Zevachim 118 - Cycle 14
Summary
- This shiur presents the baraita and ensuing sugyah on what offerings the tzibbur and yachid bring in the Ohel Moed and at Gilgal, the scope of a bama gedolah versus a bama ketana, and the derashot from איש כל הישר בעיניו יעשה that delimit chovot and nedarim v’nedavot for individuals and the tzibbur, with Rabbi Yehuda permitting a yachid’s chovah on a bama gedolah. It derives that a zar may perform avodah on a bama ketana and rejects a hava amina that bechorim are required there, with the Chazon Ish inferring that in the early era even a korban yachid was by bechorim absent a pasuk. It distinguishes opinions about nesachim in the midbar and at Gilgal, presents Rabbi Shimon’s rule that only Korban Pesach and chovot she’kavu lahem zeman of the tzibbur are offered, and uses the verse of Pesach ha’na’aseh b’Gilgal for either that model or for Rabbi Yochanan’s halacha that an arel Yisrael shenitma b’met mekabel hazaa. It codifies ein mincha b’bama while explaining how minchat chavitin can still be treated as a korban tzibbur at times, describes Mishkan Shiloh’s structure and the halacha of eating kodshim b’chol ha’ro’eh with scriptural and aggadic supports centered on Yosef’s kedushah, records practical visibility conditions and unresolved queries, and establishes that the Shechinah’s resting is in Binyamin’s portion with reasons for his merit, resolves Shiloh’s border placement via a strip into Binyamin, and presents a tannaitic dispute mapping לבנימין אמר across eras.
- The Chachamim say that כל שהציבור מקריבים באהל מועד they bring at Gilgal, and in both places a yachid brings only *olah v’shelamim*. The Gemara derives the Chachamim’s rule that a yachid does not bring a *korban chovah* on a bama from איש כל הישר בעיניו יעשה, reading איש as yachid and ישרות as *nedarim v’nedavot*. The Gemara states that a tzibbur may bring even chovot, but a yachid’s chovot like *asham* or *chatat* do not come on a bama.
- Rabbi Yehuda says the pasuk איש כל הישר is limited to בעיניו and speaks about a *bama ketana*, restricting a yachid there to *nedarim v’nedavot*. Rabbi Yehuda holds that on a *bama gedolah* a yachid may bring even chovot, including *chatat* and *asham*. Taharat HaKodesh explains that Chachamim read בעיניו to permit *nedarim v’nedavot* on a *bama ketana*, learn from לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עשים פה היום that chovot are not permitted on a *bama gedolah*, and read איש הישר בעיניו to allow bringing on a *bama ketana* but only ישר—namely *nedarim v’nedavot*.
- Rabbi Yehuda reads איש to be le’hakhsher a *zar* for avodah on a *bama ketana*. The Gemara rejects deriving this solely from וזרק הכהן את הדם על מזבח ה' פתח אהל מועד by explaining that without איש one might think ליתו *bechorim* כמעיקרא for bama service, and the pasuk teaches even a *zar*. The Chazon Ish infers from the Gemara’s hava amina that in the era of *bechorim* the avodah included even a *korban yachid*, hence the need for a pasuk to exclude that requirement on bamot.
- Rav Pappa says the later Chachamim in the baraita differ from the Tanna Kamma regarding *nesachim* in the *midbar*. The Tanna Kamma holds that *nesachim* begin with כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם and thus not in the *midbar*, whereas the later Chachamim hold that *nesachim* accompany a *korban yachid* already in the *midbar* and continue at Gilgal, reading כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם as referring to Gilgal.
- Rabbi Shimon says that the tzibbur at Gilgal brings only Korban Pesach and chovot she’kavu lahem zeman. Rabbi Shimon derives from ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח בגלגל that only chovot like the Korban Pesach are brought, and Tosafot notes that Rabbi Shimon cannot agree with the de’ah of Beit Rabbi Yishmael that Korban Pesach does not apply at Gilgal. The dissenting Tannaim use that pasuk for Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai that an arel Yisrael shenitma b’met mekabel *hazaa*, enabling Korban Pesach at the appointed time after milah post-crossing of the Jordan.
- A baraita states that אין בין *bama gedolah* ל*bama ketana* אלא פסח וחובות שקבוע להם זמן, singling out Korban Pesach to illustrate that it is on the *bama gedolah* but not the *ketana*. The Gemara establishes that offerings that can be both *chovah* and *nedavah*—such as *olat chovah* and an *olat nedavah*—divide between *bama gedolah* for the *chovah* and *bama ketana* for the *nedavah*, while a *chatat* has no *nedavah* counterpart. The Gemara declines to frame the case with a *minchat chovah* like *chavitin* because it holds אין מנחה בבמה. The Mishneh LaMelech asks why *minchat chavitin* is called a korban tzibbur, and the Or Sameach answers from Menachot 50b that when there is no Kohen Gadol, the tzibbur funds the daily *chavitin*, so it can assume the status of a korban tzibbur in that circumstance.
- The Gemara reconciles ויביאהו בית ה' שילה with ויטש משכן שילה אהל שכן באדם by stating that Shiloh has stone walls below and curtains above. The Gemara derives from השמר לך פן תעלה עלתיך בכל מקום אשר תראה that eating kodshim is permitted בכל מקום אשר תראה, while Rabbi Yannai reads כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' באחד שבטיך שם תעלה עלתיך ושם תעשה כל אשר אנכי מצוך to require that all avodah and hak’tarah occur only at the chosen place. Rav Adimi bar Chama supports b’chol ha’ro’eh from ותאנת שילה, and Rava links it to בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין, presenting Yosef’s kedushah as measure-for-measure for eating “as far as the eye” sees in Shiloh. Additional peshatim emphasize that Yosef needs no external mechitzot to preserve kedushah and that, per the Pnei Menachem, Yosef does not covet what is not his, fitting a geograph of halachic visibility boundaries.
- A baraita states that בכל העריות שאמרו requires ro’eh kulah and no obstruction, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yaakov illustrates with the beit knishta d’Ma’on. Rav Pappa rules that ro’eh miktzata suffices. The Gemara leaves unresolved whether standing-and-seeing but sitting-and-not-seeing permits eating while standing, and whether standing on a bank that affords visibility validates eating in an adjacent non-visible location.
- Rav Dimi says in the name of Rabbi that the Shechinah rests at three sites—Shiloh, Nov and Giv’on, and Beit Olamim—and in all of them only in Binyamin’s portion, as stated לבנימין אמר ידיד ה' ישכן לבטח עליו חופף כל היום ובין כתפיו שכן. The Keren Orah suggests that identifying these as Shechinah-sites implies aliyah la’regel obligations there, and the sugya presents reasons Binyamin merits this: his pain at lacking the full Mikdash, his tribe’s leaping first into the Sea, his being born in Eretz Yisrael, his status as the youngest, and his non-participation in the sale of Yosef.
- Rav Yosef challenges Abaye from ויטוש משכן שילה ... וימאס באהל יוסף ובשבט אפרים לא בחר to locate Shiloh in Ephraim rather than Binyamin, and Rav Ada answers that the Shechinah can be in Binyamin while the Sanhedrin is in Yosef. The Gemara resolves proximity by asserting adjacent borders and describes a strip extending into Binyamin, paralleling the Mizbe’ach straddling Yehuda and Binyamin in the Mikdash and Binyamin’s mitzta’er alav. The Gemara identifies ותאנת שילה with Binyamin’s anguish that he does not encompass it all.
- One Tanna reads חופף עליו as Mikdash Rishon, כל היום as Mikdash Sheni, and ובין כתפיו שכן as Yemot HaMashiach, all in Binyamin’s portion. Rabbi reads חופף עליו as Olam HaZeh, כל היום as Yemot HaMashiach, and ובין כתפיו שכן as Olam HaBa, indicating an ever-ascending closeness to Hashem. The sugya concludes that the view keeping the Shechinah in Binyamin even at Mishkan Shiloh follows the opinion that applies לבנימין אמר across these eras, whereas the opposing view limits it to the Beit HaMikdash.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions