Zevachim 117b (קיז:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees with all of them, as they maintain that the community offered all its sacrifices on the great bama, whereas he

says: Even

the

community did not offer

on the great bama

anything but Paschal offerings

and obligatory offerings whose time is fixed

that is, the daily offerings and the additional offerings, but the community did not offer obligatory offerings whose time is not fixed, such as the bull for an unwitting communal transgression and the goats for idolatry, during the period when private altars were permitted.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir,

who said that any offering that is not brought as a vow or voluntary offering is not offered on a small bama, whereas the offerings of a nazirite are offered?

And we explain:

As the verse states: “You shall not do in accordance with all that we are doing here today,

each person whatever is proper in his eyes.” This is its meaning:

Moses said to Israel: When you enter the Land of Israel,

and each individual will be permitted to offer on a private altar while the Tabernacle is at Gilgal, “you shall not do” there: You shall not offer each individual’s obligatory offerings as we offer them today in the Tabernacle in the wilderness; rather, “each person whatever is proper in his eyes.” That is, “each person”—the individuals—

shall offer what is proper

there, namely offerings brought as vows or voluntary offerings, which are not obligatory upon a person but are “proper” in his eyes to offer voluntarily. But

obligatory offerings you shall not offer

as individuals until you come to Shiloh. And the verse did not distinguish between a great bama and a small one; on both, an individual did not offer his obligatory offerings.

This is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s view that nothing that is not brought as a vow or voluntary offering is offered on a small bama: For at that time the individual did not offer any obligatory offerings at all, whereas the community did not offer its offerings on a small bama at all, but only on a great bama, as we learned in our Mishna: “Communal offerings are offered in the Tabernacle.”

However,

meal offerings and nazirite offerings

Rabbi Meir maintains are offered on a small bama, since

they are voluntary offerings,

as a meal offering is brought through a vow or voluntary offering. And although the offerings of a nazirite are obligatory for him to bring when the days of his naziriteship are completed, nevertheless they are considered “voluntary offerings,” since he accepted the naziriteship itself through a vow.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir and maintain that an individual offers on a bama only burnt offerings and peace offerings, but not meal offerings or nazirite offerings, give the following reason:

Meal offerings

were not offered, because

there is no meal offering on a bama

neither on a great one nor on a small one. And this is derived from Scripture, for with regard to permission to offer on private altars, the verse says “sacrifices,” and the Rabbis expounded: sacrifices, but not meal offerings.

Nazirite offerings

were not offered on a bama according to the Rabbis, because

they are obligatory offerings.

For the nazirite does not vow to bring his offerings; through his vow he merely prohibited himself from wine and cutting his hair, and consequently became obligated to bring the offerings when the days of his naziriteship were completed. Obligatory offerings were not offered by an individual on a bama.

Shmuel said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis regarding naziriteship, whether it is an obligation or a vow, applies specifically

to the sin offering and guilt offering

that the nazirite brings.

But regarding the burnt offerings and peace offerings

of the nazirite,

everyone agrees that they are “voluntary offerings,” and they are offered.

Since we find a circumstance in which these offerings are brought as vows or voluntary offerings even when the person was not a nazirite, a nazirite too is considered as though he vowed to bring them.

Rabba raised an objection:

We learned in a beraita:

The breast and thigh,

the portions raised from a peace offering and given to the priest,

and the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving offering,

the four loaves raised for the priest from among the forty loaves brought with the thanksgiving offering,

are practiced on a great bama

to give them to the priest from the offerings offered there.

But they are not practiced on a small bama.

For it is stated concerning them: “To wave them as a waving before the Lord,” and we expound: “before the Lord,” but not on a bama.

And Rabba infers:

But the cooked foreleg,

which is raised from the nazirite’s ram,

he omitted,

and the beraita did not mention that this raising is not practiced on a small bama. Why distinguish it from the other portions that are raised? Necessarily, the reason is that the nazirite’s ram is not offered on a bama at all, even though it is a peace offering.

And Rabba concludes his objection:

Granted, if you say that they disagree concerning burnt offerings and peace offerings,

Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and according to the Rabbis even the burnt offerings and peace offerings of naziriteship were not offered on a bama, it is possible to say that this beraita, which maintains that the nazirite’s ram is not offered on a bama,

is according to whom? It is according to the Rabbis.

But if you say that they disagree concerning the sin offering and guilt offering,

while with regard to burnt offerings and peace offerings the nazirite offered them on a bama according to everyone,

according to whom is this beraita?

According to whom did the beraita omit the law of the cooked foreleg raised from the nazirite’s ram? For according to everyone the nazirite’s ram is offered on a bama.

And we answer:

Rather, if this was stated, it was stated as follows: Shmuel said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis concerns

the burnt offerings and peace offerings

that the nazirite offers.

But regarding the sin offering and guilt offering

of the nazirite,

everyone agrees that they are obligatory offerings.

For they are never brought as vows or voluntary offerings,

and

therefore

they are not offered

on a bama. It follows that the beraita omitted the cooked foreleg according to the Rabbis, because the nazirite’s ram was not offered on a bama at all.

The Master said: And the Rabbis say: Anything that the community offers in the Tent of Meeting

in the wilderness, they offer in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal. In both places, only burnt offerings and peace offerings were offered for an individual.

And we raise a question about it:

What is the reason of the Rabbis,

who maintain that the community offers all its offerings on a great bama, whereas an individual does not offer his obligatory offerings even on a great bama?

And we explain:

The verse states,

during the period when private altars were permitted,

“Each person shall do whatever is proper in his eyes,”

and we expound: Specifically,

“each person,”

that is, an individual,

may offer voluntary offerings; he may not offer obligatory offerings.

But

the community may offer even obligatory offerings [

and this likewise implies that “each person” may not offer obligatory offerings at all, neither on a small bama nor on a great one].