Zevachim Daf 117 - Which Korbanos Are Brought on a Bamah
Summary
- This shiur presents the Mishnah’s rule about eating kodshim in the Midbar, Rav Huna’s reading that expanded permissibility for eating *kodshim kalim*, and the beraita that maps the three camps to Jerusalem and resolves the concern of *yotzei* via “ve-nasa Ohel Moed.” It attributes to רבי שמעון בן יוחאי an added sacred zone of Cheil and Ezrat Nashim and the claim that Shiloh had only “two camps,” which the sugya resolves as a limitation in klitah for a rotzeach rather than the absence of a camp, with proofs that the Midbar’s *machane Leviyah* was koleit. It then outlines the eras of permitted *bamot* beginning in Gilgal and the tannaitic matrix: רבי מאיר’s limitation to *neder/nedavah*, the Chachamim’s stricter stance on a *bamat yachid*, רבי יהודה’s inclusion of individual chovot on a *bamat tzibbur*, and רבי שמעון’s restriction of communal offerings to Korban Pesach and fixed-time chovot, with the derashah from לא תעשון... איש כל הישר בעיניו and the complex status of Menachot and Nezirus. It concludes with Shmuel’s framing of the Nazir-offering dispute, a challenge from *chazeh v’shok* and *terumat lachmei todah*, an adjustment limiting agreement on Nazir’s *chattat* and *asham* as absolute chovot, and noted questions from Tosafot and the Panim Me’iros about conceptual distinctions within Nezirus.
- The Mishnah states “קדשים קלים נאכלים בכל מחנה ישראל.” Rav Huna states that this means “בכל מקומות ישראל” and that there was effectively no defined *machane Yisrael* limitation for eating *kodshim kalim* in the Midbar. The Tzafnas Paneach, citing the Sifrei to “ויהי העם כמתאננים... ותאכל בקצה המחנה,” identifies separate zones at the camp’s edge for *gerim* (the *erev rav*) and for *metzoraim*, and explains that while shiluach teme’im required being outside the *machane Yisrael*, eating *kodshim kalim* was permitted everywhere the nation was located.
- A beraita equates the Midbar’s camps to Jerusalem’s zones: from the city to Har HaBayit is *machane Yisrael*, from Har HaBayit to Sha’ar Nikanor is *machane Leviyah*, and from there inward is *machane Shechinah*, paralleling the Midbar’s kelayim. The sugya resolves Rav Huna by reading the Mishnah as “בכל מקום מחנה ישראל,” permitting consumption of previously sanctified *kodshim kalim* in the next encampment after travel. The hava amina treats the move as *yotzei*, and the conclusion relies on “ve‑nasa Ohel Moed,” that even in transit it retains the status of Ohel Moed; Eilat HaShachar underscores the novelty of this ruling.
- רבי שמעון בן יוחאי adds a further sacred area—Cheil and Ezrat Nashim—and states that one who entered there in *tumah* was not punished, consistent with Kelim that *temei metim* and non-Jews entered Har HaBayit but not the Cheil and Ezrat Nashim. רבי שמעון בן יוחאי further states that Shiloh had only two camps, prompting analysis of which camp was absent and how to maintain the Torah’s expulsion requirements for different levels of *tumah*.
- Rava reasons that Shiloh must have had a *machane Leviyah*, since otherwise *zavin* and *temei met* would be expelled identically, conflicting with “ולא יטמאו את מחניהם.” The alternative—that no *machane Yisrael* existed—would cause *zavin* and *metzoraim* to share a zone, contradicting “בדד ישב,” with Tosafot noting that רבי שמעון derives separate placements from “וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב.” Keren Ora questions parallel cases in Nov, Givon, and even Gilgal, and raises the role of *ayarot mukafot chomah*; Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik suggests that, on the side that Shiloh lacked *machane Yisrael*, the walled cities also lacked that status.
- The conclusion states that Shiloh did have all three camps, and that “two camps” means with respect to klitah: the *machane Leviyah* in Shiloh did not provide refuge for a rotzeach. The Brisker Rav and the Chazon Ish identify Shiloh’s *machane Yisrael* with the city of Shiloh, whereas Keren Ora and Sfas Emes align it with “כל הרואה” of Shiloh, arguing that the boundary of *achilat kodshim kalim* in Shiloh indicates the extent of *machane Yisrael*. The Brisker Rav separates the din of *achilat kodshim* from the din of camp-purity boundaries, noting that their overlap in Jerusalem is incidental rather than definitional.
- The sugya infers that the Midbar’s *machane Leviyah* was koleit from “ושמתי לך מקום,” promising Moshe, “בחייך,” and from “מקום אשר ינוס שמה,” teaching that exile in the Midbar went to the *machane Leviyah*. Upon entry to Eretz Yisrael, all forty‑eight Levitical cities functioned as *arei miklat*, consistent with the Levitical refuge paradigm established in the Midbar. “לך” is further read regarding Levi’im: a *ben Levi* who killed goes “מפללך לפללך,” and if he remains in his own city “פלכו קולטו,” derived from “כי בעיר מקלטו ישב,” with Tosafot noting the dagesh in the kaf of “לפלכו.”
- Upon arrival at Gilgal, *bamot* become permitted, and a beraita rules that any *korban* brought as *neder/nedavah* may be brought on a *bamah ketanah*, while obligatory offerings are excluded. רבי מאיר includes *minchah* and the *korbanot* of *Nezirus* on a *bamah ketanah*, treating them as voluntary because Nezirus itself is voluntary. Rashi answers that Korban Pesach, though obligatory upon each participant, is a communal *korban*, allowing it to be brought despite the limits on an individual’s *chovah*. The Chachamim state that an individual on a *bamat yachid* brings only *olot* and *shelamim*.
- רבי יהודה states that whatever the community and the individual brought in the Midbar’s Ohel Moed they bring in the Ohel Moed at Gilgal, enabling even an individual’s *chovot* on a *bamat tzibbur*. The practical difference is that in the Midbar private *bamot* were forbidden, while in Gilgal private *bamot* were permitted, though a rooftop *bamat yachid* was limited to *olah* and *shelamim*. The Chachamim likewise equate communal service in the Midbar and Gilgal but maintain that, in both public and private contexts, an individual brought only *olah* and *shelamim*. רבי שמעון limits communal offerings at Gilgal to Korban Pesach and chovot fixed in time, excluding offerings like פר העלם דבר של ציבור and שעירי עבודה זרה.
- רבי מאיר derives the Gilgal regime from לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום... איש כל הישר בעיניו, reading איש as the individual and “כל הישר בעיניו” as permitting only *neder/nedavah*, thereby excluding an individual’s *chovah* from any *bamah*. רבי מאיר counts *menachot* and *korbanot Nezirus* as *neder/nedavah*, while the later Chachamim hold “אין מנחה בבמה” and treat Nezirus offerings as *chovot*. Tosafot notes that the exclusion of “זבחי שלמים” extends to *ofot* where there is no *minchah*, and raises tension with רבי יהודה’s equation of Midbar and Gilgal regarding communal service alongside the rule that there is no *minchah* on a *bamah*.
- Shmuel ultimately frames the dispute as about the Nazir’s *olah* and *shelamim*, while all agree that the Nazir’s *chattat* and *asham* are *chovot* and are not brought on a *bamah*. A beraita states that *chazeh v’shok* and *terumat lachmei todah* apply on a *bamah gedolah* but not on a *bamah ketanah*, and its omission of the Nazir’s *zerowa beshelah* implies that Nazir‑*shelamim* are not brought on a *bamah* according to the Chachamim. Tosafot asks, on the opinion that Nazir‑*shelamim* are not brought even on a *bamah gedolah*, how to reconcile Avshalom’s statement “אלכה נא ואשלם את נדרי... בחברון” (Temurah 14) about bringing his Nezirus offering at a private site.
- Panim Me’iros questions why *olah* and *shelamim* would count as *neder/nedavah* while the Nazir’s *chattat* and *asham* are *chovot*, given that all arise from voluntary Nezirus. The suggested resolution treats the Nazir’s *asham* as contingent on failure and the *chattat* as a side‑obligation for self‑denial, whereas the core kabbalat Nezirus aligns with *olah* and *shelamim*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions