Zevachim 119b (קיט:) — the Talmud in English

We raised this difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says: “This ‘rest’

(exact page location)

is Shiloh, and this ‘inheritance’ is Jerusalem; alternatively,

according to the one who says

the opposite,

“this ‘rest’ is Jerusalem and this ‘inheritance’ is Shiloh,”

this is what is meant by the verse: “to the rest and to the inheritance,”

and it indicates that these 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 the word “to” stated twice? It should have written

“to the rest and the inheritance,”

should it not?

This is difficult!

We raise another difficulty:

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

this is understandable, for both expressions can be interpreted as referring to Shiloh:

“rest”

refers to Shiloh because

they rested

there

from the conquest

of Eretz Yisrael; and

“inheritance”

refers to Shiloh because

the inheritances were apportioned there, as it is written: “And Joshua apportioned them an inheritance, and he cast their lot 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 eternal inheritance,

as its sanctity endures forever, like an inheritance that is forever.

But why is it called “rest”?

Why is it called by this name?

And we answer: It is called so because of

the rest of the Ark,

which remained there permanently after wandering from place to place following its capture by the Philistines. We find the expression “rest” used with regard to the Ark,

as it is written: “And it was when the Ark rested.”

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 yet come to the rest and to the inheritance,” indicating that until Jerusalem, which is both “rest and inheritance,” private altars were permitted.

This is

the reason that Manoah, who lived in the days of Shiloh, was permitted to offer on a private altar,

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

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

in Shiloh,

what is meant by: “And Manoah took”?

How was he permitted to offer on a private altar?

And we answer:

It was a special temporary instruction!

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

in the school of Rabbi Yishmael found a beraita taught by the students of Rabbi Yishmael,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, who says: “This and this are Jerusalem.” And your mnemonic is: “A man drew them after him.”

Rabbi Shimon, who was a single individual, drew

the men,

the many students of Rabbi Yishmael, to abandon their teacher’s view and state the halakha in accordance with his opinion.

We learned in the Mishna:

“All sacred offerings,”

and so on: If one sanctified them during the period when private altars were permitted and offered them outside during the period when private altars were prohibited, he violates a positive and a negative commandment, but is not liable to karet.

Rav Kahana said: This was taught

only with regard to the fact that he is not liable to karet

for slaughtering

outside;

but for offering

outside,

he is also liable to karet,

even for offerings that he sanctified during the period when private altars were permitted and offered during the period when private altars were prohibited.

What is the reason?

For the verse states

in the section concerning offering outside:

“And to them you shall say,”

and the punishment of karet is stated there. We expound “to them” as though it were written “concerning them,” meaning:

“Concerning the earlier ones you shall say,”

for before this section the passage concerning offerings sanctified during the period when private altars were permitted and offered outside during the period when they were prohibited was stated, and karet was not mentioned there. Here Scripture comes to say that “concerning them” as well you shall say that they are liable to karet if they offer outside.

Rava raised an objection to this: Is it written, “And concerning them you shall say”? It is written, “And to them”; and we read it, “And to them”!

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty, as

it is taught

in the Tosefta:

“Rabbi Shimon would state four general principles concerning sacred offerings”:

1.

If one sanctified them during the period when private altars were prohibited and slaughtered

them

and another offered

them

outside during the period when private altars were prohibited, both of them

violate

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

2.

If one sanctified them during the period when private altars were permitted

and slaughtered and offered them outside during the period when private altars were prohibited, they violate a positive and a negative commandment, but there is no karet for them.

This proves that Rav Kahana’s statement is incorrect, for it explicitly says that even for offering outside there is no liability to karet when the offerings were sanctified during the period when private altars were permitted.

3.

If one sanctified them during the period when private altars were prohibited and slaughtered and offered them outside during the period when private altars were permitted, they violate a positive commandment, but there is no negative commandment .

4.

If one sanctified them during the period when private altars were permitted and slaughtered and offered them during the period when private altars were permitted, he is entirely exempt .

The refutation of Rav Kahana is a complete refutation!

We learned in the Mishna: “What is the difference between a private altar and the communal altar? Laying of hands,” and so on. We explain the source for the fact that all these laws apply only to the communal altar and not to a private altar.

And these are the sacred offerings:

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

This indicates specifically “before the Lord,” whereas a private altar is not “before the Lord,” since it may be made anywhere.

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

226. Blood applications around the altar: For it is written, “And they shall sprinkle the blood around upon the altar

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

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

Bringing it near: For it is written, “He shall bring it near before the Lord,”

and the verse is speaking of bringing a meal-offering near the altar.

with this statement of Rami bar Hama and with the statement