Zevachim 119
Summary
- The sugya states that after Shiloh was destroyed and the Mishkan moved to Nov and Givon there was a heter for private altars, derived from “ki lo batem ad atah el ha-menuchah ve’el ha-nachalah.” It presents a dispute over whether ma’aser sheni (and ma’aser behemah) had to be eaten in Nov and Givon, linking the requirement to the Aron via a gezeirah shavah of “sham sham,” and aligning outcomes with Rabbi Shimon versus Rabbi Yehuda, with Rabbi Yosef counting Shiloh, Nov-Givon, and Beit Olamim as “birot.” It identifies menuchah and nachalah as either Shiloh and Yerushalayim (Rabbi Yehuda) or the reverse (Rabbi Shimon), entertains views that both words refer to the same place (either Shiloh or Yerushalayim), reconciles the verse’s order, and explains Manoach’s offering as a hora’at sha’ah under the view that both terms are Shiloh. It clarifies liability for offering outside when consecration occurred during heter versus isur through Rabbi Shimon’s four principles, and lists avodot and requirements that apply only on a bamah gedolah. It concludes with debates over mechitzah b’damim when offerings designated for a small bamah are brought on a large one (and vice versa), contrasted with Rabbi Elazar’s rule that the inner mechitzot “capture” an olat bamat yachid brought inside.
- The Mishnah states that upon arrival in Nov and Givon, after Shiloh’s destruction, there is a heter for private altars. The Gemara derives this from “ki lo batem ad atah el ha-menuchah ve’el ha-nachalah,” where the split wording grants a heter for bamot between Shiloh and Yerushalayim. If the verse had only said “el ha-menuchah,” there would be no heter after Shiloh, hence the dual terms indicate a permissive interim.
- Reish Lakish asks Rabbi Yochanan why the Mishnah omits ma’aser sheni for Nov and Givon; Rabbi Yochanan answers that ma’aser is learned via a gezeirah shavah of “sham sham” from the Aron. Since the Aron was not in Nov and Givon but in Kiryat Ye’arim and later in Ir David, ma’aser sheni did not have to be eaten there. Reish Lakish retorts that this logic should also exempt Pesach and other kodashim, and Rabbi Yochanan answers that the Mishnah follows Rabbi Shimon, who allows only Pesach and time-fixed communal obligations in Nov and Givon while excluding chovot without a fixed time, which excludes ma’aser behemah and, by hekesh, ma’aser dagan (ma’aser sheni). The Gemara infers that Rabbi Yehuda holds ma’aser sheni and ma’aser behemah are eaten in Nov and Givon and require a bira, and Rabbi Yosef teaches that Shiloh, Nov-Givon, and Beit Olamim are “birot” for eating ma’aser sheni according to Rabbi Yehuda.
- Rabbi Yehuda identifies menuchah as Shiloh and nachalah as Yerushalayim, proving nachalah from verses calling Yerushalayim “nachalati.” Rabbi Shimon identifies menuchah as Yerushalayim and nachalah as Shiloh, proving menuchah from “zos menuchati adei ad… ki vachar Hashem b’Tzion.” The order “el ha-menuchah ve’el ha-nachalah” is resolved for Rabbi Shimon as lo zo af zo: not only have they not reached menuchah, they have not even reached nachalah. Beit Rabbi Yishmael teaches “zu v’zu Shiloh,” and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai teaches “zu v’zu Yerushalayim,” and the wording “el ha-menuchah ve’el ha-nachalah” remains difficult for these views.
- The view “both are Shiloh” reads menuchah as resting from conquest and nachalah as division of the land at Shiloh, as per “vayipal lahem goral b’Shiloh al pi Hashem.” The view “both are Yerushalayim” reads menuchah as menuchat ha-Aron, from “kumah Hashem Elokim li-menuchatecha, Atah v’Aron uzecha,” and nachalah as the permanent inheritance of Yerushalayim.
- The view “both are Yerushalayim” implies bamot were permitted in Shiloh, fitting Manoach’s offering “vaya’al al ha-tzur la’Hashem.” The view “both are Shiloh” confronts Manoach’s offering when bamot would be asur and answers that it was a hora’at sha’ah commanded by a malach.
- The sugya states that Beit Rabbi Yishmael taught like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that “zu v’zu Yerushalayim,” with the mnemonic “mashchi gavra l’gavra,” meaning one man pulled many men to his view.
- The Mishnah rules there is no karet if one consecrated during a heter for bamot but offered outside after an isur for bamot. Rav Kahana limits the Mishnah to shechitah and holds that for ha’alah one incurs karet, deriving from reading “ve’alehem tomar” as “al ha-semuchim tomar,” but Rava rejects this because the text reads with an alef, not an ayin. A baraita of Rabbi Shimon states four klalim: if consecrated during heter and shechitah or ha’alah occurred outside during isur there is aseh, lo ta’aseh, and karet; if consecrated during heter and either shechitah or ha’alah occurred outside during isur there is aseh and lo ta’aseh but no karet; if consecrated during isur and shechitah or ha’alah occurred outside during heter there is aseh without lo ta’aseh; and if all occurred during heter one is fully exempt.
- Semichah applies only “lifnei Hashem,” excluding a bamah ketanah. Shechitat tzafon applies only “tzafonah lifnei Hashem,” excluding a bamah ketanah. Matanot saviv apply where the verse says “v’zarak… saviv… petach Ohel Mo’ed,” excluding a bamah ketanah. Tenufah applies where “henif ha-kohen lifnei Hashem,” excluding a bamah ketanah. Haggashah applies where “higishah el ha-mizbeach… lifnei Hashem,” excluding a bamah ketanah.
- Rabbi Yehuda says there is no minchah on a bamah. Rav Sheshet says that according to the view “yesh minchah b’bamah” there are also ofot on a bamah, and according to “ein minchah b’bamah” there are no ofot either, deriving “zevachim v’lo menachot, zevachim v’lo ofot.”
- A kohen is required only where “v’zarak ha-kohen” is linked to “petach Ohel Mo’ed,” excluding a bamah ketanah. Bigdei sharet and klei sharet apply “ba-kodesh,” which is in the Mishkan or Beit HaMikdash, excluding a bamah ketanah. Rei’ach nichoach applies “la’Hashem,” excluding a bamah ketanah. Mechitzah b’damim (upper and lower applications marked by the chut hasikra) is learned from “v’haytah ha-reshet ad chatzi ha-mizbeach,” applying to the large altar. Rechitzat yadayim applies where “u’v’kirvatam el ha-mizbeach yirchatzu,” again tied to the large altar.
- Rami bar Chama states in one version that the absence of a mechitzah applies only to kodshei bamah ketanah brought on a bamah ketanah, but if kodshei bamah ketanah are brought on a bamah gedolah there is a mechitzah; Rava challenges from a baraita about chazeh v’shok and terumat lachmei todah, and the Gemara emends it to “nohegin b’bamah gedolah ve’ein nohegin b’bamah ketanah,” removing the designation language. In a reverse version, Rami bar Chama states that mechitzah applies only to kodshei bamah gedolah brought on a bamah gedolah, but kodshei bamah ketanah retain no mechitzah even if brought on a bamah gedolah, and the same baraita is emended similarly. These positions conflict with Rabbi Elazar, who says that an olat bamat yachid brought inside is “caught” by the inner mechitzot for all requirements.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions