Zevachim 118a — the Talmud in English

6

The Gemara explains the reason of

Rabbi Judah,

who holds that the individual was excluded from offering his obligatory offerings only on a small bama, but on a large bama he may offer them:

He can say to you: When “what is upright” is written

, from which we exclude obligatory offerings for an individual,

“in his eyes” is what is written.

That is, only on a small bama, which is in every place that he chooses in his eyes.

But on a large bama, even obligatory offerings may also be offered 178.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Judah:

But it is written

in that verse,

“a man,”

and it is superfluous, for it could have written, “everyone who is upright in his eyes.” And is it not,

to say that “a man”

specifically, that is, the individual, with regard to him we say:

it is freewill offerings that may be offered, but obligatory offerings may not be offered!

But the community may offer even obligatory offerings.

And according to the words of Rabbi Judah, that an individual was excluded from obligatory offerings only on a small bama, it is obvious that the community is not included in this, for the community does not offer anything at all on a small bama; and why, then, was “a man” stated? Rather, certainly, the verse comes to exclude the individual, so that he should not offer his obligatory offerings even on a large bama. Therefore, it was necessary to write “a man,” to say that the community is not like the individual, but the community offers its obligatory offerings on a large bama?

And we answer:

When “a man” is written

—to qualify a non-koen

for the service of a bama, for it is not necessary that a koen serve there; rather, every “man” offers and sacrifices on his own bama himself.

And we raise an objection: But to qualify a

non-koen, it is derived from “and the koen shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord”

at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

it is derived

, for we expound: “a koen at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but there is no koen at a bama.” Why, then, was it necessary to say “a man”?

And we answer:

Lest you say that one must require

on a bama

the sanctification of firstborns as originally,

before the Tabernacle was erected, when the service on the bamot was performed by firstborns.

It teaches us

“a man” to include a non-koen, who is fit for the service on a bama, even though he is not a firstborn 179.

We learned in a beraita: And the Sages say: Everything that the community offers in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, they offer in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal; and in both here and there, only burnt offerings and peace offerings were offered for an individual.

And we inquire about it: These words of

“the Sages”

are

that is

the same as the words of

the first tanna,

who is the “Sages” mentioned at the beginning of the beraita. For according to their words as well, an individual offers only burnt offerings and peace offerings even on a large bama, whereas the community offers all its offerings on a large bama, since from “a man” specifically the individual was excluded from offering his obligatory offerings.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Whether libations were offered in the wilderness is the difference between them.

For the wording of the later Sages, who said, “Everything that the community offers,” is superfluous, since Rabbi Judah as well, whose words were taught before theirs, agrees with regard to the community. The Sages needed to teach us only the law of the individual, concerning which they disagreed with Rabbi Judah. 180 And it is precise from their words that they came to add to the words of the earlier Sages, who held that libations were not offered in the wilderness [because it is stated concerning libations, “when you come to the land of your dwelling places”]. The later Sages said that everything that the community offers in the wilderness, they also offer at Gilgal, including libations that were offered in the wilderness for the community and for the individual, and likewise at Gilgal on both bamot. The novelty stated in the passage of “when you come” is to obligate libations at Gilgal even on a small bama. And it is a novelty because this was not so in the wilderness, for bamot were prohibited there and there was no small bama there.

The Master said: Rabbi Shimon says,

Even the community offered only Passover offerings and obligatory offerings whose time was fixed.

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

And we explain:

For it is written: “And the Children of Israel performed the Passover at Gilgal,”

and why was this written? Is it not

obvious

that they were required to perform the Passover offering?

Rather, is it not that it teaches us this: It is obligatory offerings resembling the Passover offering,

whose time was fixed,

that may be offered

for the community;

but

obligatory offerings

not resembling the Passover offering,

whose time is not fixed,

may not be offered

, even for the community. And it teaches us that the Passover offering is considered a communal offering since it comes in an assembly, and nevertheless only offerings resembling it may be offered, those whose time is fixed.

But the other side,

the Rabbis who disagreed with Rabbi Shimon and hold that the community offers on a bama even obligatory offerings whose time is not fixed—if so, why was the verse “And they performed the Passover at Gilgal” written at all?

And we answer:

It is needed for that which Rabbi Yohanan said.

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: An uncircumcised man

who had corpse impurity

receives sprinkling

from the water of purification of the red cow while he is still uncircumcised, and becomes purified from his impurity. And we do not say that sprinkling upon an uncircumcised person is not considered sprinkling. And this law is learned from that Passover offering that they performed at Gilgal, for it is reasonable that they performed it according to its law: they were pure and circumcised. But in the wilderness, most of Israel did not circumcise themselves until after they crossed the Jordan; and they crossed on the tenth of Nisan, and on that day they did not circumcise themselves because of the weakness caused by the journey, but on the following day, the eleventh of Nisan. And most of them were persons with corpse impurity, having become impure through their fathers, who died in the wilderness throughout all forty years. 181 And necessarily, they received the first sprinkling, of the third day, on the tenth of Nisan while they were still uncircumcised. For if they had waited until the eleventh of Nisan and received the first sprinkling, which is on the third day of their impurity, the second sprinkling would have been on the fifteenth of Nisan, which is the seventh day of their impurity, and they would not have been able to perform the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan. And from all this it is proven that an uncircumcised man receives sprinkling.

A tanna taught before Rav Adda bar Ahava: There is no

difference

between a large bama and a small bama except Passover offerings and obligatory offerings whose time is fixed,

which the community offers on a large bama and not on a small one. But other obligatory offerings whose time is not fixed were not offered for the community even on a large bama.

He said to him,

Rav Adda bar Ahava

Whose opinion is the one who tells you this? It is Rabbi Shimon! For he says: There is no difference between a large bama and a small bama except Passover offerings and obligatory offerings whose time is fixed.

And he said to him further:

Interpret your Mishna,

the beraita in which you taught that obligatory offerings whose time is fixed were offered on a large bama, as dealing specifically

with an obligatory burnt offering,

such as the burnt offerings of the daily offerings and additional offerings, because

there is a freewill burnt offering

that is offered on a small bama. But an obligatory sin offering, even though its time is fixed, such as the goats of the Festivals of the community, was not offered on a large bama,

for if,

if the intention of the beraita was also

with regard to a

sin offering

as an offering brought voluntarily, does such a thing exist

that is offered on a small bama? And anything like which is not offered voluntarily on a small bama is not offered on a large bama, even though its time is fixed 183.

And from the words of the beraita we learned this: that on a large bama only offerings were offered for which there are freewill offerings of the same kind that are also offered on a small bama. For we learned: “Except Passover offerings and obligatory offerings whose time is fixed.” Why were Passover offerings mentioned at all? They are included among obligatory offerings whose time is fixed. Rather, certainly, it is to distinguish between them and to say that only Passover offerings are offered on a large bama even though offerings of their kind were not offered at all on a small bama, whereas other obligatory offerings whose time is fixed are offered on a large bama only if there are offerings of their kind that are offered on a small bama when they come as freewill offerings 184.

And we raise an objection:

And let us also establish

what we learned in the beraita, “obligatory offerings whose time is fixed,”

with regard to a meal offering, for there is

the meal offering of

the griddle cakes,

which is the obligation of the High Koen, and its time is fixed every day, in the morning and in the evening, and it is offered only on a large bama because it is a communal offering 185; and there is a meal offering that is also offered on a small one when it comes as a freewill offering 186.

And we answer:

The tanna

in the beraita holds that

there is no meal offering on a bama.

And if so, the beraita cannot be referring to a meal offering whose time is fixed being offered on a large bama.

We learned in the Mishna:

They came to Shiloh

... And there was no ceiling there, but a stone house below and curtains above.

And we inquire about it:

From where are these words

that this was so there?

And we explain:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One verse says, “And they brought him to the House of the Lord, Shiloh,” evidently it was a house. And one verse says, “He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent that He dwelled among man,” evidently it was a tent. And it is written, “He rejected the tent of Joseph, and He did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.”

And this was said concerning Shiloh, and the wording “tent” was said concerning it;

how

can these verses, which apparently contradict one another, be reconciled? Necessarily, one must say:

The verse teaches

that

there was no ceiling there, but stones below,

in the walls of the house, and therefore it was called “house”;

and curtains

covered it

above,

and therefore it was called “tent” 187.

We learned in the Mishna:

Less-sacred offerings

and second tithe are eaten in Shiloh

within all that can be seen.

And we inquire about it:

From where are these words

that they are eaten in every place from which Shiloh can be seen? 188

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The verse says,

after you come “to the resting place,” which is Shiloh,

“Beware lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see.”

And we expound:

In every place that you see, you shall not offer; but you may eat in every place that you see!

And we challenge:

Say: Wherever you see it, you may not bring it up, but you may slaughter it

that slaughter too is permitted

In every place where you see it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yannai said: The verse says, “

For only at the place that the Lord will choose

there you shall bring up

your burnt offerings

and there you shall perform.”

And it implies that the “performance,” that is, the slaughter, shall be in the place of the bringing up, namely, at the entrance of the Tabernacle, and not in all that sees.

Rav Avdimi bar Hama said:

The source for permitting the eating of lesser sanctified offerings throughout all that sees Shiloh,