Zevachim 120 - Cycle 14
Summary
- This shiur completes Masechet Zevachim by delineating which laws apply only to offerings on the Temple’s mizbeach and which do not apply on a *bamah*, deriving them from pesukim and clarifying exceptions and scope through sugyot and Rishonim. It states that a *kohen*, *bigdei kehunah*, *klei sharet*, *rechitzat yadayim v’raglayim*, upper/lower blood placements, and “rei’ach nichoach” are tied to avodah “bakodesh,” while many of these do not apply on a *bamah*, with notable debates and qualifications by Rami bar Hama, Rava, Rav Yosef, and Rabbi Elazar. It records disputes about night shechitah on a *bamat yachid* and whether an *olah* on a *bamah* requires *hifshit v’nitach*, alongside a baraita equating several core laws on both *bamah gedolah* and *bamah ketanah*. It establishes that time-bound disqualifications like *notar* and *piggul* apply equally on both *bamot*, addresses textual derivations and ancillary halachic implications, and concludes with homiletic reflections on time, the power of learning seder korbanot when the Beit HaMikdash is absent, and a hopeful hadran.
- The Gemara derives that a *kohen* is required only for avodah on the mizbeach from the pasuk וזרק הכהן את הדם על מזבח השם פתח אהל מועד. It derives that *bigdei kehunah* are required only when serving “bakodesh” from the pasuk והיו על אהרן ועל בניו בבואם אל אהל מועד או בגשתם אל המזבח לשרת בקדש. The Sfas Emes asks why one would require *bigdei kehunah* on a *bamah* once we know a *zar* may perform its avodah, and he answers that one might have thought *bamot tzibbur* require *bigdei kehunah*, so the drashah teaches they do not.
- The Gemara limits the requirement of *klei sharet* to avodah in the *kodesh* from אשר ישרתו בהם בקדש. It states that outside the *kodesh* (such as on a *bamah*) this requirement does not apply.
- The Gemara limits the mitzvah of bringing the offering in a manner of “rei’ach nichoach” to offerings at the mizbeach from והקטיר החלב לריח ניחוח להשם adjacent to וזרק הכהן את הדם על מזבח השם פתח אהל מועד. The Rashash explains that Rashi stresses the limitation “פתח אהל מועד” rather than “להשם,” because offerings on a *bamah* are also “rei’ach nichoach” to Hashem and the exclusion stems from the locus, not the term “להשם.” The Meshech Chochmah answers the apparent proof from נח—וירח השם את ריח הניחוח—by stating that Noach’s mizbeach stood at the destined site of the Beit HaMikdash and possessed its kedushah, so it is not a typical *bamah*, and the Rambam records that this is also the place of the Akeidah and where Kayin and Hevel brought offerings.
- The Gemara limits the upper/lower blood placement distinction to the mizbeach from והיתה הרשת עד חצי המזבח and states that no such *mechitzah* applies on a *bamah*. It limits *rechitzat yadayim v’raglayim* to approaching the mizbeach from ובקרבתם אל המזבח ירחצו.
- Rami bar Hama states that the distinction between upper and lower applications applies only to *kodshei bamah* intended for the *bamat tzibbur*, but if *kodshei bamah ketanah* are offered on the *bamah gedolah* then there is no upper/lower split. Rava challenges from the baraita about *chazeh v’shok* and *terumat lachmei todah* נוהגים בבמה גדולה ואין נוהגים בבמה קטנה, and the Gemara emends that these apply only to *kodshei bamat gedolah*. An alternate version has Rami bar Hama say that the upper/lower distinction exists only “bizman *bamah gedolah*” when it is operative; “bizman *bamah ketanah*,” even if offered on the *bamah gedolah*, אין חיצוי, and the baraita is emended accordingly. This stance argues with Rabbi Elazar, who says עולת במת יחיד שהכניסה לפנים קלטו מחיצתא לכל דבר, including that the distinction between upper and lower blood placements falls away.
- Rav Zeira asks about an עולת במת יחיד whose shechitah was done outside and which was then brought into the *azarah* and taken back out: whether once it entered the *mechitzot* it is “captured” and may not be removed, or whether removal undoes that status. Rashi explains the shechitah was outside, while Tosafot explains the shechitah was inside; the Chazon Ish states the doubt exists only if no avodah began inside, but once avodah began it may not be removed. The Gemara compares but does not equate this to the Me’ilah case of קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום which remain subject to me’ilah, with the inquiry עלו מהו שירדו, where Rav Amram says ירדו and Rav Yosef says אם עלו לא ירדו. The Gemara distinguishes that Rava’s stance about the mizbeach conferring kedushah differs from *mechitzah* status, and that even Rav Yosef’s rule of אם עלו לא ירדו in one-locus errors may not extend to offerings first slaughtered outside two loci.
