Zevachim 119 - Cycle 14
Summary
- This shiur sets the chronology of the Mishkan from the desert through Gilgal, Shiloh, Nov, and Givon to the First Temple, deriving precise year-counts from verses and traditions and establishing that Shiloh stood 369 years, Nov and Givon 57 years, and the desert 39 years, with Gilgal 14 years for conquest and division. It delineates when *bamot* are permitted—between the fall of Shiloh and the building of the Temple—based on the verse “כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה,” with “מנוחה” as Shiloh and “נחלה” as Jerusalem (per Rabbi Yehuda), alongside other opinions. It analyzes laws of offering outside when *bamot* are forbidden, refutes an attempt to impose karet for העלאה based on whether the dedication occurred during *heter bamot*, and details avodah distinctions between a public and private *bamah*. It attributes substantial conceptual distinctions to the Brisker Rav (kedushat hamakom of Shiloh and the Mikdash), the Malbim (dispute hinging on whether Jerusalem was divided among the tribes), the Keren Orah and Rambam (enduring sanctity prevents future *bamot*), as well as homiletics from Ahavat Yonatan, Bnei Yissaschar, and Rabbi Meir Shapiro.
- The beraita states: ימי אהל מועד שבמדבר - ארבעים שנה חסר אחת. It states ימי אהל מועד שבגלגל ארבע עשרה, comprising שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו. It states ימי אהל מועד שבנוב וגבעון חמישים ושבע, and after summing those periods plus the year from *Yetziat Mitzrayim* to the erection of the *Mishkan*, 111 years remain, which when subtracted from the 480 years until the First Temple yield נשתיירו לשילה שלוש מאות ושבעים חסר אחת (369).
- The Gemara derives 39 years in the desert from the sequence: בשנה ראשונה עשה משה את המשכן, בשניה הוקם המשכן, and that year משה sent the *Meraglim*. It proves ארבע עשרה in Gilgal from Kalev’s ages, as he was 40 at the sending of the *Meraglim*, 78 upon crossing the Jordan after the additional 38 years, and 85 at his claim, establishing שבע שכבשו, and then infers שבע שחלקו either by symmetry or from prophetic chronology.
- The Gemara cites יחזקאל פרק מ: בעשרים וחמש שנה לגלותנו... בארבע עשרה שנה אחר אשר הכתה העיר, showing a Yovel alignment only after settlement. It calculates 850 years from entry to the destruction, equal to 17 יובלים, and infers that the initial 14 years (שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו) were not counted toward Yovel because Yovel begins only after the nation is fully settled.
- The Gemara establishes 57 years from the report of the Ark’s capture and the death of Eli—בשעת מיתת עלי הכהן חרב שילה ובאו לנוב—then from the death of Shmuel—חרבה נוב ובאו לגבעון—and from the verse: ויהי מיום שבת הארון בקרית יערים... ויהיו עשרים שנה. It breaks those twenty years into ten of Shmuel’s sole leadership, one overlapping with Shaul, two of Shaul, and seven of David over Judah, then adds David’s 33 years in Jerusalem and Shlomo’s fourth year of reign to reach 57 from Eli’s death until the building of the Temple.
- The beraita expounds לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עשים פה היום... כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה, identifying המנוחה as Shiloh and הנחלה as Jerusalem, and explains the split to teach כדי להתיר בין זה לזה. The Brisker Rav states that Shiloh and the Temple possess kedushat hamakom, which forbids *bamot*, whereas Nov and Givon, though functioning as the *Ohel Moed*, lacked kedushat hamakom, so *bamot* were permitted in that interim.
- Reish Lakish challenges that the Mishnah should include מעשר שני, and Rabbi Yohanan answers that מעשר שם שם ארון כיופי links Maaser to the Aron, so without the Aron (as in Nov and Givon) Maaser Sheni is not constrained there. The Gemara resolves the Bayit Sheni difficulty by distinguishing that Jerusalem is a place suitable for an Aron even when absent, unlike Nov and Givon which never had that level of sanctity.
- The Gemara asks why not derive the same for Pesach and other offerings via the same גזירה שוה, and Rabbi Yohanan attributes the omission to Rabbi Shimon, who limits the public offerings brought on the great *bamah* to Pesach and other fixed-time obligations. The Gemara adduces a היקש—עשר תעשר—equating מעשר בהמה and מעשר דגן, stating that since מעשר בהמה is not brought on a *bamah*, neither is מעשר שני listed. The Gemara concludes that according to Rabbi Yehuda, who allows obligations without fixed times on the great *bamah*, מעשר בהמה and מעשר שני apply in Nov and Givon, supported by Rabbi Yosi’s teaching of שלש בירות הן—שילה ונוב וגבעון ובית עולמים—defining “בירה” as a locus for eating Maaser Sheni.
- Rabbi Yehuda says מנוחה שילה נחלה ירושלים and proves “נחלה” for the Temple from verses in Yirmiyahu; Rabbi Shimon says מנוחה ירושלים נחלה שילה and cites זאת מנוחתי עדי עד and כי בחר ה' בציון. The Tanna d’bei Rabbi Yishmael says זו וזו שילה, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says זו וזו ירושלים, with the Gemara noting the linguistic difficulty for single-place readings and offering contextual resolutions. The Malbim explains the core dispute as depending on whether Jerusalem was divided among the tribes, enabling “נחלה” for Jerusalem per Rabbi Yehuda and restricting it to Shiloh per Rabbi Shimon.
- The Keren Orah explains, in line with the Rambam, that even absent a verse explicitly about Jerusalem, the Shechinah’s sanctity endures, thus permanently prohibiting *bamot* after Jerusalem. The Gemara cites Manoach’s offering—ויקח מנוח את גדי העזים... ויעל על הצור—either as evidence of permitted *bamot* after Shiloh per the view making both terms Jerusalem, or as a הוראת שעה per the view that Shiloh already forbids *bamot*.
- The Gemara reports that the Tanna d’bei Rav Shmuel adopted Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s view that זו וזו ירושלים. The mnemonic משך גברא לגברי indicates that the single master (Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai) drew the academy of Rav Shmuel to his view.
- Ahavat Yonatan (R. Yonatan Eybeschutz) connects “נחלה” to the earth’s power of purification, framing Jerusalem as a purifying נחל and locus of burial merit. Bnei Yissaschar equates Shabbat as יום המנוחה with Jerusalem’s enduring sanctity, asserting that Shabbat’s sanctity remains with a person throughout the week. Rabbi Meir Shapiro states that true מנוחה is inseparable from Torah—the *Aron*—hence מנוחת הארון defines Jerusalem’s Menucha.
- The Mishnah states that one who consecrates during *heter bamot* but offers during *issur bamot* violates a positive and negative command but has no karet. Rav Ada limits the no-karet rule to שחיטה, asserting that העלאה בחוץ incurs karet even if consecrated during *heter bamot*, based on ואליהם תאמר איש איש אשר יעלה עלה או זבח ואל פתח אהל מועד לא יביאנו ונכרתה. The Gemara challenges the reading as אל אליהם and brings a beraita of Rabbi Shimon with four cases: consecrated and offered during *issur bamot* incurs עשה, לא תעשה, and karet; consecrated during *heter bamot* but offered during *issur bamot* incurs עשה and לא תעשה without karet for both שחיטה and העלאה; consecrated during *issur bamot* but offered during *heter bamot* incurs only עשה without karet or לא תעשה; and consecrated and offered during *heter bamot* is פטור מכלום in the sense explained by Tosafot for cases intended for the public *bamah*. The Gemara concludes תיופתא דרב כהנא תיופתא, thereby refuting the karet extension.
- The Mishnah limits סמיכה to לפני ה', excludes שחיטת צפון because צפונה לפני ה' applies only in the Mikdash, and restricts מתנות סביב, תנופה, and הגשה to the Temple altar. The Mikdash David reads this as support that “צפון” denotes the north of the altar rather than the north of the Azarah, since a *bamah* has no Azarah yet still lacks a צפון requirement. The Tanna Kamma allows a מנחה on a *bamah* without תנופה and הגשה, whereas Rabbi Yehuda states אין מנחה בבמה.
- Rav Sheshet states that one who holds יש מנחה בבמה also holds יש עופות בבמה, while Rabbi Yehuda, who says אין מנחה בבמה, also says אין עופות בבמה, deriving from וזבחו זבחי שלמים לה' אותם that only זבחים were brought on a *bamah*. The Makor Baruch cites Rav Itzele Ponivezher that שחוטי חוץ applies to a bird killed outside because on a *bamah* a bird would be slaughtered by שחיטה, while other Acharonim argue that any bird brought as a *korban* is killed by מליקה regardless of location.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions