot on what offerings are permissible on a bama in Gilgal, derives the scope of yachid versus tzibbur from “איש הישר בעיניו יעשה,” and asserts according to Rabbi Yehuda that a zar may perform avodah on a bama, with implications for Levi versus zar and bechorot. It differentiates the two Chachamim by whether nesachim were brought in the midbar, presents Rabbi Shimon’s limited allowance learned from “ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח בגלגל,” and attributes to others the derashah that an arel is mekabel haza’ah. It then outlines Shiloh’s structure and the halachic zone of eating “bechol haroeh,” probes what counts as “seeing” including standing versus sitting, surveys the loci of Shechinah and a debate about aliyah la’regel in Nov and Giv’on, and concludes with the durations of the Mishkan’s stages and their proofs.
- Rabbi Meir holds that anything that is *neder v’nedavah* is brought on a *bama*, while anything that is not *neder v’nedavah* is not, and he counts *minchat nezirut* as *neder v’nedavah*. The first Chachamim agree to the rule that only *neder v’nedavah* is permitted and prohibit any *korban chovah* by a *yachid* on a *bama*, limiting a *yachid* to *olah u’shelamim* and excluding *minchat nezirut*. Rabbi Yehuda holds that whatever the *tzibbur* and *yachid* offered in the *Ohel Mo’ed* in the *midbar* they may offer in the *Ohel Mo’ed* in Gilgal, including *korbanot chovah*, and a *yachid* may bring chovot on a *bama gedolah*. The second Chachamim align with the practical outcome of the first Chachamim—anything the *tzibbur* brought in the *Ohel Mo’ed* in the *midbar* is brought in Gilgal, but a *yachid* may bring only *olah u’shelamim* and never chovot on the *bama* in Gilgal. Rabbi Shimon limits even the *tzibbur* to being makriv only Pesachim and chovot she’kavua lahen zeman.
- The Chachamim derive their rule from “איש הישר בעיניו יעשה”: “איש” denotes a *korban yachid* and “הישר” denotes *nedarim v’nedavot*, so a *yachid* brings only *nedarim v’nedavot* while a *tzibbur* may bring even chovot. Rabbi Yehuda reads “הישר” as modifying “בעיניו,” assigning the limitation to a *bama ketanah*, while on a *bama gedolah* even a *yachid* may bring chovot. He uses “איש” to be machshir a *zar* for avodah on a *bama*, beyond the inference from “וזרק הכהן את הדם על מזבח השם פתח אהל מועד” that the kohen requirement applies at the *Ohel Mo’ed* but not at a *bama*. The sugya states that this extra “איש” teaches that one does not revert to requiring *kiddush bechorot* “כמעיקרא,” and therefore even a *zar* is kasher on a *bama*.
- R. Yerucham Fishel Perla cites our sugya against the Teshuvot Maharam mi’Rothenburg (Sha’ar Sheni siman Re’ach) who disqualifies a Levi from serving on a *bama* despite permitting a *zar*, arguing that our sugya never entertains a distinction between Levi and *zar* and could have used that to explain the need for two pesukim. He further notes that the sugya’s “כמעיקרא” invokes the pre-Mishkan regime of avodah b’bechorot, aligning with the Rambam that from the days of Adam HaRishon avodah was in *bechorot*, while the Divrei David (Taz) and the Brisker Rav explain bechor status there as a non–peter rechem construct that could even be sold. The Chazon Ish infers from “כמעיקרא” that even *korbanot yachid* on a *bama ketanah* would have required *bechorot* initially, against Acharonim such as the Keren Orah who limit avodah b’bechorot to *korbanot tzibbur*.
- Rav Papa states that the difference between the two groups of Chachamim is whether *nesachim* were brought in the *midbar*. The Chachamim aligned with Rabbi Meir hold that no *nesachim* were offered in the *midbar*, so only *olah u’shelamim* without *nesachim* were brought on a *bama*; the Chachamim aligned with Rabbi Yehuda hold that *nesachim* were brought in the *midbar* as well.
- Rabbi Shimon derives from “ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח בגלגל” that only chovot akin to Pesach, namely chovot she’kavua lahen zeman, are offered in Gilgal, excluding offerings like *par he’elem davar* and *se’irei avodah zarah*. The other shittot use this pasuk for a different derashah and do not restrict offerings to those similar to Pesach.
- Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Benayah learns from “ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח בגלגל” that an arel is mekabel *haza’ah* of *parah adumah*. Rashi reconstructs the timeline: they crossed the Jordan on 10 Nisan and were too weak to circumcise that day, milah occurred on the 11th, and since the *haza’ot* require three days between them, the first *haza’ah* must have been on the 10th while they were arelim, with the second on the 14th enabling Pesach. The Mishneh LaMelech notes that our sugya takes Pesach in Gilgal as me’ikar ha’din, evident from “פשיטא,” whereas Kiddushin 37b cites a view that the chiyuv of Pesach begins only after “yerushah v’yishivah,” implying Gilgal’s Pesach was a hora’at sha’ah; the Olas Shlomo asks why the opposing shittot here do not adopt that view to interpret the pasuk.
- A teaching states: “אין בין במה גדולה לבמה קטנה אלא פסח וחובות שקבועה להן זמן,” and it is explained with reference to an *olat chovah* versus *olat nedavah*, with a girsa that avoids *chatat* since there is no *chatat nedavah*. The sugya proposes framing it in terms of *mincha* but answers “קסבר: אין מנחה בבמה,” establishing that no *mincha* is brought on a *bama*.
- Shiloh has no solid roof; it is stone below with *yeri’ot* above, thus called *menuchah*, as indicated by the verses that call it both “בית” and “אוהל.” Kodshei Kodashim are eaten “inside the curtains,” and Kodshim Kalim and Ma’aser Sheni “בכל הרואה.” “השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום אשר תראה” forbids offering where one sees but, together with “שם תעלה ושם תעשה,” indicates that shechitah is no broader than makriv, thereby allowing eating “בכל מקום אשר תראה.” Additional asmachtot include “ולא סאנת שילה,” “בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין,” and “ורצון שוכני סנה,” yielding that Yosef’s eye that refrained from illicit benefit merits eating as far as the eye sees, even across tribal borders that “hated” him, i.e., anywhere in line of sight.
- “Roeh” requires seeing it entirely with no obstruction between the eater and Shiloh, exemplified by the Beit Knesset of Ma’on; Rav Pappa, however, states that “roeh” does not require seeing it entirely, and seeing part suffices. Rav Pappa asks whether a place where one sees while standing but not while sitting counts, yielding three practical sides considered by the Sefas Emes and connecting to whether eating *kodashim* requires yeshivah per “limshachah,” as debated by Rishonim including Shitah Mekubetzes and Tosafos versus Rambam and Minchas Chinuch. Rabbi Yirmiyah’s case of standing on a brook’s bank versus inside it remains unresolved as teiku, and Poskim employ this sugya for practical issues of berachos (shinui makom) and for “ayaros hasmukhos v’nir’os” in Megillah.
- Rav Dimi states that the Shechinah rests in three places—Shiloh, Nov and Giv’on, and Beit Olamim—and in all it is within the portion of Binyamin, from “חופף עליו כל היום,” implying that all “chafifot” are in Binyamin’s lot. The Keren Orah infers that aliyah la’regel applies even in Nov and Giv’on, aligning with the Rambam (Hil. Beit HaBechirah 1:1), while Acharonim (including the Aderes) cite Makkot that suggests no chiyuv of aliyah la’regel until the Beit HaMikdash.
- When Abaye repeats this teaching before Rav Yosef, Rav Yosef rejects it by invoking verses about “אוהל יוסף” and “שבט אפרים,” and the sugya resolves that the Shechinah is in Binyamin while the Sanhedrin ha’Gedolah can be in Yosef, analogous to the Beit HaMikdash where the Shechinah is in Binyamin and the Sanhedrin in Yehudah. The resolution posits boundary strips—just as a strip of Yehudah enters Binyamin at the Mikdash, so too a strip of Yosef enters Binyamin—linking this to “תאנת שילה.” A Tannaitic dispute interprets “חופף עליו” as Mikdash Rishon and “כל היום” as Mikdash Sheni with “ובין כתפיו שכן” as Yemos HaMashiach, while Rabbi reads “חופף עליו” as Olam HaZeh, “כל היום” as Yemos HaMashiach, and “ובין כתפיו שכן” as Olam HaBa, thereby encompassing Shiloh and Nov and Giv’on within loci of Shechinah.
- A baraita states that the *Ohel Mo’ed* in the *midbar* stands thirty-nine years, in Gilgal fourteen years (seven of conquest and seven of division), and in Nov and Giv’on fifty-seven years, leaving Shiloh for three hundred sixty-nine years. It proves the thirty-nine from the Mishkan’s erection in year two and the forty years in the desert, and derives the “seven and seven” in Gilgal from Kalev’s ages—forty at the meraglim and eighty-five at the end of conquest—plus a svara or textual framing that the division period remains in Gilgal. It thereby fixes the disparate durations of each stage before Beit Olamim.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions