Zevachim 116 - Cycle 114
Summary
- This shiur presents the sugya on Zevachim 116b–117a about what offerings and animals were acceptable before the Mishkan, how Noach identified *tahor* species, whether gentiles could bring *shelamim*, what event prompted Yitro’s arrival, and the status of gentile offerings on *bamot* in later times. The Gemara derives that all species, males and females, unblemished and blemished were acceptable for gentiles before the Mishkan except a *machusar eiver*, and it distinguishes that from a *terefah* by verses in the Noach narrative. It explains Noach’s knowledge of *tahor* species via miraculous selection by the *teivah* or their self-arrival, with reconciliations to Rashi’s claim that Noach learned Torah. It presents the dispute whether *Bnei Noach* brought *shelamim*, examines proofs and counterproofs, addresses Yitro’s timing and motive for coming, and records aggadic expansions about national awe at Matan Torah and Rahav’s story. It rules that gentiles are not commanded in *shechutei chutz* and thus may build a personal *bamah* and bring offerings, that Jews may not assist but may instruct them, and it relates Rava’s protocol for Ifrā Hormiz’s offering and resolves textual discrepancies about David’s purchase of Aravna’s threshing floor.
- Rav Huna derives from “vayiven Noach mizbeach laHashem” and the taking “mikol habeheimah hatahorah u’mikol ha’of hatahor” that offerings before the Mishkan could come from any type of *beheimah*, with the halachic inclusion of *chayah* within *beheimah*. The baraita states that males and females, unblemished and blemished, were acceptable, excluding only a *machusar eiver*. R. Elazar derives the prohibition of *machusar eiver* for gentiles from “mikol hachai mikol basar shnayim mikol tavi el hateivah,” teaching that the animal must be alive with its limbs intact. Tosafot, as explained by the Stipler, holds that this is not among the seven Noahide laws with capital liability; rather, a gentile who vows to bring a *korban* does not fulfill his obligation with a *machusar eiver* and receives no credit for it.
- The Gemara rejects reading the exclusion as only a *terefah* by “le’hachayot zera,” since a *terefah* cannot propagate, and answers even for the opinion that a *terefah* can propagate by “le’hachayot itcha,” requiring animals comparable to Noach, i.e., not *terefot*. The suggestion that Noach himself was a *terefah* is rejected by “tamim” written about him, with answers that either a *terefah* can live (per that view), or the 12‑month limit applies to animals and not humans, or that the lack of seasons during the Flood removed the usual mortality trigger. The word “le’hachayot zera” is needed to exclude even a *zaken* or a *saris*, so the pairs ensure the capacity to replenish life rather than merely providing company.
- R. Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of R. Yochanan states that “tahor” there means those destined to be *tahor*. Rav Chisda teaches that Noach passed animals before the *teivah*: those the *teivah* accepted in sevens were *tahor*, and those it did not accept in sevens were *tamei*; R. Abahu states that they came on their own. Rashi in Chumash states “lamad Noach Torah,” and the reconciliation presented is that Noach learned which species are *tahor*, while the *teivah* miraculously screened out hidden disqualifications such as *terefah* status or an animal’s *aveirah* (as explained by R. Gamliel Rabinovitch in Gam Ani Odecha).
- The baraita states “hakol karvu olot,” implying that both Israel and gentiles brought an *olah*, whereas gentiles did not bring *shelamim*. Chiddushei haRim explains that an *olah*—totally to Hashem—is intelligible to gentiles, while *shelamim*, which fuses heavenly service and human consumption to “make peace” between man and Heaven, is a uniquely Israelite avodah. R. Chaim of Volozhin illustrates with Betzalel’s wisdom to direct donations appropriately, showing Israel’s capacity to blend intentions, unlike gentiles.
- R. Elazar and R. Yosi b. Chanina dispute whether gentiles brought *shelamim*. The proof for “yes” is Hevel’s offering “umechelvihen,” read as fats that go on the altar, implying *shelamim*; the answer for “no” reads it as “from the best.” The proof for “no” uses “Uri tzafon uvoi teman” as a poetic contrast between those whose service is “north-only” like an *olah* and Israel’s service in north and south like *shelamim*; the answer reads that verse about the ingathering of exiles. Moshe’s “gam atah titein beyadeinu zevachim ve’olot” is read as meat for eating and only *olot* as offerings, and Yitro’s “olah uzevachim” is placed after Matan Torah by that opinion; according to the view that Yitro came before Matan Torah, that Tanna holds gentiles did bring *shelamim*, and according to the view that he came after, he had already become a ger when he brought *shelamim*.
- The baraita asks what report Yitro heard that led him to come and convert: R. Yehoshua says the war with Amalek, R. Elazar haModai says Matan Torah whose voice resounded to the ends of the earth causing kings to tremble and say “kavod,” and R. Elazar says Keriat Yam Suf. The nations gathered to Bilam fearing another Flood; Bilam answered that Hashem would not destroy the world with water or fire and that He was giving a treasured gift stored 974 generations prior, namely Torah, as in “Hashem oz le’amo yiten.” R. Meir Shapiro teaches that Torah unites Israel more powerfully than shared troubles, and he frames Daf Yomi as that unifying force; Kedushas Levi teaches that the nations ceded Torah to Israel and even their holy neshamot to join Israel, fulfilling “Hashem yevarech et amo bashalom,” and another explanation reads Torah as the refinement of Israel’s *azut*. The report also reaches Rahav, who testifies to universal fear and loss of sexual function, knows this because every official had been with her, recounts that she began sinning at age ten, sinned for forty years, converted at fifty, and asks forgiveness for misusing rope, window, and flax by repurposing them to aid the spies.
- The Tannaim derive from “Daber el Bnei Yisrael” that Israel is commanded in *shechutei chutz* whereas gentiles are not, so each gentile may build a personal *bamah* and offer what he wishes. The distinction from the seven Noahide laws is that gentiles simply lack the prohibition of *shechutei chutz*; furthermore, Jews accept their *korbanot* because they are offered on the gentiles’ own behalf, whereas we avoid their charity so they cannot claim Israel depends on them. Rav Ika bar Yaakov in the name of Rav Asi rules that Jews may not assist or act as their agents in such offerings, but Rabba bar Rav Asi permits instructing them how to do it, and Tosafot Yeshanim limits the ban on teaching Torah to non‑Jews to gratuitous teaching, allowing instruction needed for their permitted observance.
- Ifrā Hormiz, mother of Shapur Malka, sent a *korban* to Rava asking that it be offered for the sake of Heaven, and Rava instructed to take two gentile lads of equal age, locate a place “where the sea dries,” build an altar where none had stood, use new wood, bring new fire, and offer it for the sake of Heaven. Abaye identified this with R. Elazar ben Shamua’s view that the altar’s stones and the wood must be unused, and the sugya clarifies that while he concedes leniency for a *bamah*, Rava maintains new materials even there. The narrative about David’s altar on Aravna the Yevusi’s threshing floor reconciles verses stating 600 gold shekels and 50 silver shekels by explaining that David paid 50 for the altar-site and 600 for the full area, or that he collected 50 from each tribe totaling 600, or that he gathered silver equal to the weight of 600 gold shekels. The “morigim” and “klei bakar” used as fuel are identified as a threshing sledge with spikes and cattle implements, and the conclusion maintains that even there they were new.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions