Zevachim 115b (קטו:) — the Talmud in English

And since it is fit for the interior, one is liable for it when offering it outside,

as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: An asham that was detached

from the law governing its offering after its owner’s obligation was atoned for by means of another asham, and that was handed over

for grazing,

that is, it was given to a shepherd until it develops a blemish,

and it was slaughtered

before it developed a blemish,

without specification,

even not for the sake of an olah,

it is fit

itself

as an olah;

and the same is true of an asham whose time has not yet arrived: it itself is fit as an olah when it is slaughtered explicitly for the sake of an olah.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who offers the flesh of a sin-offering

outside is exempt.

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that one who offers the flesh of an

external

sin-offering, and the flesh of an asham, and the flesh

of other

holy of holies

that is, the lambs of Shavuot,

and the flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity, and the remainder

of the

omer

meal after the kemitza,

and the two loaves

brought on Shavuot,

and the showbread, and the remnants of meal-offerings

after the kemitza, outside,

for which one is exempt? The verse states

in the passage concerning slaughtering offerings outside: “That which he offers up

as an olah,”

and we derive:

Just as an olah is fit to be offered up

on the altar,

so too anything that is fit to be offered up

entails liability when offered outside. This excludes all these, as they are eaten and are not offered up on the altar .

From where is it derived that one who pours

oil on the meal-offering,

and one who mixes

the meal-offering,

and one who breaks

the meal-offering into pieces,

and one who salts

the offering,

and one who waves

the meal-offering,

and one who brings

the meal-offering to the altar,

and one who arranges

the showbread on

the table, and one who prepares the lamps, and one who takes the handful

of the meal-offering,

and one who receives the blood

in a vessel from the offering—if he performed any one of these

outside, [unclear: the source text is corrupted]

The verse states: “That which he offers up, an olah or a sacrifice,”

and we derive:

Just as offering up is the completion of the service,

after which there is no further service,

so too anything that is the completion of the service

such as one who pours wine, or burns the incense, or burns the handful, or burns a priests’ meal-offering, entails liability for it when performed outside. This excludes all the services listed here, which are not the completion of the service, as another service follows them .

We learned in the Mishna:

Before the Tabernacle was erected,

the bamot were permitted, and the service was performed by the firstborn.

Rav Hana bar Rav Ketina was sitting before Rav Hisda, and

Rav Hisda

was sitting and reciting

the verse stated [Exodus 24:5] concerning the offerings they brought at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah: “

And he sent the young men of the children of Israel,

and they offered up olot and sacrificed shelamim.” By reciting the entire verse as one continuous phrase, it was evident that he interpreted it to mean that the firstborn were the ones who offered the sacrifices.

Rav Hana said to him,

to Rav Hisda:

This is what Rav Asi said: “And they stopped!”

From that day, the service ceased to be performed by the firstborn, and from the giving of the Torah onward it was performed by the kohanim .

Rav Hisda considered

Rav Hana

to be refuted

by

a Mishna,

as we learned in it that until the Tabernacle was erected, the firstborn performed the service, and their service did not cease before the giving of the Torah.

But before he raised the objection again,

he heard

Rav Hana

say in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: “The olah that the Israelites offered in the wilderness

before the giving of the Torah, as stated in the aforementioned verse, “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel,”

does not require flaying and cutting into pieces,

but it is offered on the altar together with its hide.

And therefore he did not raise his objection from the Mishna; rather,

Rav Hisda refuted him

Rav Hana

from a baraita that equates all of them,

from which an objection could be raised against all of Rav Hana’s statements:

As it was taught: Before the Tabernacle was erected, the bamot were permitted, and the service

was

performed by the firstborn, and everything

was

fit to be offered

on the bamot:

animals, beasts, and birds,

male and female, unblemished and blemished, pure 108

but not impure.

And everything,

all offerings, did not

come to be offered

except as

olot.

And the olah that the Israelites offered in the wilderness required flaying and cutting into pieces.

And gentiles,

even

at the present time are permitted to do so,

to offer them on bamot all those mentioned above, as the offering of sacrifices on bamot was not prohibited to them.

This baraita presents a difficulty for Rav Hana, both regarding his statement that the service of the firstborn ceased with the giving of the Torah—for in the baraita we learned that they performed the service until the Tabernacle was erected—and regarding the olah that they brought in the wilderness, for in the baraita we learned that it required flaying and cutting into pieces, whereas Rav Hana said that it did not require flaying and cutting into pieces?

And we answer:

It is the subject of a tannaitic dispute,

as the tannaim disagree concerning the law of the service being performed by the firstborn.

As it was taught:

It is stated with regard to restricting the people at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah: “And also the kohanim who approach the Lord shall sanctify themselves.”

“And also the kohanim who approach the Lord shall sanctify themselves.”

That is, the kohanim who were accustomed to approach the Lord and offer sacrifices were to sanctify themselves by refraining from ascending the mountain.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says: This refers to the separation of the firstborn.

For the “kohanim” mentioned in this verse were the firstborn, who were warned to withdraw from the mountain. In accordance with this view, the baraita maintains that at the time of the giving of the Torah the service was still performed by the firstborn.

Rabbi says: This refers to the separation of Nadav and Avihu.

They were the kohanim who approached the Lord and were warned to withdraw; they had become kohanim for the service at Mount Sinai. In accordance with this view, Rav Hana maintained that from Sinai onward the firstborn were no longer called “kohanim,” because from that time the service was performed by kohanim.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to the one who says that this refers to the separation of Nadav and Avihu, this is why it is written

when Nadav and Avihu died, “

This is what the Lord spoke, saying: I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me.”

And where did He speak of it? In the separation that was stated to them at Mount Sinai, as it is written: “Lest He break forth against them.” Since they were not careful to withdraw from the Sanctuary when the Tabernacle was erected, He broke forth against them.

But according to the one who says that this refers to the separation of the firstborn, where is there an allusion

to the warning concerning the death of Nadav and Avihu given to Moses beforehand, and to what did the verse refer when it said, “This is what the Lord spoke”?

And we answer: The verse refers to that

which is written

on the day Moses was commanded concerning the work of the Tabernacle: “

And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and it shall be sanctified through My glory.” Do not read “through My glory” (bikhvodi), but rather “through My honored ones” (bikhvudai)! The Holy One, blessed be He, said this to Moses,

and hinted to him that on the day He would cause His Presence to dwell in the Tabernacle, He would be sanctified through His honored ones.

But he did not know

who those honored ones were

until the sons of Aaron died!

Once the sons of Aaron died

and he knew that they were the honored ones,

he said to him

to Aaron:

“My brother Aaron, your sons did not die except

in order

to sanctify the honor of the Omnipresent through them,”

to make known that He is awe-inspiring toward those who know Him, exacting retribution from the righteous for the few sins in their possession, and certainly from the wicked. This is the meaning of the verse, “This is what the Lord spoke: I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me,” through which He said to Moses, “And it shall be sanctified through My glory,” that is, through My honored ones and those who are close to Me I will be sanctified.

Once Aaron knew that his sons were known to the Omnipresent, he was silent, and he received reward for his silence. As it is stated: “And Aaron was silent,”

indicating that he was silent [and the reward he received was that the speech concerning the passage about those who drink wine was addressed specifically to him, as that passage follows the incident and was said only to him and not to Moses].

And similarly, with regard to David it says: “Be silent before the Lord and wait patiently for Him,”

meaning:

Even though He causes casualties to fall upon you, remain silent! And similarly, Solomon says: “There is a time to be silent and a time to speak.” Sometimes a person is silent and receives reward for his silence, and sometimes he speaks and receives reward for his speech.

And this is what Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: What is the meaning of that which is written: “God is awesome from Your Sanctuary”? Do not read “from Your Sanctuary” (mimmikdashekha), but rather “from Your holy ones” (mimmikudashékha).

And this is its meaning: When is He “awesome”?

When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment [

that is, “God,” which denotes the attribute of judgment],

through His holy ones;

He

becomes feared, exalted, and praised

through the fact that He exacts retribution even from the righteous.

The Gemara returns to Rav Hana’s words, for indeed we have found a source for his statement that the service of the firstborn ceased at Sinai.

However,

there still

is a difficulty concerning the olah:

with regard to his statement that the olah of the wilderness did not require flaying and cutting into pieces, Rav Hisda raised an objection from what we learned in the baraita, that it did require flaying and cutting into pieces?

And we answer:

It is the subject of a dispute between two tannaim.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael says: General principles were stated at Sinai, and details were stated in the Tent of Meeting.

According to him, only the general principles of the laws of offerings were stated at Sinai, such as “You shall make an altar of earth for Me and sacrifice your olot upon it”; but the detailed laws, such as flaying and cutting into pieces, were stated later in the Tent of Meeting. It follows that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the olah of the wilderness, which was offered at Sinai, was not yet subject to flaying and cutting into pieces, and Rav Hana follows Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: General principles and particulars were stated at Sinai, repeated at Ohel Moed, and stated a third time in the plains of Moab.

When Moses told them the Mishneh Torah, and according to his words the burnt offering of the wilderness required flaying and cutting into pieces, this is the rationale of the tanna of the beraita who obligates flaying and cutting into pieces, because these laws had already been stated at Sinai.

The Master said: All are fit to be offered

an animal, a wild animal, and a bird, etc.

And we raise an objection:

From where are these matters derived

that all are fit to be offered on a private altar?

And we explain:

Rabbi Huna said: The verse states, “And Noah built an altar to the Lord and took from every kosher animal and from every kosher bird,”

we learn from here that

an animal and a bird

are offered,

as its plain meaning indicates,

and consequently we also learn that

a wild animal

is offered, because a wild animal

is included within the category of animal.