זבחים 119:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵃnote:Not repeat ‘to’.
^ᵇnote:Josh. XVIII, 10. Cur. edd. quote the text rather differently.
^ᶜnote:Ps. CXXXII, 8. Cur. edd. quote: And it came to pass when the Ark rested, but there is no such text in the Bible.
^ᵈnote:Judg. XIII, 19.
^ᵉnote:This was simply a bamah, which was forbidden.
^ᶠnote:That permitted him on that occasion.
^ᵍnote:R. Simeon b. Yohai, an individual, won over the school of R. Ishmael to his view. Cf. supra 53b.
^ʰnote:That if one consecrated an animal when bamoth were permitted and offered it when they were forbidden, he does not incur kareth.
^ⁱnote:On the altar, i.e., burning the emurim.
^ʲnote:Lev. XVII, 8.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 107a. ‘Those just mentioned’ are those who consecrated the animal when bamoth were permitted and sacrificed them without when bamoth were forbidden (v. 7 is thus explained).
^ˡnote:Which would justify this command.
^ᵐnote:In Hebrew the difference is in one letter only.
^ⁿnote:This explicitly contradicts R. Kahana.
^ᵒnote:I.e., he has violated an affirmative precept; similarly in the other cases.
^ᵖnote:This last clause is obvious, and probably included merely for the sake of completeness. Tosaf. explains it thus: if one consecrated an animal for a burnt-offering, to be offered at the public bamah; even if he took it to the precincts of this bamah, and then took it out and sacrificed it at a private bamah, he is not liable.
^ᵠnote:Lev. I, 3f. ‘Before the Lord’ implies at a public place of sacrifice; similarly the others.
^ʳnote:Ibid., 11.
^ˢnote:Ibid. 5. Hence ‘round about’ is required only at ‘tent of meeting’, I.e., at a public altar.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. X, 15.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. VI, 7. This is the reading according to Rashi.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. XVII, 5. (10) Zebahim denotes sacrifices that are slaughtered (with shechitah). If, then, the word excludes meal-offerings, ipso facto it excludes bird-offerings, since these were killed with melikah, not shechitah.
^ʷnote:Lev. XVII, 6, excluding then a private bamah.
^ˣnote:Ex. XXVIII, 43. ‘In the holy place’ implies a public sanctuary, but not a private one.
^ʸnote:Num. IV, 12.
^ᶻnote:Lev. I, 9.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ex. XXVII, 5. From this verse we learn that a line of demarcation is necessary (supra 53a); ‘the altar’ is a limitation, implying only the altar in the Tabernacle, which was a public sanctuary.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XL, 32.
^ᵃᶜnote:That a line of demarcation was necessary at the public bamah.
^ᵃᵈnote:Emended text (Sh.M. and margin). ‘Sacrifices of the great bamah . . . of a minor bamah’ means those which were consecrated for sacrifice at a public or at a private bamah respectively. ‘No demarcation was required’ — their blood could be sprinkled above or below the line.
^ᵃᵉnote:Supra 117b. This implies that these laws operated whenever a sacrifice was offered at a great bamah, even if it had been consecrated for the small bamah. The same therefore should apply to the other laws which governed the great bamah.
^ᵃᶠnote:As explained in n. 8.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., when private bamoth were forbidden.
^ᵃʰnote:If a burnt-offering which was consecrated for a private bamah was carried within the precincts of the public bamah, the barriers of the public bamah receive it, and all the laws of the public bamah apply to it. This proves that even sacrifices consecrated for a private bamah are governed by the laws of a public bamah in such circumstances. A further corollary is that the laws of the public bamah hold good at all times, whether private bamoth were permitted or forbidden. — Rashi explains here that R. Eleazar means that he took the burnt-offering within the precincts of the public bamah after it was slaughtered. His interpretation in Me'ilah 3a, however, assumes that it applies before its slaughter too.