Zevachim 117
Summary
- The text delineates the three sanctity camps and adds an additional level in the Mikdash, establishes that Shiloh retains all three camps while only two function for kelitah, derives from verses that in the Midbar the Machaneh Leviya serves as an ir miklat and sets exile rules for a ben Levi, outlines what offerings may be brought on bamot in Gilgal according to Rabbi Meir, the Chachamim, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, resolves the scope of a nazir’s offerings on a bamah through Shmuel’s corrected position, reads “ish hayashar be’einav” to restrict chovot for a yachid on a bamah while permitting the tzibbur, uses “ish” to permit a zar on a bamah rather than reinstating bechorot, and distinguishes two sets of Chachamim by whether nesachim were brought in the Midbar.
- Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai states that in addition to *machaneh shekhinah*, *machaneh leviyah*, and *machaneh yisrael*, there is another level, the *cheil* and the *ezrat nashim*, where a *tamei* may not enter yet “ולא היו עונשים עליה.” He places *machaneh leviyah* from Har HaBayit up to the entrance of the azarah at Sha'ar Nikanor and identifies the *cheil* and *ezrat nashim* as a distinct sanctity tier preceding the *ezrat yisrael*. The baraita says “ובשילה לא היו אלא שתי מחנות בלבד,” and Rabba and Rava demonstrate that all three camps must exist in Shiloh to satisfy “ולא יטמאו את מחניהם” and the requirement for a *metzora* of “בדד ישב,” so “two camps” refers to a different function.
- The statement “לא היו אלא שתי מחנות” means with respect to *kelitah*, since Shiloh’s *machaneh leviyah* does not provide asylum for a killer, whereas in the Midbar it does. The baraita derives from “ושמתי לך מקום” that “בחייך” and “מקומך” teach that even in the Midbar there is *galut* to the *machaneh leviyah*, Moshe’s place. Rav Acha berei d’Rav Ika supports that a *ben Levi* who kills is *goleh* from one city to another, and if he undergoes *galut* within his own city then moving from one district to another suffices, as it says “כי בעיר מקלטו ישב,” indicating a city that already serves as his *miklat*.
- The baraita teaches that “kol neder v’nedavah” is offered on a *bamah*, while anything that is not a *neder v’nedavah* does not, and Rabbi Meir adds that *minchah* and *nezirus* are offered on a *bamah* because *nezirus* originates in a vow. The Chachamim say a *yachid* on a *bamah* offers only *olot* and *shelamim*. Rabbi Yehuda says that whatever the *tzibbur* and *yachid* may offer in the Ohel Moed in the *midbar* they may offer in the Ohel Moed in Gilgal, distinguishing that in the *midbar* bamot are prohibited whereas in Gilgal bamot are permitted, and a private rooftop *bamah* serves for *olot* and *shelamim* but not *minchah* or *nezirus*. The Chachamim state that whatever the *tzibbur* brings in the Ohel Moed in the *midbar* it brings in the Ohel Moed in Gilgal, and both on the *bamah gedolah* and *bamah ketanah* a *yachid* offers only *olot* and *shelamim*; Rabbi Shimon says that even the *tzibbur* brings only Pesachim and time-fixed *chovot* such as Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh, excluding a non-time-fixed *chovah* like par he’elem davar shel tzibbur.
- Rabbi Meir bases his view on “לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום … איש כל הישר בעיניו,” as Moshe tells Israel to bring only “yesharot” upon entering the Land during the first fourteen years, excluding *chovot*, and he classifies *minchot* and *nezirus* as “yesharot.” The Chachamim hold “ein *minchah* b’bamah” and treat *nezirus* as a *chovah*. Shmuel first limits their dispute to a nazir’s *chatat* and *asham*, but Rava challenges from a baraita that applies *chazeh v’shok* and *terumat lachmei todah* to a *bamah gedolah* but not a *bamah ketanah* while omitting the *zeroa beshelah* of a nazir’s *shelamim*, forcing Shmuel to conclude that the dispute concerns the nazir’s *olah* and *shelamim*, whereas regarding *chatat* and *asham* all agree they are *chovot* and are not brought on a *bamah*.
- The Chachamim read “איש הישר בעיניו יעשה” to mean that an “ish” brings only “yesharot” on a *bamah*, not *chovot*, while a *tzibbur* may even bring *chovot*. Rabbi Yehuda answers that “hayashar” modifies “be’einav,” indicating any site his eyes see, i.e., places where he may build a *bamah*, so restriction to “yesharot” applies to a private *bamah*, whereas on the *bamah gedolah* even *chovot* may be brought.
- Rabbi Yehuda uses “ish” to validate a *zar* performing *avodah* on a *bamah*, rather than deriving restriction for a *yachid*’s offerings. The objection that a *zar*’s license already follows from “וזרק הכהן את הדם על מזבח השם” is answered by noting that one might have thought to restore the *bechorot*’ service when there is *heter bamot*; “ish” teaches that any person may perform *avodah* on his *bamah*.
- Rav Pappa explains that the two statements of the Chachamim differ on whether *nesachim* were brought in the *midbar*. The first view holds that *nesachim* were not brought in the *midbar* and therefore not on a *bamah*, so when permitting *olot* and *shelamim* on bamot they are without *nesachim*. The second view holds that *nesachim* were brought in the *midbar* and thus are brought on private bamot in Gilgal, so whatever was brought in the Mishkan in the *midbar* is brought in Gilgal, including *nesachim*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions