Zevachim 119b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

Granted, according to the one who says: “This “rest” is

exact page location

Shiloh, and this “inheritance” is Jerusalem; alternatively,

according to the one who says

the reverse, “this “rest” is Jerusalem and this “inheritance” is Shiloh,”

this is why it is written, “to the rest and to the inheritance,”

for that is what is written: “to the rest and to the inheritance,”

and it implies that they are two places,

but according to the one who says: this and this are Shiloh, or

according to the one who says:

this and this are Jerusalem,

why is “to” stated twice? It should have written

“rest and inheritance,”

should it not?

This is difficult!

And we raise another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says: this and this are Shiloh,

it is satisfactory, for it can be explained that both expressions were said concerning Shiloh:

“rest”

this is Shiloh because

they rested

there

from the conquest

of the Land of Israel, and

“inheritance”

this is Shiloh because

there they apportioned inheritances, as it is written: “And Joshua apportioned them, and he cast lots for them in Shiloh by the word of the Lord.” But according to the one who says: this and this are Jerusalem, granted,

Jerusalem is called

“inheritance”

because it is

an everlasting inheritance,

for its sanctity is forever, like an inheritance that is everlasting,

but “rest”—why

is it called so?

And we answer: because of

the rest of the Ark,

which was there permanently after it wandered from place to place after it had been captured by the Philistines; and we find the expression “rest” concerning the Ark,

as it is written: “And it came to pass when the Ark rested.”

And we raise another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says: this and this are Jerusalem, but

in

Shiloh private altars were permitted,

for it is stated, “For you have not until now come to the rest and to the inheritance,” and it implies that until Jerusalem, which is “rest and inheritance,” private altars were permitted,

this is

the reason for the permission of Manoah, who was in the days of Shiloh, to sacrifice on a private altar,

as it is written: “And Manoah took the kid of the goats and the grain-offering

and offered it up upon the rock to the Lord.” But according to the one who says: this and this are Shiloh, and private altars were forbidden

in Shiloh,

what is “And Manoah took”?

How was it permitted for him to sacrifice on a private altar?

And we answer:

It was a temporary directive!

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

in the academy of Rabbi Ishmael there is a beraita that the students of Rabbi Ishmael recite,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, who said: this and this are Jerusalem; and your sign is: “a man drew them along.”

Rabbi Shimon, who was alone, drew

the men,

the students of Rabbi Ishmael, who were many, to abandon the words of their teacher and say like him.

We learned in the Mishna:

All sacred offerings

and so on: If he consecrated them during the time when private altars were permitted and offered them outside during the time when private altars were forbidden, these are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment, but one is not liable for them to karet.

Rav Kahana said: They taught

that one is not liable for them to karet

only concerning slaughtering

outside;

but concerning offering up

outside,

he is also liable to karet,

even for offerings that he consecrated during the time when private altars were permitted and offered up outside during the time when private altars were forbidden.

What is the reason?

For the verse says

in the section concerning offering outside,

“And to them you shall say,”

and there the punishment of karet is stated; and we expound “to them” as though it were written “upon them,” meaning

“upon the earlier ones you shall say,”

for before this section the section of offerings was stated—those that he consecrated during the time when private altars were permitted and offered outside during the time when private altars were forbidden—and karet was not mentioned there. Here it comes to say that also “upon them” you shall say: they will be punished with karet if they offer up outside.

Rava challenged him: Is it written, “And upon them you shall say”? “And to them” is written; “and to them” is what we read!?

Furthermore,

there is the difficulty that

it was taught

in the Tosefta:

Rabbi Shimon used to state four general principles concerning sacred offerings:

1.

If he consecrated them during the time when private altars were forbidden and slaughtered

himself

and offered up

his fellow

during the time when private altars were forbidden outside, they are—

both of them transgress

a positive commandment and a negative commandment, and there is karet for them 221 .

2.

If he consecrated them during the time when private altars were permitted

and slaughtered and offered them up outside during the time when private altars were forbidden, they are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment, but there is no karet for them,

and from here it is proven that this is not like Rav Kahana’s words, for it is explicit that even concerning offering up there is no liability to karet when they were consecrated during the time when private altars were permitted.

3.

If he consecrated them during the time when private altars were forbidden and slaughtered and offered them up outside during the time when private altars were permitted, they are subject to a positive commandment, but there is no negative commandment .

4.

If he consecrated them during the time when private altars were permitted and slaughtered and offered them up during the time when private altars were permitted, he is exempt from everything .

A refutation of Rav Kahana—a refutation!

We learned in the Mishna: What is the difference between a private altar and a communal altar? Laying of hands, and so on. And we explain: from where is the source that all these laws do not apply on a private altar?

And these sacred offerings are:

Laying of hands: for it is written, “Before the Lord, and he shall lay his hand.”

It implies specifically “before the Lord,” whereas a private altar is not “before the Lord,” for it is made everywhere.

Slaughtering on the north: for it is written, “On the north, before the Lord.”

Blood gifts around: for it is written, “And they shall sprinkle the blood on the altar around 226 .

which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”; and a private altar is not at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

Waving: for it is written, “And the priest shall wave before the Lord.”

Bringing near: for it is written, “Bring it near before the Lord,”

and the verse speaks of bringing a grain-offering near to the altar.

Further we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no minḥa on a bama.

Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says: There is no minḥa

offered

on a bama,

the same law applies also to

there are no birds

offered

on a bama; according to the one who says: There is minḥa on a bama,

the same law applies also:

there are birds on a bama, 228 ,

for just as we exclude minḥa, because it is stated concerning the bamot

“sacrifices”

and it is stated in this verse, “them,” to exclude that only the sacrifices shall be slaughtered

and not minḥot,

and likewise we expound:

“sacrifices,” and not birds. 229 .

And a koen

whence [do we know] that he does not apply on a bama?

For it is written: “And the koen shall sprinkle

the blood upon the altar of Hashem at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”; this implies that the sprinkling by a koen is required specifically at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but not on a bama.

Ministerial garments:

concerning which it is stated

“to minister in the Sanctuary”

this implies specifically in the “Sanctuary,” but not on a bama .

And ministerial vessels:

for it is written: “And they shall take all the ministerial vessels

with which they minister in the Sanctuary.”

“For a pleasing fragrance”: for it is written:

“And he shall sprinkle ... at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall burn the fat”

“for a pleasing fragrance to Hashem”

this implies that even the “pleasing fragrance” is specifically at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

“A partition for the blood”: for it is written: “And the grating shall be up to the middle of the altar”

and from here we learn that a partition for the blood is required on the altar; and the heh written in the word “the altar” comes to exclude, [teaching] that the partition is required only on an altar that is like the altar of the Tabernacle, of which the verse speaks, excluding an altar on a bama .

“Washing of hands and feet: for it is written: ‘And when they approach the altar, they shall wash.’

And the extra heh in the word “the altar” excludes this obligation on a bama .

Rami bar Hama said:

What we learned in the Mishna, that there is a partition for the blood on a large bama—that is, there are offerings whose blood is placed there above the scarlet line, and there are offerings whose blood is placed below the line—

they taught this only with regard to offerings of a large bama,

offerings that were consecrated on the condition that they be offered on a large bama,

and he offered them on a large bama

in accordance with their law; then the law is that he shall place the blood on the altar in the place designated for this offering .

But with regard to offerings of a small bama

that were consecrated on the condition that they be offered on a small bama,

if he offered them on a large bama, there is no partitioning!

Even on a large bama, and he may place there the blood of the burnt-offering and the peace-offering above the line, even though the place for the blood of these offerings is below the line, because once they were consecrated for a small bama, all the law of a small bama applies to them, even though they were offered on a large bama, and on a small one there is no partitioning for the blood.

Rabba raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

The breast and thigh

that are raised for the koen from a peace-offering,

and the raised portion of the loaves of thanksgiving

the four loaves raised for the koen from among the forty loaves that come with the thanksgiving-offering,

apply on a large bama, but do not apply on a small bama

to give them to the koen from the offerings that they offered there. For it is stated concerning them, to wave them as a waving before “Hashem,” and we expound: and not on a bama that is not before Hashem'.

And it follows from the beraita that there is no distinction on a large bama, and even offerings of a small bama that were offered on it have the law of a large bama with regard to the breast and thigh, and likewise with regard to everything, including the partition for the blood, which applies to them; and this is difficult for Rami bar Hama?

Rami bar Hama answers:

Say: “They apply to offerings of a large bama, but do not apply to offerings of a small bama,”

for their law depends not only on the bama on which they were offered, but also on the manner in which they were consecrated, in accordance with the words of Rami bar Hama .

There are those who say: Rami bar Hama said: They taught this only

that there is a partition for the blood on a large bama

during the time

when the bamot are forbidden, when they offer only on a

large bama. But during the time

when the bamot are permitted, when it is possible to offer also on a

small bama, even though he offered them on a large bama, there is no partitioning

]]on a large bama, even with those offerings that were consecrated to be offered on a large bama [with the exception of offerings that cannot at all be offered on a small bama, even if they are consecrated on the condition that they be offered there] .

Rabba raised an objection: The breast and thigh and the raised portion of the loaves of thanksgiving apply on a large bama but do not apply on a small bama!

And it follows that even during the time of a small bama, nevertheless, if he offered it on a large bama, the law of a large bama applies to it with regard to the breast and thigh, and likewise with regard to everything; and this is difficult for Rami bar Hama?

Rami bar Hama answers:

Say: “They apply during the time of a large bama, but do not apply during the time of a small bama!

And it disagrees

this statement of Rami bar Hama with the statement

of Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Elazar said: A burnt-offering of a private bama

that was slaughtered on a private bama,

which he brought

after slaughter

inside, the partitions received it

of the large bama, and the law of a large bama applies to it

in every respect.

And it follows that even during the time of a small bama, and even with offerings of a small bama, once he offered them on a large bama, the law of a large bama applies to them, and this is unlike Rami bar Hama according to both formulations .