Zevachim 118a (קיח.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara

explains the reasoning of

Rabbi Yehuda,

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

He can say to you: When “that which is upright” is written—

from which we exclude obligatory offerings for an individual—

“in his eyes” is what is written.

That is, this applies only to a small bama, which may be wherever it is right in his eyes to establish it.

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

And we challenge Rabbi Yehuda:

But it is written

in that verse,

“a man,”

and this is superfluous, since it could have written, “Everyone who does what is upright in his eyes.” Is it

not, indeed, to indicate that “a man”

specifically—that is, an individual—is the one about whom we say:

It is only freewill offerings that he may offer; but obligatory offerings he may not offer!

But the community may offer even obligatory offerings.

Yet according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an individual was excluded from offering obligatory offerings only on a small bama, it is obvious that the community is not included in this exclusion, since the community does not offer anything at all on a small bama. Why, then, does the verse say “a man”? Rather, certainly the verse comes to exclude an individual, so that he may not offer his obligatory offerings even on a large bama. Consequently, it was necessary to write “a man,” to indicate that the community is not like an individual; rather, the community offers its obligatory offerings on a large bama?

And we answer:

When “a man” is written, it is

to deem a non-koen fit

for the service of a bama, since it is not necessary for a koen to serve there; rather, every “man” may offer an offering on his own bama himself.

And we challenge this: But the qualification of a

non-koen 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 follows

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

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind that one should require

at a bama

the sanctification of firstborn animals as at the beginning,

before the Tabernacle was established, when the service on the bamot was performed by firstborn animals.

It teaches us that “a man”

includes a non-koen, who is fit for service on a bama, even though he is not a firstborn animal.

We learned in a beraita: And the Sages say: Whatever the community offers in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, it offers in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal; and in both places, only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were offered for an individual.

We raise a question concerning this: These words of

“the Sages”

are

identical

to those of

the first tanna,

who is the “Sages” mentioned at the beginning of the beraita. According to them 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 it is specifically the individual who was excluded by the word “a man” from offering obligatory offerings.

And we answer:

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

The wording of the later Sages, who said, “Whatever the community offers,” is otherwise superfluous, since Rabbi Yehuda, whose statement was taught before theirs, also concedes this with regard to the community. The Sages therefore needed to teach us only the law concerning an individual, regarding which they disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. It is precise from their words that they came to add to the statement of the earlier Sages, who maintained that libations were not offered in the wilderness, because it is stated concerning libations, “When you enter the land of your dwelling places.” The later Sages said that whatever the community offers in the wilderness it also offers at Gilgal, including libations that were offered in the wilderness for the community and for an individual, and likewise at Gilgal on both bamot. The novel element taught by the passage “When you enter” is that libations are obligatory at Gilgal even on a small bama. This is novel because it was not so in the wilderness: bamot were prohibited there, and there was no small bama there.

The Master said: Rabbi Shimon says,

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

We raise a question concerning this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

And we explain:

As 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 Paschal offering?

Rather, is it not teaching us this: Obligatory offerings analogous to the Paschal offering,

whose time is fixed,

are what may be offered

by the community;

but

obligatory offerings

not analogous to the Paschal offering,

whose time is not fixed,

may not be offered

even by the community. The verse teaches us that the Paschal offering is considered a communal offering because it is brought by an assembly, and nevertheless only offerings resembling it, whose time is fixed, may be offered.

And the other view:

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

And we answer:

It is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yohanan.

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

who was impure with impurity imparted by a corpse

may receive the sprinkling

from the waters of the red heifer while he is still uncircumcised, and thereby become purified from his impurity. We do not say that a sprinkling performed while one is uncircumcised is not considered a sprinkling. This law is derived from that Passover offering performed at Gilgal, for it is reasonable that they performed it according to its law: They were pure and circumcised. Yet in the wilderness most of Israel had not circumcised themselves until after they crossed the Jordan. They crossed on the tenth of Nisan, and on that day they did not circumcise themselves because of the weakness caused by the journey; rather, they did so on the following day, the eleventh of Nisan. Most of them were therefore impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, having become impure through their fathers, who had died in the wilderness during all forty years. They must necessarily have received the first sprinkling, performed on the third day of their purification, 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 performed on the third day of their impurity, the second sprinkling would have been on the fifteenth of Nisan, the seventh day of their impurity, and they would not have been able to perform the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan. All this proves that an uncircumcised man may receive the sprinkling.

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

difference

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

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

He said to him,

Rav Adda bar Ahava

Whose view is this statement attributed to you? It is Rabbi Shimon! For he said: There is no difference between a large bama and a small bama except for Paschal offerings and obligatory offerings whose time is fixed.

He further said to him:

Interpret your Mishna—

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

to a burnt-offering of obligation,

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

there is a freewill burnt-offering

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

For if

the intention of the beraita was also

a sin-offering

of obligation, this would be difficult: Is there a

freewill sin-offering

that may be offered on a small bama? Any offering that has no counterpart offered as a freewill offering on a small bama may not be offered on a large bama, even if its time is fixed.

We learn this from the beraita: On a large bama only offerings were offered that have freewill offerings of their type that are also offered on a small bama. For we learned: “Except for Paschal offerings and obligatory offerings whose time is fixed.” Why were Paschal offerings mentioned at all? Are they not included among obligatory offerings whose time is fixed? Rather, it is certainly to distinguish between them and say that only Paschal offerings may be offered on a large bama even though no offering of their type was offered at all on a small bama. Other obligatory offerings whose time is fixed may be offered on a large bama only if there is an offering of their type that is offered on a small bama when brought as a freewill offering.

And we challenge this:

Let us also establish

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

as referring to a meal-offering, since there is

the meal-offering of

the High Priest’s griddle-cakes,

which is the High Priest’s obligation, whose time is fixed every day, morning and evening, and which is offered only on a large bama, since it is a communal offering . There is also a meal-offering that is offered on a small bama when brought as a freewill offering .

And we answer:

The tanna

in the beraita

holds that there is no meal-offering on a bama.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

When they came to Shiloh ...

there was no roof there; rather, there was a stone building below and curtains above.

We raise a question concerning this:

From where are these matters

that this was so there?

And we explain:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One verse states, “And they brought him to the House of the Lord at Shiloh,” indicating that it was a house. And another verse states, “He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent that He had placed among men,” indicating that it was a tent. And it is written, “He rejected the tent of Joseph, and He did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.”

This was said concerning Shiloh, and the term “tent” is used concerning it.

How, then,

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

The verse teaches

that

there was no roof there; rather, there were stones below,

forming the walls of the building, and therefore it was called a “house,”

while curtains

covered it

above,

and therefore it was called a “tent.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Sacred offerings of lesser sanctity

and second tithe are eaten in Shiloh

within the entire area from which it can be seen.

We raise a question concerning this:

From where are these matters

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

And we answer:

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

after you enter “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 may 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

wherever you see it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yannai said: The verse states: “

For only at the place that the Lord

will choose, there you shall offer

your burnt offerings

and there you shall perform them.”

This indicates that the “performance,” namely, the slaughter, must take place at the site of the offering, that is, at the entrance to the Tabernacle, and not wherever one sees it.

Rav Avdimi bar Hama said:

The source for permitting the eating of lesser sanctified offerings wherever one sees Shiloh,