Zevachim 117 - Cycle 14
Summary
- This shiur presents the *Mishnah* that permits eating *kodashim kalim* “in every Machaneh Yisrael,” records Rav Huna’s reading and its refinement in light of a *beraita* equating the Midbar’s camps with Yerushalayim, and derives from “ve-nasa Ohel Moed” that sanctity persists through travel with Rashi and Tosafot disputing whether eating is allowed while on the move. It delineates the camp structure in Shiloh, the expulsion regimens for different *tum’ot*, and the function of Machaneh Leviyah for refuge, integrates R. Aharon Leib Shteinman’s account of the requirement of isolation for the *metzora*, and answers Sfat Emet’s question on Midbar-era refuge via “ושמתי לך מקום אשר ינוס שמה,” leading to rules for a Levi killer and the dispute among Rashi, Tosafot, and the Rambam. It then codifies what may be brought on *bamot* in Gilgal according to R. Meir, the Chachamim, R. Yehudah, and R. Shimon, derives R. Meir’s view from “לא תעשון... איש כל הישר בעיניו,” and, after Rava’s challenge, fixes Shmuel’s delimitation of a *nazir*’s offerings on a *bamah*, concluding with a conceptual debate whether *nezirus* constitutes acceptance of *korbanot* that affects the validity of *nezirus* without a Beit HaMikdash.
- Rav Huna reads the *Mishnah* “*kodashim kalim* are eaten בכל מחנה ישראל” to mean “בכל מקומות ישראל,” permitting consumption anywhere Jews live even if it is not a formal camp. Rashi states that Rav Huna allows eating *kodashim kalim* wherever Jews reside, and the Rogatchover in Sefer Tzafnat Pa’aneach explains that even those outside Machaneh Yisrael—such as *metzora’im* and the Erev Rav—may eat *kodashim kalim* in their places. Rabbeinu Chananel explains that “מחנה ישראל” in the Midbar refers to מקומות ישראל since there were only two camps (Machaneh Shekhinah and Machaneh Leviyah), with the people eating in Machaneh Leviyah.
- # Camps in Shiloh, Expulsion, and Refuge
- R. Aharon Leib Shteinman explains that the Torah imposes a special דין of שילוח that requires the *metzora*’s isolation so that no other *tamei* is with him, and placing him where others dwell fails the requirement of *badad yeshev*. Sfat Emet notes that if Machaneh Leviyah in Shiloh lacked refuge, there must have been effective Arei Miklat in the Midbar; the *Gemara* answers from “ואשר לא צדה... ושמתי לך מקום אשר ינוס שמה” that “מקומך” indicates exile in the Midbar to Machaneh Leviyah and to Arei Leviyah once designated at the end of the forty years by Moshe Rabbeinu. The *Gemara* rules that a Levi who kills goes into exile mi-pelekh le-pelekh, and if he remains in his own Ir Miklat, דפלכו קולטו, as derived from “כי בעיר מקלטו ישב עיר שקלטתו כבר.”
- # Bamot in Gilgal and Which Offerings Are Allowed
- The Chachamim maintain that communal offerings in both the Midbar and Gilgal were the same, and that even on a *bamat tzibbur*, only *olot* and *shelamim* of a *yachid* were brought. R. Shimon holds that even for the *tzibbur*, only Pesachim and time-bound communal obligations were brought on the *bamah gedolah* in Gilgal, excluding communal sin-offerings like Par He’elem Davar and Se’ir Avodah Zarah. R. Meir derives his view from “לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום איש כל הישר בעיניו,” reading “ish kol hayashar be’einav” to limit *bamah* offerings in Gilgal to voluntary *olot* and *shelamim*, with *minchah* and *nezirus* treated as “yesharot,” while the Chachamim reject *minchah* on any *bamah* and treat *nezirus* offerings as *chovot*. Rashi infers that Lechem HaPanim, being a *minchah*, was not brought on a *bamah*, while some hold that “אין מנחה בבמה” applies only to a *minchat yachid*, not to a *minchat tzibbur*.
- Shmuel first limits the dispute between R. Meir and the Chachamim about *nezirus* to the *chatat* and *asham*, treating the *olah* and *shelamim* of a *nazir* as universally “yesharot,” but Rava challenges from a *beraita* about the rules of Chazeh v’Shok and Terumat Lachmei Todah that omits the *zeroa beshelah* of a *nazir*, implying that Shelamim of a *nazir* are not brought on a *bamah*. Shmuel is therefore recorded as saying that the dispute concerns the *olah* and *shelamim* of a *nazir*, with the Chachamim prohibiting them on a *bamah* and R. Meir permitting them, while all agree that the *chatat* and *asham* of a *nazir* are *chovot* and not brought on a *bamah*. The Chidushei Basra explains that accepting *nezirus* is not tantamount to accepting *olot* and *shelamim*; rather, *korbanot* are outcomes of *nezirus*, so the Chachamim hold that *nezirus* takes effect even when *korbanot* cannot be brought, whereas R. Yosi treats *nezirus* as if it includes accepting *olot* and *shelamim* such that, since they cannot be brought without a Beit HaMikdash, *nezirus* cannot take effect.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions