Zevachim 116
Summary
- Today’s daf is dedicated לעילוי נשמת מרס מרסל בת רבי יעקב משה. The sugya parses a baraita about pre-Sinai offerings, deriving from “ויבן נח מזבח להשם” that all species—*behemah*, *chayah*, and *of*—were valid, permitting males, females, and even a *ba’al mum* while excluding a *mechusar eiver*. It establishes that animals destined to be called *tahor* could be offered and explains how Noach knew which were *tahor*. It debates whether pre-Sinai offerings included only *olot* or also *shelamim*, testing proofs from Hevel, from “עורי צפון ובאי תימן,” from Moshe’s words to Pharaoh, and from Yitro’s “עולה וזבחים,” with the timing of Yitro’s arrival itself a Tannaitic dispute tied to what he heard. It records the global reaction to Matan Torah via Bilam and the episode of Rachav. It affirms that contemporary gentiles may bring offerings on their own *bamah* with Jewish instruction but without Jewish agency, illustrates Rava’s directives for Ifr Hormiz’s *korban*, defends using entirely new materials per R. Elazar b. Shamua, clarifies David’s purchase from Aravnah/Ornan and the “מורגים,” and reconciles payment figures. It concludes that *kodshim kalim* remain permitted throughout the defined *Machane Yisrael* even during travel by virtue of “ונסע אהל מועד.”
- The baraita states that all types of animals were valid: *behemah*, *chayah*, and *of*. Rav Huna derives this from the pasuk “ויבן נח מזבח להשם … ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה ומכל העוף הטהור,” and includes *chayah* within *behemah* from “וזאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו.” The baraita permits male and female, unblemished and *ba’al mum*, but excludes *mechusar eiver*. R. Elazar derives the ban on *mechusar eiver* for *Bnei Noach* from “ומכל החי מכל בשר,” expounding that the animal’s limb-ends must be alive.
- The Gemara rejects reading “מכל החי” as excluding a *terefah* because exclusion of *terefah* emerges from *lechayos zera*. For the view that a *terefah* can give birth, the exclusion comes from *itkha*—“with you”—requiring animals like Noach himself. The suggestion that Noach might have been a *terefah* is rejected because “תמים” and “צדיק” are written about him and because it is inconceivable that Hashem would command bringing in animals like him if he were a *terefah* while excluding a whole animal. The phrase *lechayos zera* is still needed to teach that the entrants were for reproduction, not mere companionship, excluding even an old or sterile animal.
- The baraita states “טהורה ולא טמאה,” which the Gemara explains means those destined to be *tahor*. Noach’s knowledge is explained per Rav Chisda: he passed animals before the *teivah*; those the *teivah* admitted were *tahor*, and those it did not were *tameh*. Naharubai supports this from the wording *habbaim zakhar v’nekeva*, implying they came of their own accord.
- The baraita’s “והכל קרבו עולות” is revised to include *shelamim* in light of “ויזבחו זבחים שלמים להשם פרים,” but another baraita asserts “אבל שלמים לא כי אם עולות,” aligning with the view that *Bnei Noach* did not bring *shelamim*. R. Elazar and R. Yosi b. Hanina dispute this: one maintains *Bnei Noach* offered *shelamim*, deriving from “והבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן,” where only the fats are offered, characteristic of *shelamim*; the other reads “ומחלביהן” as “from the fattest,” still an *olah*. The opposing proof from “עורי צפון ובאי תימן” is read homiletically to assign the north to *olot* and to reserve south-offerings, namely *shelamim*, for Israel post-Sinai, while the other side reads it about ingathering of exiles.
- The verse “ויאמר משה גם אתה תתן בידנו זבחים ועולות ועשינו לה׳ אלהינו” is read as “זבחים” for eating and “עולות” for Hashem, supported by the reading with a kamatz. The verse “ויקח יתרו חתן משה עולה וזבחים” is situated after Matan Torah according to one view; according to the view that Yitro came before Matan Torah, that Tanna holds that *Bnei Noach* did bring *shelamim*. A Tannaitic dispute identifies what Yitro heard that prompted his coming and conversion: R. Yehoshua says the war with Amalek; R. Elazar haModai says Matan Torah; R. Elazar says Kriat Yam Suf.
- The account states that when the Torah was given, its sound traveled to the ends of the earth, kings trembled in their palaces, and they said “ובהיכלו כולו אומר כבוד.” They gathered to Bilam, fearing a deluge per “ה׳ למבול ישב,” and Bilam replied with “וישב ה׳ מלך לעולם,” affirming Hashem’s oath not to bring another *mabul*, not of water nor of fire, and revealed a treasured delight—Torah—stored 974 generations before creation, as per “השם עוז לעמו יתן,” prompting “השם יברך את עמו בשלום.” The verses about the nations’ loss of spirit are reconciled by Rachav’s testimony that no “standing of spirit” remained, indicating impotence; she knew because every official had been with her. The narrative reports that she was ten at the Exodus, practiced promiscuity throughout the forty years, converted at fifty, and asked that her sins be forgiven in the merit of the rope, window, and flax she used to save Yehoshua’s agents.
- The baraita teaches that non-Jews may do so now, inferred from “דברו אל בני ישראל” that only Israel is commanded on *shechutei chutz* while non-Jews are not. Therefore, each gentile may build a *bamah* and offer whatever he wishes upon it. R. Yaakov bar Acha in the name of Rav Asi forbids assisting them or serving as their agents, while Rava permits instructing them how to proceed.
- Ifr Hormiz, mother of Shapur Malka, sent a *korban* to Rava with the request to offer it for the sake of Heaven. Rava instructed Rav Safra and Rav Acha bar Huna to take two same-age gentile youths, gather fresh silted mud to form a new altar, take new wood, produce fire from new flint, and offer it l’shem shamayim. Abaye identified this with R. Elazar b. Shamua, who equates the wood’s prohibition of prior mundane use to that of the *mizbeach*, though he concedes a leniency for a *bamah*; Rava maintained even the cited case involved new items.
- The baraita presents two figures: fifty and six hundred. One answer is that David collected fifty from each tribe, totaling six hundred; another is that the cattle, wood, and altar site cost fifty while the entire Temple area cost six hundred. Rava resolves the remaining discrepancy by stating that he collected silver valued at six hundred gold. The term “מורגים” is explained as threshing implements, with support from “הנה שמתיך למורג חרוץ חדש בעל פיפיות.”
- The Mishnah’s rule that *kodshim kalim* are eaten throughout *Machane Yisrael* is clarified by Rav Huna as “anywhere Israel is,” but a baraita shows formal *machanot* existed paralleling Jerusalem: from Jerusalem to Har HaBayit is Machane Yisrael, from Har HaBayit to Sha’ar Nikanor is Machane Leviya, and beyond is Machane Shechinah, corresponding to the wilderness curtains. The rule is therefore read as “anywhere within Machane Yisrael,” and its novelty is that they are not invalidated by *yotzei* during journeys, for “ונסע אהל מועד” teaches it retains its status as the *Ohel Moed* even while traveling.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions