זבחים קי״ט ב:כ״ה-ק״כ א:א׳

a reference to Shiloh, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, or the reverse, i.e., that “rest” is a reference to Jerusalem and “inheritance” is a reference to Shiloh, this is as it is written: “To the rest and to the inheritance [el hamenuḥa ve’el hanaḥala],” utilizing two different phrases. But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that this and that are both references to Shiloh, or according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai that both this and that are references to Jerusalem, the verse should have stated: For you have not as yet come to the rest and inheritance [menuḥa naḥala]. The Gemara concedes that this is difficult.,The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says this and that are references to Shiloh, each of the designations may be explained: It is called “rest” because during the period of Shiloh they rested from the conquest in the time of Joshua, and it is called “inheritance” because they divided the portions of land among the tribes there, as it is written: “And Joshua divided the land for them, and he cast a lot for them in Shiloh according to the Lord” (Joshua 18:10).,But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says this and that are references to Jerusalem, granted that “inheritance” is a reference to Jerusalem, since it is an eternal inheritance. But with regard to “rest,” what rest was there in the Temple in Jerusalem? The Gemara answers: The rest of the Ark, as it is written: And when the ark rested. In other words, verses occasionally refer to the Temple in Jerusalem as the resting place of the Ark.,The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that this and that are references to Jerusalem, and consequently private altars were forbidden only following the establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem, but during the period of the Tabernacle in Shiloh private altars were permitted, this is as it is written: “So Manoah took the kid with the meal offering, and offered them upon the rock to the Lord” (Judges 13:19), i.e., he sacrificed them upon a private altar and not in Shiloh.,But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that this and that are references to Shiloh, and private altars were forbidden during this period, what is the meaning of: “So Manoah took,” as it was forbidden to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple? The Gemara answers: Permitting this sacrifice was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances.,The Gemara notes that with regard to the disagreement between the tanna’im over the interpretation of the words “rest” and “inheritance,” there is another version of that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, which is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that this and that are references to Jerusalem. And your mnemonic to remember this is: The man pulled the men, meaning: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who is an individual, pulled, i.e., convinced, the members of the school of Rabbi Yishmael to adopt his opinion.,§ The mishna teaches that with regard to all offerings that one consecrated during a period of the permitting of private altars and sacrificed outside their designated area during a period of prohibition of private altars, one is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but he is not liable to receive karet for sacrificing them. With regard to this, Rav Kahana says: They taught that only with regard to slaughter of these animals outside the designated area is one not liable to receive karet. But with regard to offering up, one would also be liable to receive karet.,What is the reason for this? It is that immediately following the Torah’s description of an offering that was consecrated during a period of the permitting of private altars the verse states the penalty for sacrificing outside the designated area: “And to them [va’alehem] you shall say” (Leviticus 17:8). The term “alehem,” to them, the first letter of which is the letter aleph, is phonetically similar to the term: Alehem, about them, the first letter of which is the letter ayin. Therefore, the verse can be understood to mean: About that which is written in the adjacent passage you shall say. The preceding passage discusses offerings that were slaughtered outside the Temple, so although there is no penalty of karet for their slaughter, one is liable for karet for sacrificing them upon a private altar.,Rabba objects to this: Is it written: And about them you shall say? “To them” is written, and we read it as “to them.” The verse means that the command should be relayed to Aaron, his sons, and the Jewish people, who are mentioned in the beginning of the passage.,And additionally, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon would say four principles with regard to sacrificial animals: With regard to offerings that one consecrated during a period of prohibition of private altars, and slaughtered and offered up outside their designated area during a period of prohibition of private altars, for these one is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, and they carry the punishment of karet. With regard to one who consecrated them during a period of the permitting of private altars, and slaughtered and offered them up during a period of prohibition of private altars, for these one is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but they do not carry the punishment of karet.,With regard to one who consecrated them during a period of prohibition of private altars, and slaughtered and offered them up outside their designated area during a period of the permitting of private altars, for these one is in violation of a positive mitzva, but one has not violated a prohibition with regard to them.,With regard to one who consecrated them during a period of the permitting of private altars, and slaughtered and offered them up during a period of the permitting of private altars, he is exempt from all violations. The baraita states explicitly that there is no distinction between slaughtering and offering up on a private altar: In both cases, one who consecrated the offering during a period of the permitting of private altars and slaughtered or offered it up during a period of prohibition of private altars is exempt from the punishment of karet. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Kahana, who distinguished between slaughter and offering up, is a conclusive refutation.,§ The mishna teaches: And these are the consecrated items, and lists components of the sacrificial service that were performed only on a great public altar, i.e., in the Tabernacle, and not on a private altar. The Gemara clarifies the source of each ritual on the list: The source for the halakha concerning placing hands on the head of an offering is as it is written: “If his offering be a burnt offering…he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:3–4).,The source for the halakha concerning slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order in the north is as it is written: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:11). The source for the halakha concerning placement of the blood of a burnt offering around, i.e., on all four sides of, the altar, is as it is written: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall…sprinkle the blood roundabout against the altar that is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 1:5).,The source for the halakha concerning waving of those offerings that require waving is as it is written: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs, and offer it for a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12). The source for the halakha concerning bringing meal offerings to the corner of the altar before the removal of the handful is as it is written: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). The definite article before the word “altar” indicates that this applies only to the altar in the Tabernacle, and not on a private altar.,§ With regard to the question of whether a meal offering was sacrificed upon an altar outside the Temple, the mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, even a great public altar, e.g., the Tabernacle in Gilgal, Nov, and Gibeon. Rav Sheshet says: According to the statement of the one who says there is a meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, there are also bird offerings sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple. According to the statement of the one who says there is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, there are also no bird offerings sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple.,The reason for this is that the Torah is referring to offerings that were sacrificed during the period of the permitting of private altars as: Slaughtered offerings [zevaḥim], in the verse: “And sacrifice them for sacrifices of [vezaveḥu zivḥei] peace offerings” (Leviticus 17:5), from which it may be inferred: Slaughtered offerings but not meal offerings; slaughtered offerings but not bird offerings, i.e., neither meal offerings nor bird offerings were sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, including a great public altar.,The Gemara continues detailing the distinctions between great public altars and small private altars: And a priest is required only at a public altar, as it is written: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:6). Priestly service vestments are required only at a public altar, as it is written: “And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons when they go into the Tent of Meeting or when they come near to the altar to minister in the sacred place” (Exodus 28:43).,And with regard to service vessels, it is written: “And they shall take all the service vessels wherewith they serve in the sacred place” (Numbers 4:12). With regard to a pleasing aroma, i.e., that limbs that had previously been roasted off the altar should not be placed upon the altar, it is required only on a public altar, as it is written: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and the priest shall make the fat smoke for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6).,A partition for the blood, i.e., the red line that divides the altar, as the blood of some offerings, e.g., a sin offering, was sprinkled above the line, and the blood of other offerings, e.g., a burnt offering, was sprinkled below the line, was required only on a public altar, as it is written: “And the net may reach halfway up the altar” (Exodus 27:5). The definite article before the word “altar” indicates that this applied only to the altar in the Tabernacle. With regard to the requirement for washing of hands and feet before the service, it is required only on a public altar, as it is written: “When they went into the Tent of Meeting and when they came near to the altar, they shall wash” (Exodus 40:32).,§ Concerning the halakha requiring a partition for the blood, and other halakhot that did not apply to a private altar but did apply to a great public altar, Rami bar Ḥama said: The Sages taught that there is no requirement for a partition only with regard to consecrated sacrificial items to be used on a small private altar, and which one sacrificed upon a small private altar. But in the case of consecrated sacrificial items to be used on a small private altar that were sacrificed upon a great public altar, there is a partition.,Rabba raised an objection from a baraita: The halakha of waving the breast and the thigh of a peace offering and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies with regard to sacrificial items of a great public altar and does not apply with regard to sacrificial items of a small private altar, even if they were sacrificed upon a great public altar. The Gemara responds: Say that the text of the baraita should be the following: The halakha of waving the breast and thigh and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies to a great public altar, even with regard to a sacrificial item of a small private altar, but does not apply to a small private altar.,Some say that Rami bar Ḥama said: The Sages taught that there is a requirement for a partition only with regard to sacrificial items of a great public altar that were sacrificed upon a great public altar. But in the case of sacrificial items of a small private altar, even though they were sacrificed upon a great public altar, there is no partition.,The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rami bar Ḥama: Waving of the breast and thigh of a peace offering and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies to sacrificial items of a great public altar, and does not apply to sacrificial items of a small private altar.,The Gemara responds: No proof may be brought from here, as I will say that it means the halakha of waving the breast and thigh and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies to a great public altar, even with regard to the sacrificial items of a private altar, and does not apply to a small private altar. The Gemara notes: And this latter version of Rami bar Ḥama’s statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: A burnt offering of a private altar that one brought inside, i.e., into the area of a great public altar, is absorbed, i.e., sanctified, by the partitions for all matters.,With regard to the previous matter, Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to a burnt offering of a private altar that one brought inside and subsequently took outside, what is the halakha? Does it have the status of a sacrificial item of a public altar? The Gemara clarifies the question: Do we say that once it was brought in the partition has already absorbed it, and all halakhot of sacrificial items of a public altar apply; or perhaps once it returns, i.e., was taken outside again, it returns to its prior status as an offering of a private altar?,The Gemara asks: Isn’t this issue a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 2a): With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or a guilt offering, that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as dictated by halakha, and are therefore disqualified, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and despite the fact that they should not ascend the altar, if they ascended they shall not descend.,And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If they did descend the altar, what is the halakha with regard to ascending again? Rabba says: They shall not ascend, and Rav Yosef says: They shall ascend. Consequently, they disagree with regard to the issue of whether an item that is not fit to be sacrificed in a consecrated area acquires the sanctity of that area even if it is removed from there.,The Gemara responds: The disagreements are not identical, as the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabba, and the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to raise the dilemma according to the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba says his statement: Offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south shall not descend if they ascended, only with regard to the altar, as the altar consecrates that which is fit for it, while it does not consecrate that which is not fit for it. But with regard to the partition of the public altar, even though an offering that was consecrated for a private altar is not fit for that altar, the partition nevertheless absorbs the offering and it is sacrificed there. Consequently, all the halakhot of the public altar apply to that offering, even if it is taken outside.,Or perhaps the dilemma of the burnt offering of a private altar can be raised even according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef states his opinion there, that offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and descended the altar shall ascend again, only because the altar and the offering are both located in one place, i.e., the Temple courtyard. But here in Rabbi Zeira’s case, where the private altar and public altar are two separate places, the halakhot of the public altar do not apply if the offering was taken outside the designated location. Or perhaps there is no difference, and the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef in one case are identical to their opinions in the other. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.,The Gemara notes that a matter that is obvious to Rabba on one side, i.e., that these offerings shall not ascend the altar again, and to Rav Yosef on the other side, i.e., that they shall ascend again, was raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yannai. As Rabbi Yannai raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the limbs of a burnt offering of a private altar that ascended the altar and descended? The Gemara notes: In a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them, do not raise the dilemma, as they certainly shall not ascend again. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it in a case where the fire has taken hold of them: What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.,§ Additionally, with regard to a private altar it was stated: With regard to the slaughter of offerings at night on a private altar, Rav and Shmuel disagree: One says that it is valid, and one says that it is not valid. The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the resolution to a contradiction that was raised by Rabbi Elazar.,As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between two verses: It is written in the context of Saul’s war with the Philistines: “And the people flew upon the spoil and took sheep and cattle and calves and slew them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying: ‘Behold, the people sin against the Lord in that they eat with the blood. And he said: You have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone to me this day” (I Samuel 14:32–33). That stone was made into a private altar upon which offerings could be slaughtered and sacrificed. Evidently, Saul was particular about slaughtering offerings during the day and not at night, despite the fact that it was a private altar and not a public altar.,And immediately thereafter it is written: “And Saul said: Disperse yourselves among the people and say to them: Bring me here every man his ox and every man his sheep, and slay them here and eat and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there” (I Samuel 14:34). This verse states explicitly that the slaughter took place at night and not during the day.,Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the resolution of this contradiction: One Sage answers that here, i.e., when the slaughter took place at night, it was of non-sacred animals, while there, i.e., when Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it was the slaughter of sacrificial animals. According to this opinion, the sacrificial service was performed only during the day, even on a private altar. And the other Sage answers that both verses are referring to the slaughter of offerings: Here, in the verse that states that Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it is referring to the sacrificial animals of a great public altar, while there, in the verse that states that the slaughter took place at night, it is referring to sacrificial animals of a small private altar.,§ It was stated that with regard to the burnt offering of a private altar, Rav says: It does not require flaying and cutting into pieces, which the Torah requires of a burnt offering (see Leviticus 1:6), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It does require flaying and cutting into pieces. The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the meaning of a statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness, i.e., at Mount Sinai before the establishment of the Tabernacle, did not require flaying and cutting into pieces, because the requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces applied only from the Tent of Meeting and onward, as this halakha was first taught in the Tent of Meeting.,One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that from the Tent of Meeting and onward there is a requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces, and there is no difference whether the offering is brought upon a great public altar, and there is no difference whether it is brought upon a small private altar. And one Sage, Rav, holds that with regard to a great public altar, yes, flaying and cutting are required, but with regard to a small private altar they are not.,It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: What are the matters that are different between a great public altar and a small private altar? The corner of the altar, the ramp, the base of the altar, and the square shape are required in a great public altar, but the corner, the base, the ramp, and the square shape are not required in a small private altar. The Basin and its base are required in a great public altar, but the Basin and its base are not required in a small private altar. The breast and thigh of a peace offering, which are given to a priest, are waved at a great public altar, but the breast and thigh are not waved at a small private altar.,And there are other matters in which a great public altar is identical to a small private altar: Slaughter is required at both a great public altar and a small private altar. Flaying a burnt offering and cutting it into pieces is required at both a great public altar and a small private altar. Sprinkling the blood permits the meat to be eaten, and if at that time the priest thought of eating or sacrificing this offering outside its appropriate time, this renders the offering piggul both at a great public altar and at a small private altar. Likewise, the halakha that blemishes disqualify an offering and the halakha that there is a limited time for eating offerings are in effect at both a great public altar and a small private altar.,§ Following the detailing of the differences between a communal altar and a private altar, the mishna teaches: But the halakha that portions of the offering left over [notar] beyond the time it is permitted must be burned and that one who eats them incurs karet, and the halakha that intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time renders the offering piggul, and the prohibition against performing the sacrificial service or eating consecrated meat while ritually impure are equal in this, i.e., a private altar, and that, i.e., a public altar.,With regard to this the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that time, i.e., the halakha that an offering left over beyond its designated time is disqualified, in the case of a small private altar should be made equivalent to the halakha in the case of a great public altar? The Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise the Torah stated that an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] must be burned. Therefore, another parallel may be drawn between them: Just as piggul is disqualified in the case of a private altar, so too, an offering that was left overnight is disqualified in the case of a private altar.,Or go this way, and say that because the Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise, the Torah stated that an offering that leaves the Temple courtyard must be burned, the following conclusion may be drawn: Just as an offering that leaves the Temple courtyard is valid in the case of a private altar because it has no set perimeter, so too, an offering that was left overnight is valid in the case of a private altar, and it may therefore be concluded that the halakha of time does not apply to offerings on a private altar. The Gemara asks: And is it not an a fortiori inference from the halakha of bird offerings that in the case of a private altar, time should render an offering disqualified?