- Rav and Shmuel dispute whether shechitah by night on a *bamat yachid* is כשרה or פסולה. The dispute turns on Rabbi Elazar’s readings of Shaul’s narrative, balancing ויאמר בגדתם גלו אלי היום אבן גדולה with ויגישו כל העם איש שורו בידו הלילה וישחטו שם. One approach distinguishes חולין (permitted at night) from קדשים (forbidden at night), and another distinguishes *kodshei bamat gedolah* (for which night is invalid) from *kodshei bamat ketanah* (for which night may be valid). The Rashash asks how offerings designated for the *bamah gedolah* could be brought on a *bamah ketanah*, and the Sefer Taharat HaKodesh answers that one fulfills an obligation functionally yet must still bring another on the *bamat tzibbur*.
- Rav states that an *olah* on a *bamat yachid* does not require *hifshit v’nitach*, while Rabbi Yochanan states that it does. They argue within Rabbi Yosi haGelili, who says that the *olos* offered by Israel in the midbar did not require *hifshit v’nitach* and that this requirement begins from the Ohel Moed and onward. Rabbi Yochanan holds that from the Ohel Moed forward there is no difference between *bamah gedolah* and *bamah ketanah*, while Rav limits the requirement to the *bamah gedolah*. A supporting baraita states that keren, kevesh, yesod, and ribua apply on the *bamah gedolah* but not on the *bamah ketanah*, that *chazeh v’shok* applies on the *bamah gedolah* but not on the *bamah ketanah*, and that both *bamot* share shechitah, *hifshit v’nitach*, dam matir, din of piggul, disqualification by mumim, and the time-frames of consumption.
- The Shem Mishmuel explains that *hifshit v’nitach* symbolizes “sur mera,” which was unnecessary in the midbar’s exalted state and became necessary upon entering Eretz Yisrael. The Zlotschover Maggid interprets והפשיט את העולה as removing ga’avah, fulfilled through ונתח אותה לנתחיה, cultivating self-effacement. The sources relate this to Shabbat 146a (פסקה זוהמתם), and they connect daily recitation of פרק איזהו מקומן to dedicating the day’s time to Hashem.
- The Tannaim derive that *zman* and *notar* are the same on both *bamah gedolah* and *bamah ketanah*, since לן is invalid and requires burning—והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף—and *piggul* likewise is to be burned. A counter-argument from יוצא is set aside because יוצא does not apply on a *bamah* lacking *mechitzot*. A kal va’chomer from ofot fails because a *zar* is invalid for ofot while a *zar* is valid on a *bamah*, so the pasuk זאת תורת השלמים equates *bamot* to establish that *piggul* applies on the *bamah ketanah* as on the *bamah gedolah*. The sugya concludes that even on a *bamah ketanah* there must be zerikat ha-dam, raising the question for Rabbi Shimon—who allows offering on the ground—where the *zerikah* occurs.
- The pasuk ולא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו is read by Sefer Alai Tzion as applying specifically to the Temple’s mizbeach, hence the term מזבחי, and not to a *bamah*. It follows that restrictions like steps do not extend to *bamot*.
- Sefer Tapuchei Chaim observes that although many stringencies are relaxed on a *bamah ketanah*, the laws of *zman* and *piggul* remain identical on both *bamot*, highlighting that closeness to Hashem centers on time and its proper use. It cites ראשית גוים עמלק to portray Amalek’s disregard for “reishit,” in contrast to dedicating the beginning of one’s day with פרק איזהו מקומן to avodat Hashem.
- The hadran affirms the relevance of learning Zevachim even without a Beit HaMikdash by invoking Megillah 31b, where Avraham pleads for Israel and Hashem responds: כבר תקנתי ihnen סדר קרבנות, וכל זמן שקוראים בהם מעלה אני עליהם כאילו המקריבים לפני קרבן, ומוחל אני להם על כל עונותיהם. It concludes that constant learning of Zevachim and seder korbanot effects taharah, draws us close to Hashem, and stands as a tefilah that our Torah should end the tragic “zevachim” of Jewish suffering and bring kedushah, taharah, and the coming of Mashiach Tzidkeinu.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions