זבחים 119 — parallel

119:1

for it is written, And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, [and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem]. Now of Solomon it is written, And he began to build . . . in the fourth year of his reign. Thus three hundred and seventy less one was left for Shiloh. WHEN THEY CAME TO NOB AND GIBEON etc. How do we know it? — Because our Rabbis taught: For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, [which the Lord your God giveth thee]: ‘to the rest’ alludes to Shiloh, ‘inheritance’ alludes to Jerusalem. Why does Scripture separate them? In order to grant permission between one and the other. Resh Lakish said to R. Johanan: If so, let [the Mishnah] teach second tithe too? — As for tithe, he replied, the implication of ‘there’ is derived from ‘there’ [written] in connection with the Ark: since there was no Ark [at Nob and Gibeon], there was no tithe either. If so, the Passover-offering and [other] sacrifices are the same, for we learn the meaning of ‘there’ [in their case] from ‘there’ [written] in connection with the Ark: since there was no Ark, these too were not [offered]? — Who has told you [this]? he replied: R. Simeon, who maintained that even the community could only offer Passover-offerings and obligatory offerings which have a fixed time, but obligatory offerings for which there was no fixed time might not be offered at either place. Now, animal tithe is an obligatory offering without a fixed time, and corn tithe is assimilated to animal tithe. Hence it follows that in R. Judah's view [second tithe] is offered? — Yes. For surely R. Adda b. Mattenah said: Second tithe and animal tithe were eaten in Nob and Gibeon [only], in R. Judah's opinion. Yet surely a birah [Divine residence] was required? — Did not R. Joseph recite: There were three Divine residences, [viz.,] at Shiloh, [at] Nob and Gibeon, and [at] the Eternal House? He [R. Joseph] recited it, and he explained it: [These were] in respect of second tithe, and in accordance with R. Judah. WHEN THEY CAME TO JERUSALEM etc. Our Rabbis taught: For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance: ‘rest’ alludes to Shiloh; ‘inheritance’, to Jerusalem. And thus it says, My inheritance is become unto Me as a lion in the forest; and it says, Is My inheritance unto Me as a speckled bird of prey? this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: ‘Rest’ alludes to Jerusalem; ‘inheritance’, to Shiloh, as it is said, This is My resting-place for ever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it; and it says, For the Lord hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation. On the view that ‘rest’ alludes to Shiloh, it is well: hence it is written, ‘to the rest and to the inheritance’. But on the view that ‘rest’ alludes to Jerusalem while ‘inheritance’ alludes to Shiloh, [Moses] should say, ‘to the inheritance and to the rest’? — This is what he said: Not only have ye not reached the ‘rest’ [Jerusalem]; you have not even reached the ‘inheritance’ [Shiloh]. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Both [words] allude to Shiloh; R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Both allude to Jerusalem. It is well on the view that ‘rest’ alludes to

—

119:2

Shiloh [and] ‘inheritance’ to Jerusalem; or the reverse; hence it is written, ‘to the rest and to the inheritance’. But on the view that both allude to Shiloh or both allude to Jerusalem, he should say, ‘unto the rest and inheritance’? That is a difficulty. On the view that both allude to Shiloh it is well: ‘rest’ means when they rested from conquest, while [it is called] ‘inheritance’ because there they divided their inheritance, as it is said, And Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before the Lord; and there Joshua divided the land unto the children of Israel according to their divisions. But on the view that both allude to Jerusalem, ‘inheritance’ is well, as it means the eternal inheritance; but why is it called ‘rest’? — It was the place where the Ark rested, as it is written, Arise, O Lord, unto Thy resting-place, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength. On the view that both allude to Jerusalem, but that [during the period of] Shiloh bamoth were permitted, it is well; hence it is written, So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the Lord . But on the view that both allude to Shiloh, and bamoth were [then] forbidden, how [say], ‘and offered it upon the rock unto the Lord’? — It was a special dispensation. The school of R. Ishmael taught as R. Simeon b. Yohai, who maintained: Both allude to Jerusalem. And your token is, One man attracted [many] men. ALL THE SACRIFICES etc. R. Kahana said: They learnt this only of shechitah. But for offering up one incurs kareth too. What is the reason? Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt say unto them [which means,] thou shalt say concerning those just mentioned. To this Rabbah demurred: Is it then written, ‘and thou shalt say concerning them’; surely, ‘and thou shalt say unto them’ is written? Moreover It was taught: R. Simeon stated four general rules about sacrifices: If he consecrated them when bamoth were forbidden and slaughtered and offered [them] up when bamoth were forbidden, without, they are subject to a positive and a negative injunction, and entail kareth. If he consecrated them when bamoth were permitted and slaughtered and offered [them] up when bamoth were forbidden, without, they are subject to an affirmative and a negative injunction, and do not entail kareth. If he consecrated them when bamoth were forbidden, and slaughtered and offered them up without when bamoth were permitted, they are subject to an affirmative precept, but not to a negative precept. If he consecrated them when bamoth were permitted and slaughtered and offered [them] up when bamoth were permitted, he is not liable to anything at all. AND THE FOLLOWING SACRIFICES . . . LAYING [OF HANDS] etc. Laying [of hands] [is not practised at a private bamah] because it is written . . . before the Lord, and he shall lay his hand. Slaughtering in the north, because it is written, [And he shall kill it on the side of the altar] northward before the Lord. [Blood] applications round about [the altar], because it is written, And he shall sprinkle the blood round about the altar [that is at the door of the tent of meeting]. Waving, because it is written, To wave it for a wave-offering before the Lord. Presenting, because it is written, The sons of Aaron shall present it before the Lord, in front of the altar. R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: THERE WERE NO MEAL-OFFERINGS AT THE BAMAH. R. Shesheth said: On the view that there were no meal-offerings at the bamah, there were no bird [-offerings] [either]; on the view that there were meal-offerings at the bamah there were bird [-offerings] [also]. What is the reason? — [And sacrifice them for] sacrifices [zebahim]: ‘zebahim’, but not meal-offerings; ‘zebahim’, but not bird [-offerings]. PRIESTHOOD, because it is written, And the priest shall sprinkle the blood [on the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting]. PRIESTLY VESTMENTS, because it is written, [And they — the priestly vestments-shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons . . .] to minister in the holy place. SERVICE VESSELS, because it is written, [The vessels of ministry], wherewith they minister in the sanctuary. A SWEET ODOUR, because it is written, A sweet savour unto the Lord. A LINE OF DEMARCATION FOR [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD, because it is written, That the net may reach halfway up the altar. THE WASHING OF HANDS AND FEET, because it is written, And when they came near unto the altar, they should wash. Rami b. Hama said: They learnt it only about sacrifices of the great bamah which were offered at the great bamah; but no demarcation was required for sacrifices of a minor bamah which were offered at the great bamah. Rabbah raised an objection: [The laws of] the breast and the thigh, and the separation of the loaves of the thanksoffering, operated at the great bamah, but did not operate at a minor bamah! — Say, they are operative in connection with the sacrifices of the great bamah and are not operative in connection with the sacrifices of a minor bamah. Others say, Rami b. Hama said: They learnt it only when the great bamah [was essential], but when minor bamoth [were permitted], even if one sacrificed at the great bamah, there was no demarcation. Rabbah raised an objection: [The laws of] the breast and the thigh and the separation of the loaves of the thanksoffering operated at the great bamah, but did not operate at a minor bamah? — Say, they operate when the great bamah [was essential], but did not operate when minor bamoth [were permitted]. Now, he disagrees with R. Eleazar, for R. Eleazar said: If one took a burnt-offering of a minor bamah within, its barriers receive it in respect of all things. R. Zera asked: If one took the burnt-offering of a private bamah

—