Zevachim 116
Summary
- Today’s daf centers on pre-Sinai sacrificial law, deriving from Noach the permissibility and limits of offerings before the Mishkan, and tracing which animals and conditions qualified, including the exclusion of a *mechusar eiver* and the status of a *treifah*. It presents the Rambam and Ramban’s use of the sugya in the debate over counting *mitzvot derabbanan* in Sefer HaMitzvot and contrasts the Rambam’s criteria for animal versus human *treifah*. It records a major dispute whether Bnei Noach brought *shelamim*, the capacity of non-Jews to bring offerings nowadays, the boundaries of Jewish assistance, and Rava’s detailed directives for a gentile’s *korban* done “*leshem Shamayim*.” It culminates in the famed *aggadah* on “Vayishma Yitro,” presenting three triggers for Yitro’s conversion, alongside homiletic teachings about the nature of unity (R. Meir Shapiro) and transforming the yetzer hara (Keren Ora).
- The sugya recalls the foundational *machloket* between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva over whether all generalities and details were given at Har Sinai, repeated at Ohel Moed and Arvot Moav (Rabbi Akiva), or whether only generalities were given at Sinai and details later (Rabbi Yishmael). The Rambam in Shoresh I uses this to argue against the Behag that one may not count *mitzvot derabbanan* among Taryag, while the Ramban in Megillat Esther deploys the sugya to critique or defend opposing views. The sugya is set against the backdrop of Eruvin 54, which outlines the pedagogic mechanism of Moshe teaching Torah in staged repetitions, distinguishing the “how” from the “what” of transmission.
- The baraita states that before the Mishkan, *bamot* were permitted, one could build a *mizbeach* anywhere, and the service was done by firstborns, with everyone eligible to offer from *behemah*, *chayah*, and fowl, male or female, *temimim* and *ba’alei mumim*, with everything offered as *olot*. The *olah* then required *hafshat ve-nituach*, and non-Jews are permitted to do so even nowadays. The Ohr HaChaim quotes a Zohar that in the future the *avodah* will return to the firstborns, though the exact arrangement is left for the days of Mashiach.
- The verse “ויבן נח מזבח לה'... ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה ומכל העוף הטהור” serves as the source that all types—*behemah*, with *chayah* included in *behemah* via Devarim’s usage, and birds—were eligible. The Maharal explains that *behemah* connotes “be-mah,” fixed essence without qualitative change, whereas adam (from adamah) embodies expansive potential, illustrating how lashon hakodesh encodes essence.
- R. Elazar derives that a *mechusar eiver* is prohibited for Bnei Noach from “מכל החי מכל בשר,” understood as requiring limbs whose tips are alive. The sugya entertains excluding *treifah* from “לחיות זרע,” debates whether a *treifah* reproduces, and resolves via “אתך” that those like Noach enter, excluding *treifah*, while “מכל החי” remains for *mechusar eiver*. The suggestion that Noach himself was a *treifah* is rejected by “*tamim* ketiv bei,” and not merely about *middot*, since “*tzaddik*” covers deeds; Tosafot cites Rabbeinu Tam that human *treifot* differ from animal *treifot* because “adam it lei mazla,” allowing different survivability.
- Once “אתך” excludes *treifah*, “לחיות זרע” teaches inclusion even of a *zaken* or *saris*, preventing a merely accompanimental reading of “אתך.” The Rambam in Hilchot Shechitah rules that the halachic definition of animal *treifah* follows Chazal’s list even if medicine suggests survivability, while in Hilchot Rotzeach he defines human *treifah* by medical prognosis, highlighting a human–animal distinction. The Rashba asserts that observable exceptions may be a nes, aligning with the notion that animals receive *hashgacha kelalit* while people receive *hashgacha pratit*, and the Michtav MeEliyahu urges care in identifying Chazal’s intent (e.g., on spontaneous generation), possibly reflecting halachic categorization rather than empirical mechanism.
- The phrase “*tehorin* but not *teme’in*” is explained either as animals “שלא נעבדה בהן עבירה” or as “מאותן שעתידין להיות טהור,” with Rashi in Noach concluding “מכאן שלמד נח תורה.” The sugya explains how Noach knew: either the tevah admitted those that were *tahor* and rejected others, or “והבאים זכר ונקבה” signals those that came on their own, indicating their status.
- The statement “והכל קרבו עולות” is refined to mean that *olot* are offered for all, and a dispute follows whether Bnei Noach offered *shelamim*. One view adduces Hevel’s “ומחלביהן” as fats unique to *shelamim*, while the other interprets it as “from the best” and cites “עורי צפון ובואי תימן” for a north–south sacrificial system unique to Israel. “זבחים ועולות” in Shemot is read as “zvachim” for eating and “olot” for the altar, and Yitro’s “עולה וזבחים” depends on whether Yitro came before or after Matan Torah, aligning each reading with the *machloket*.
- The Chatam Sofer asks how a non-Jew can send a *korban* if he lacks *shlichut*; he answers that by *kodashim* there is *shlichut* even for a gentile or that kohanim are “*shluchei d’Rachmana*.” The earlier dispute over whether gentile offerings bear full liability for piggul, notar, and tumah defines the halachic status of their *kodshim*. R. Yaakov Kamenetsky explains hashkafically why non-Jews bring only *olot*: Israel views body and soul as synergistic and sanctifiable—mirrored in offerings eaten and burned—whereas nations often see matter as inherently base, fitting a wholly consumed *olah*.
- Rabbi Yehoshua says Yitro heard the war with Amalek, and the Batei Aharon explains that Amalek “cooled” Israel’s exalted isolation, making conversion sociologically possible. R. Elazar HaModa’i says he heard Matan Torah, elaborating that when the Torah was given the divine voice traversed the world, kings trembled and consulted Bilam fearing another mabul, and Bilam answered that Hashem swore off a flood and now gives “חמדה טובה” long stored for 974 generations, prompting “ה' יברך את עמו בשלום.” R. Elazar says he heard Kriat Yam Suf, with Rahav reporting paralysis so profound that “ולא קמה עוד רוח באיש,” adding that even potency failed, and her later conversion leveraged “חבל חלון ופשתים” for mitzvah, reversing prior misuse.
- R. Meir Shapiro explains why the nations suspected a mabul: they recognized one model of unity born of shared danger (like the tevah), whereas Sinai revealed a higher unity grounded in shared purpose—“Hashem oz le’amo yiten... shalom.” The Keren Ora teaches that pre-Torah evil was addressed by destruction, but the Torah’s advent enables transforming and harnessing the yetzer hara so that rectification occurs without annihilation, culminating in universal recognition of Hashem.
- A derashah from “דבר אל בני ישראל” teaches that Israel is commanded on *shechutei chutz* while non-Jews are not, and, as Olat Shlomo notes, the verse also validates the acceptability of their offerings. It follows that each non-Jew may build his own *bamah* and offer what he wishes, though a Jew may not assist or act as his agent, yet may instruct him in relevant halachot. Ifra Hormiz sent a *korban* to Rava “*leshem Shamayim*,” and Rava directed Rav Safra and Rav Acha bar Huna to find two age-matched youths, fresh shoreline soil, new wood, and a new fire, reflecting R. Elazar ben Shamua’s view that even wood not used by a *hedyot* is required.
- The sugya raises sources indicating that a *bamah* need not require materials unused by a *hedyot*, citing David’s purchase from Aravna of the threshing floor, cattle, and “*morigim*,” yet Rava maintains those were also new. The Tur answers how Yaakov anointed stones despite the rule by asserting that for a *bamah* such usage is permitted, while the Minchat Chinuch answers that Yaakov’s stones were from the Akeidah and originally *kodesh*, immune to secularization. “Morigim” are identified as threshing implements (“mitah shel turbal”), and Rava resolves the textual tension between 600 gold and 50 silver by stating David collected silver equal in weight to 600 of gold, harmonizing Shmuel with Divrei HaYamim.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions