Zevachim 120a (קכ.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: An offering of a burnt offering from a private bamah

that was brought inside

after it had been slaughtered outside, on a private bamah, and he then

took it back outside,

what is the halakha?

Does the law of a large bamah still apply to it, so that it must be returned inside?

Do we say that, since it entered

inside,

the partition enclosed it

of the large bamah permanently, even after it left,

or perhaps

the partitions enclosed it only as long as it was inside, and only then must the law of a large bamah be applied to it; but after it left, do we say

since it returned, it returned—i.e., it reverted to its original status?

And the Gemara considers resolving his uncertainty: Is this

not the dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef?

As we learned in a Mishna: Sacrificial animals of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south

of the Temple courtyard, although they are disqualified because they were not slaughtered in the north, nevertheless

one commits misuse with them,

and their status is not like that of sacrificial animals that died, which are no longer subject to the law of misuse.

And they raised a dilemma before them:

If these disqualified sacrificial animals

ascended

the altar after the fact,

what is the halakha regarding whether they must descend

from it?

Rabba said: They must descend. And Rav Yosef said: They need not descend.

From this law we can now derive the rule concerning sacrificial animals of a small bamah that entered inside after slaughter: According to Rabba, who says that the altar does not enclose what was slaughtered in a place unfit for it, so too a large bamah does not enclose what was slaughtered on a small bamah. And according to Rav Yosef, who says that the altar encloses it and it need not descend, so too in the case of a large bamah, it encloses the sacrificial animals of a small bamah, even though they had already been slaughtered.

And we reject this reasoning, saying that the dilemma still remains:

It is a dilemma according to Rabba, and it is a dilemma according to Rav Yosef.

The dilemma according to Rabba: Rabba stated his position only

that disqualified offerings slaughtered in an improper location are not enclosed inside

by the altar,

for we learned from the verse:

Whatever the Sanctuary renders fit, the Sanctuary renders fit; whatever it does not render fit, the Sanctuary does not render fit.

But the partition

of a large bamah may be different, for

although it does not render it fit

because it was slaughtered outside,

it may nevertheless enclose it. Or perhaps there is no difference,

and the partition of a bamah likewise does not enclose it?

The dilemma according to Rav Yosef: Rav Yosef stated his position there only

regarding the altar, which encloses even disqualified offerings slaughtered in the south,

because

it is

one place

—the altar and the south, since both are within the Temple courtyard.

But here,

in the case of a large and small bamah,

they are two places,

and one place does not enclose what was improperly slaughtered in another place.

Or perhaps there is no difference,

and it encloses it even when the two places are distinct?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved!

What is obvious to Rabba in one respect,

that they must descend,

and to Rav Yosef in one respect,

that they need not descend,

is a dilemma

for

Rabbi Yannai.

For Rabbi Yannai raised a dilemma: The limbs of an offering of a burnt offering from a private bamah

that was slaughtered and whose blood was dashed on a private bamah,

which ascended the altar

of a public bamah,

what is the halakha regarding whether they must descend

from it? And we explain the circumstances of the dilemma:

If the fire had taken hold of them

of the altar after they ascended it,

you need not raise the dilemma

that they must not descend from it, since they have become the altar’s food.

Rather, the dilemma is when the fire had not taken hold of them.

Some say: If the fire had not taken hold of them, you need not raise the dilemma

that they certainly must descend.

Rather, the dilemma is when the fire had taken hold of them: What

is the halakha regarding whether they must descend?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved!

It was stated: Slaughtering at night,

whether it is valid

on a private bamah,

was the subject of a dispute between

Rav and Shmuel.

Rav said: It is valid

243 , and Shmuel said: It is invalid.

And they disagree with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s statement, for Rabbi Elazar juxtaposed apparently contradictory verses:

It is written

concerning Saul in his war against the Philistines:

“And he said: You have acted treacherously; roll a great stone to me today,”

to make it a small bamah and sacrifice upon it.

Since he said “today,” it indicates specifically while it is day; but at night, sacrificing on a bamah is invalid.

And

on the other hand,

it is written: “And Saul said: Scatter yourselves among the people and say to them, Bring me each man his ox and each man his sheep, and slaughter them here and eat; and you shall not sin against the Lord by eating with the blood. And all the people brought each man his ox in his hand that night, and they slaughtered there.”

These words indicate that they slaughtered at night, and seemingly the verses contradict one another.

One master,

Rav,

explains the contradiction: Here,

the verse that specifies daytime concerns

offerings consecrated for a large bamah,

those offerings consecrated with the intention that they be sacrificed on a large bamah. Therefore, they retain the law of a large bamah and are invalid at night, even if they are sacrificed on a small bamah ; whereas

here,

where they slaughtered at night, the offerings were

offerings consecrated for a small bamah,

those offerings initially consecrated with the intention that they be sacrificed on a small bamah. Such offerings are valid at night, and from here Rav derived that slaughtering on a private bamah is valid at night.

And the other master,

Shmuel,

explains the contradiction: Here,

the verse that says they should bring the offerings specifically by day concerns

sacrificial animals,

and even offerings consecrated for a small bamah may be sacrificed only by day.

Whereas here,

where they slaughtered at night, the animals were

non-sacred animals 245 .

Therefore, he said that slaughtering at night is invalid on a small bamah.

It was stated: With regard to an offering of a burnt offering from a private bamah, Rav said: It does not require flaying and cutting into pieces

but is sacrificed on the bamah with its hide,

and Rabbi Yohanan said: It requires flaying and cutting into pieces.

And they disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: A burnt offering that the Israelites sacrificed in the wilderness

at Mount Sinai, before the giving of the Torah,

does not require flaying and cutting into pieces, for flaying and cutting into pieces apply only from the time of the Tent of Meeting onward,

when the details of the laws of offerings were conveyed to Moses; at Mount Sinai, the mitzvot were stated only in general form.

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

held: From the time of the Tent of Meeting onward

it requires flaying and cutting into pieces;

there is no difference whether it is a large bamah or whether it is a small bamah. And the other master,

Rav,

held: On a large bamah, yes; on a small bamah, no,

it does not require flaying and cutting into pieces [and Rav and Rabbi Yohanan disagree specifically according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, because according to the tanna who disagrees with him and holds that the wilderness burnt offering did require flaying and cutting into pieces, certainly an offering on a private bamah requires flaying and cutting into pieces, since the wilderness offering was itself offered on a private bamah] .

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan

that an offering of a burnt offering on a private bamah requires flaying and cutting into pieces:

It was taught: These are

the matters that distinguish a large bamah from a small bamah:

The horn, the ramp, the base, and the square

were present on the altar

of a large bamah, but there was no horn, ramp, base, or square

on the altar

of a small bamah.

The basin and its stand

were present

on a large bamah, but there was no basin and stand on a small bamah 247 .

The breast and thigh

that are raised and given to the priest from a peace offering apply

on a large bamah, but there is no breast and thigh on a small bamah.

These are

the matters in which

a large bamah

is equal to a small bamah:

Slaughtering

applies

on a large and small bamah 248 .

Flaying and cutting into pieces

Flaying and cutting into pieces

applies

on both the large and the small bamah.

The blood

that must be dashed on the altar

renders permitted,

for the dashing of the blood renders the flesh permitted for eating, whereas beforehand it is prohibited,

and renders an offering piggul,

for a disqualifying intention of piggul takes effect through the dashing of the blood—all these laws apply

on both a large and a small bamah. Physical defects

that disqualify the offering ,

and

likewise

the time

during which the offering may be eaten, are identical

on a large and small bamah.

It is thus explicitly found in the beraita that a small bamah requires flaying and cutting into pieces, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan. [Rav holds that this beraita follows the opinion of the tanna who disagreed with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and said that the wilderness burnt offering required flaying and cutting into pieces, and the same applies to an offering on a private bamah.]

We learned in the Mishna:

But the time, the leftover sacrificial meat, and ritual impurity are the same in this and in that.

The Sages taught: From where do we derive that the time limit,

so that the offering becomes disqualified as leftover after its permitted time, applies

on a small bamah as on a large bamah?

Seemingly, it should be a matter of logical inference that it should not become disqualified on a small bamah, for

the Torah said: What remains overnight shall be burned, and what leaves shall be burned.

And we can derive:

Just as what leaves is fit on a bamah

small, since there are no partitions there,

so too what remains overnight is fit on a small bamah

.

The beraita responds: There is a source for disqualifying leftover sacrificial meat on a bamah.

And is it not

a kal va-chomer from birds: