Zevachim 119
Summary
- The speaker thanks Elisha for covering the shiur and notes a sponsorship by Henry Wolinsky in honor of the yahrzeit of his father, מנחם יצחק בן יעקב ישראל. The shiur derives the 57 years of the Mishkan in Nov and Givon and, from the 480-year framework, computes 369 years for Shiloh. The Gemara establishes a heter for *bamot* between Shiloh and Jerusalem from “ki lo batem … el haMenuhah ve’el haNahalah,” analyzes whether *ma’aser sheni* applied in Nov and Givon, and records four views on the referents of “Menuhah” and “Nahalah” with practical differences. The sugya rules about offering outside when the *korban* was consecrated during *heter bamot* but brought during *issur bamot*, and it begins sourcing differences between a *bamat yachid* and a *bamat tzibbur*.
- The speaker expresses gratitude to Elisha for teaching the shiur for much of the past six weeks and wishes him strength to lead the tzibbur for Yamim Noraim. The shiur is sponsored by Henry Wolinsky in memory of his father, מנחם יצחק בן יעקב ישראל, as a zechut for his neshama. The learning stands on דף קי"ח עמוד ב four lines from the bottom at the two dots אוהל מועד שבנוב וגבעון.
- The baraita states that when Eli died and the Ark was captured, Shiloh was destroyed and the Mishkan moved to Nov; when Shmuel ha-Ramati died, Nov was destroyed and they came to Givon. The Ark remained in Kiryat Ye’arim for twenty years that include ten years of Shmuel’s leadership alone, one joint year of Shmuel and Shaul, two years of Shaul alone, and seven of David in Hevron, after which David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem and Shlomo began building the Mikdash in his fourth year. The calculation yields fifty-seven years from Eli’s death until the Beit HaMikdash. From the 480 years from the Exodus until the Temple, and given that the period until the end of the *Ohel Mo’ed* in Givon totals 111 years, Shiloh remains with 369 years.
- The baraita derives the heter of *bamot* from “ki lo batem ad ‘atah el haMenuhah ve’el haNahalah,” defining “Menuhah” as Shiloh and “Nahalah” as Jerusalem and explaining that both terms are listed to create a heter both before Shiloh and between Shiloh and Jerusalem. Rashi identifies the need to source the post-Shiloh heter specifically, while the Brisker Rav argues that without a derashah one might assume the status-name of “Nahalah” persists to forbid *bamot* even after the kedushah lapses, and the Chazon Ish writes that by sevara one would not allow offerings anywhere but the inside, thus a derashah is required for any heter.
- Reish Lakish requests that the Mishnah include *ma’aser sheni* as brought to Nov and Givon; Rabbi Yochanan answers with a “*sham sham*” *gezeirah shavah* from the *Aron* to exclude *ma’aser sheni* where there is no *Aron*, but the Gemara rejects this because it would also exclude Pesach and other *kodshim*. The sugya resolves that the Mishnah follows Rabbi Shimon, who allows only Pesach and fixed-time communal obligations on a *bamah gedolah*, and since *ma’aser behemah* is a chovah without a fixed time, the *hekesh* “aser te’aser” links *ma’aser dagan* to *ma’aser behemah* to exclude *ma’aser sheni* from Nov and Givon; by contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that *ma’aser sheni* and *ma’aser behemah* are eaten in Nov and Givon. The requirement of “*birah*” for *ma’aser sheni* is satisfied according to Rabbi Yehuda by Rav Yosef’s statement that there are three “*birot*”: the *Ohel Mo’ed* (including Shiloh, Nov and Givon) and the Beit Olamim. Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz asks how *ma’aser sheni* was eaten in Bayit Sheni without an *Aron*; he answers that total absence of an *Aron* is not me’akev, while the existence of an *Aron* in the wrong place (e.g., Kiryat Ye’arim) is me’akev, and the Mikdash David answers that a “shem *Aron*” suffices in Bayit Sheni. Tosafot further asks from Pesachim 36b about being yotzei matzah with *ma’aser sheni*; he answers that Pesachim follows Rabbi Yehuda or that the heter depends on its being edible “bekhol moshvot” upon becoming tamei, and the Tzon Kedashim adds that this teaches validity even when the *ma’aser* grew before the Churban and was already mechuyyav be-hava’at makom.
- Rabbi Yehuda states “Menuhah” is Shiloh and “Nahalah” is Jerusalem, supported by verses in Yirmeyahu calling the Mikdash “nachalati.” Rabbi Shimon states “Menuhah” is Jerusalem and “Nahalah” is Shiloh, supported by Tehillim “zot menuchati adai ad … ki bachar Hashem beTzion.” The order “el haMenuhah ve’el haNahalah” is resolved for Rabbi Shimon as “lo mibba’i” style: not only have they not reached Jerusalem, they have not even reached Shiloh. The Malbim and the Meshech Chochmah explain that Rabbi Yehuda calls Jerusalem “Nahalah” because he holds Yerushalayim nitchalkah la-shevatim, whereas Rabbi Shimon denies such division and assigns “Nahalah” to Shiloh which was in the nachalah of Yosef.
- Tanna de-vei Rabbi Yishmael states “Menuhah” and “Nahalah” both refer to Shiloh, while Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai states both refer to Jerusalem, which yields a full heter of *bamot* even during the Shiloh period. The text notes a grammatical difficulty for these views since Scripture lists two terms as if two places; this remains a kashya. The designation of Jerusalem as “Menuhah” is explained as “menuhat *Aron*” from verses such as “ve’atah kumah Hashem Elokim lenuchahkha atah ve’Aron uzekha” or “uv’nuchah yomar,” as cited by Rashi and Tosafot.
- Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s view explains Manoah’s act “vaya’al ‘al hatzur laHashem” as a permitted *bamah* offering during the Shiloh era. According to Tanna de-vei Rabbi Yishmael, Manoah’s act constitutes a special-case *hora’at sha’ah*. The beit midrash of Rabbi Yishmael ultimately teaches like Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai that both “Menuhah” and “Nahalah” are Jerusalem, with the siman “mashkhei gavra le-gavrei.” The Olat Shlomo resolves that Manoah’s “minchah” was a *minchat nesakhim*, which fits Rabbi Shimon since *nesakhim* are brought, while a standard *minchah* is not offered on a *bamah*.
- The Mishnah rules that if one consecrated during *heter bamot* and later slaughtered or offered outside during *issur bamot*, he violates an aseh and a lo ta’aseh but not karet. Rav Kahana limits this exemption from karet to shechitah and obligates karet for ha’alah by a derashah of “aleihem,” but Rava refutes this based on the spelling “aleihem” with an alef. Rabbi Shimon’s four klalim in *kodshim* explicitly include the case of hekdash during *heter bamot* and avodah outside during *issur bamot* as aseh and lo ta’aseh without karet for both shechitah and ha’alah. The Gemara concludes “tiyuvta de-Rav Kahana tiyuvta.”
- Semichah applies only where it is “lifnei Hashem,” excluding a *bamat yachid*. Shechitah betzafon of *Kodshei Kodashim* is limited to “tzafonah lifnei Hashem,” excluding a *bamat yachid*. Matan dam “saviv” applies only to “ha-mizbe’ach … asher petach *Ohel Mo’ed*,” excluding a *bamat yachid*. Tenufah requires “lifnei Hashem,” excluding a *bamat yachid*. Hagashah of menachot to the southwest corner of the Mizbe’ach applies to “ve-higishah el ha-mizbe’ach,” i.e., the Mishkan/Mikdash Mizbe’ach, not a *bamat yachid*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions