זבחים 116 — parallel

116:1

‘Males and females, unblemished and blemished animals’: this excludes an animal lacking a limb, which might not [be sacrificed]. For R. Eleazar said: How do we know that [an animal or bird] lacking a limb was forbidden to the children of Noah? Because it says, ‘And of every living thing of all flesh’: the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: Bring [into the Ark] animal[s] whose chief limbs are alive. But perhaps that was to exclude a terefah? — That is inferred from to keep seed alive. That is correct on the view that a trefah cannot give birth; but on the view that a trefah can give birth, what can be said? — Surely Scripture said, ‘[to keep them alive] with thee’: [this means] those that are like thee. But perhaps Noah himself was trefah? — ‘Whole’ [tamim] is written of him. Perhaps that means, whole in his ways? — ‘Righteous’ is written of him. But perhaps [it means that he was] whole in his ways and righteous in his actions? — If you should think that Noah himself was trefah, could the Merciful One say to Noah, Take in [only] such as are like thee, [but] do not take in whole [animals]? Now, since we infer it from ‘with thee’, what is the purpose of ‘to keep seed alive’? — You might think that ‘with thee’ meant merely for companionship, [so they might be] even aged or castrated. Therefore [‘to keep seed alive’] informs us [that it is not so]. [The master said:] ‘Clean, but not unclean’. Were there then clean and unclean [animals] at that time? — Said R. Samuel b. Nahmani in R. Jonathan's name: [It means] of those with which no sin had been committed. How did he [Noah] know? — As R. Hisda said. For R. Hisda said: He led them past the Ark; those which the Ark accepted were certainly clean; those which the Ark rejected were certainly unclean. R. Abbahu said: Scripture saith, ‘And they that went in, went in male and female’: [that means,] that they went in of their own accord. The master said: ‘And all offered burnt-offerings’. Only burnt-offerings, but not peace-offerings? Surely it is written, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen? — Say rather, all offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. But it was taught: But not peace-offerings, save only burnt-offerings? — That is in accordance with the view that the Children of Noah did not offer peace-offerings. For it was stated, R. Eleazar and R. Jose b. Hanina [disagree]. One maintained: The Children of Noah offered peace-offerings; while the other maintained: They did not. What is the reason for the view that the Children of Noah did offer peace-offerings? — Because it is written, And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat [heleb] thereof. What thing is it whose ‘fat’ [heleb] [only] is offered on the altar, but the whole of it is not offered on the altar? Say, that is a peace-offering. What is the reason of the view that the Children of Noah did not offer peace-offerings? — Because it is written, Awake, O north, and come, thou south: [this means,] Awake, O people whose rites [were performed] in the north, and come, O people, whose rites [will henceforth be performed] in the north and the south. But as to this master, surely it is written, ‘of the fat thereof’? — That means, of their fat ones. And as to the other master, surely it is written, ‘Awake, O north [etc.]’? — That refers to the ingathering of the exiles. But surely it is written, And Moses said: ‘Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices [zebahim] and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God? — [He demanded] zebahim for food and burnt-offerings for sacrifice. But surely it is written, And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices unto the Lord? — That was written after the giving of the Torah [Revelation]. That is well on the view that Jethro came after Revelation; but on the view that Jethro came before Revelation, what can be said? For it was stated: The sons of R. Hiyya and R. Joshua b. Levi [disagree]: one [side] maintains: Jethro came before Revelation; while the other maintains: Jethro came after Revelation! — He who maintains that Jethro came before Revelation holds that the Children of Noah sacrificed peace-offerings. This is a controversy of Tannaim: Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, heard: what news did he hear that he came and turned a proselyte? R. Joshua said: He heard of the battle with the Amalekites, since this is immediately preceded by, And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. R. Eleazar of Modim said: He heard of the giving of the Torah and came. For when the Torah was given to Israel the sound thereof travelled from one end of the earth to the other, and all the heathen kings were seized with trembling in their palaces, and they uttered song, as it is said, And in his place all say: ‘Glory’. They all assembled by the wicked Balaam and asked him: What is this tumultuous noise that we have heard: perhaps a flood is coming upon the world, for it says, The Lord sat enthroned at the flood? — The Lord sitteth as King for ever, he replied: the Holy One, blessed be He, has already sworn that He will not bring [another] flood upon the world. Perhaps, they ventured, He will not bring a flood of water, yet He will bring a flood of fire, as it is said, For by fire will the Lord contend? He has already sworn that He will not destroy all flesh, he assured them. Then what is the sound of this tumult that we have heard? He has a precious treasure in His storehouse, which was hidden by Him nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created, and He has desired to give it to His children, as it is said, The Lord will give strength unto His people. Forthwith they all exclaimed, The Lord will bless His people with peace. R. Eleazar said: He heard about the dividing of the Red Sea, and came, for it is said, And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites heard [. . . how that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the children of Israel] ; and Rahab the harlot too said to Joshua's messengers [spies]: For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea. Why is, ‘neither was there spirit in them any more written in the first text, whereas in the second it says, ‘neither did there remain [stand] any more spirit in any man’?

—

116:2

— [She meant that] they even lost their virility. And how did she know this? — Because, as a master said, There was no prince or ruler who had not possessed Rahab the harlot. It was said: She was ten years old when the Israelites departed from Egypt, and she played the harlot the whole of the forty years spent by the Israelites in the wilderness. At the age of fifty she became a proselyte. Said she: May I be forgiven as a reward for the cord, window, and flax. The master said: ‘And gentiles are permitted to do thus in these days’. How do we know it? — Because our Rabbis taught: Speak unto the children of Israel: the children of Israel are enjoined against [sacrifices] slaughtered without, but gentiles are not enjoined against [sacrifices] slaughtered without. Therefore each one may build himself a bamah and offer thereon whatever he desires. R. Jacob b. Aha said in R. Assi's name: It is forbidden to assist them or act as their agents. Raba observed: Yet we may instruct them. [This happened with] Ifra Hormiz, mother of King Shabur, who sent an offering to Raba, with the request, Offer it up in honour of Heaven. Said Raba to R. Safra and R. Aha b. Huna: Go, fetch two young men [non-Jews] of like age, seek a spot where the sea has thrown up alluvial mud, take new [unused] twigs, produce a fire with a new flint, and offer it up in honour of Heaven. Said Abaye to him: In accordance with whom [do you give these instructions]? In accordance with R. Eleazar b. Shammua’? For it was taught, R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ said: As the altar must not have been used by a layman [for secular purposes], so the wood must not have been used by a layman. But surely R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ admits in the case of a bamah? For it was taught: One text says, So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight; whereas it is written, So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver; how can these be reconciled? He collected fifty [shekels] from each tribe, which amounted to six hundred [in all]. Rabbi said on the authority of Abba Jose b. Dosethai: [He bought] the oxen, wood, and site of the altar for fifty, and [the site of] the whole Temple for six hundred. R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ said: [He bought] the oxen, wood, and site of the altar for fifty, and [the site of] the whole Temple for six hundred, for it is written, And Araunah said unto David: ‘Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him; behold the oxen for the burnt-offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the furniture of the oxen for the wood’. And Raba? — He can answer you: There too they were new. What are morigim? — Said ‘Ulla: A bed of turbel. What is a bed of turbel? — Said Abaye: ‘A goat with hooks’, with which the threshers thresh. Abaye said: Which text [proves this meaning]? — Behold, I make thee a new threshing-sledge [morag] having sharp teeth; [thou shalt thresh the mountains etc.]. Raba read out [Scripture] to his son, and opposed texts to each other: It is written: ‘So David gave to Ornan etc.’; whereas it is also written, ‘So David bought etc.’ How can these be reconciled? He collected fifty from each tribe, which totalled six hundred. Yet the texts are still contradictory, for there it was silver and here it was gold? — Say rather: He collected silver to the value [weight] of six hundred [shekels of] gold. LESSER SACRIFICES WERE EATEN ANYWHERE IN THE CAMP OF THE ISRAELITES. R. Huna said: [This means,] wherever the Israelites were, but there was no camp. R. Nahman refuted R. Huna: Were there no camps in the wilderness? Surely it was taught: Just as there were camps in the wilderness, so there was a camp in Jerusalem. From [the walls of] Jerusalem to the Temple Mount was the camp of the Israelites; from the Temple Mount to the Gate of Nicanor was the Levitical camp; beyond that was the camp of the Shechinah, and that corresponded to [the place within] the curtains in the wilderness! — Say rather, wherever the camp of the Israelites was. That is obvious? — You might say, it is disqualified through having gone out. Therefore he informs us [otherwise]. Yet say that it is indeed so? — Scripture saith, Then the tent of meeting shall set forward: even when it sets forward, it is still the ‘tent of meeting’. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Yet another place was there, [viz.] the Women's Court, and no penalty was imposed on its account. But at Shiloh there were only two camps. Which was absent? — Said Abaye: It is logical that there was certainly the Levitical camp; for if you should think that there was no Levitical camp,

—