ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 119
ZEVACHIM 119 - sponsored anonymously by a talmid of Rabbi Kornfeld in
Passaic, NJ (formerly from West Hempstead, NY)
(a) The proof from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Ba'sem el ha'Menuchah ve'el
ha'Nachalah", that Bamos are permitted between Shiloh and Yerushalayim is -
the fact that the Torah inserts 'el ha'Nachalah' (because if Bamos would be
forbidden from Shiloh and onwards, the Torah ought to have omitted it).
(b) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan why the Tana did not then include
Ma'aser Sheini (together with Kodshim Kalim) during this period. The latter
replied - that since we learn Ma'aser Sheini from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham"
Sham" from "Venasata Sham es ha'Aron", Ma'aser Sheini can only be eaten
there where the Aron is, and we learned earlier that during the era of Nov
and Giv'on the Aron was in Kiryas Ye'arim (and later even in Yerushalayim).
(c) Resh Lakish then asked Rebbi Yochanan from Pesach and Kodshim - where
the Torah also writes "Sham", yet the Tana permitted them during the era of
Nov and Giv'on, in spite of the fact that the Aron was not there.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan therefore retracted from his previous answer,
establishing the author as Rebbi Shimon, who rules that Korbanos that
Kodshim other than Pesach and Chovos with a fixed time (i.e. Chovos with no
fixed time) - cannot be brought in Nov and Giv'on.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan's final interpretation, the Tana omits
Ma'aser Sheini - because it is compared to Ma'aser Beheimah, which is a Chov
which is has no fixed time, which one is Patur from bringing on a Bamah.
(b) Rav Ada bar Masna bears out what we extrapolate from Rebbi Yochanan's
statement. He says - that Ma'aser Beheimah and Ma'aser Sheini are indeed
brought on the Bamah (Gedolah) according to Rebbi Yehudah.
(c) We ask on this however, from the Pasuk "Va'achaltem Lifnei Hashem
Elokeichem" (in connection with Kodshim and Ma'aser Sheini) - from which we
learn that they all require a palace (which we assume to mean the
(d) We answer from a Beraisa of Rav Yosef - which lists three Biyros
'Shiloh, Nov and Giv'on and the Beis Hamikdash (all of which the Tana
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa proves from the Pesukim "Haysah Li Nachalasi
ke'Aryeh be'Ya'ar" and "ha'Ayit Tzavu'a Nachalasi Li, ha'Ayit Saviv Alehah"
(see Agados Maharsha) - that Nachalah refers to Yerushalayim (though that
"Munuchah" refers to Shiloh, he learns from the same source as Rebbi Shimon
bar Yochai [Agados Maharsha] later in the Sugya).
(b) Whereas Rebbi Shimon proves from the Pesukim "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad, Poh
Eishev ki Ivisihah" and "Ki Bachar Hashem be'Tziyon, Ivah le'Moshav Lo" -
that "Menuchah" refers to Yerushalayim. (presumably, he learns that
"Nachalah" refers to Shiloh from the same source as Tana de'Bei Rebbi
Yishmael, later in the Sugya).
(c) Rebbi Shimon will explain the Pasuk "Ki Lo Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah
ve'el ha'Nachalah" (instead of vice-versa) to mean - that, in the time of
Gilgal, not only had Yisrael not arrive in Yerushalayim, but they had even
arrived yet in Shiloh.
(d) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, both "Menuchah" and "Nachalah"
refer to Shiloh; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, they both
refer to Yerushalayim (see Rashash)?
(a) We ask on the latter two Tana'im from the Lashon "el ha'Menuchah *ve'el*
ha'Nachalah" (and not just "el ha'Menuchah ve'Nachalah") - but remain with a
(b) According to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, Shiloh is referred to as ...
1. ... "Menuchah" - because that is where they rested from the battles.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, on the other hand, Yerushalayim is
referred to "Nachalah", because it is a 'Nachalas Olamim' (an everlasting
inheritance), and it is called "Menuchah" - because that is where the Aron
finally came to rest.
2. ... "Nachalah" - because that is where they distributed the land.
(a) The ramifications of the Machlokes between Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael
and Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai are - that according to the former, the Bamos
were (permanently) forbidden after Shiloh, whereas according the latter,
they were not.
(b) The episode with Mano'ach poses a problem - in that, seeing as he lived
in the time of Mishkan Shiloh, it transpires that he sacrificed on a Bamah
at a time when Bamos were forbidden, according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.
(c) And we answer - that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary ruling), which
Beis-Din have the power to issue, even if it contravenes Torah law.
(d) When, commenting on a Beraisa cited in the Beis-Hamedrash of Rebbi
Shimon bar Yochai, that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learned 'Zeh va'Zeh
Yerushalayim' like their Rebbe, we gave a Si'man 'Mashchi (or 'Mashchinhu')
Gavra le'Gavri', we meant - that Rebbi Shimon, who was only one person,
convinced Rebbi Yishmael's Talmidim to leave their Rebbi and side with him
(in this matter).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if someone sacrificed ba'Chutz an animal
during the era of Isur Bamos, that had been declared Hekdesh during the era
of Heter Bamos, he is not Chayav Kareis. Rav Kahana qualifies this ruling -
by restricting it to Shechitah, but not to Ha'ala'ah, for which he will
indeed be Chayav Kareis.
(b) He learns this from the Pasuk in "Va'aleihem Tomar ... " - implying that
the Ha'ala'as Chutz that follows refers to the previous Pasuk (regarding
Shechitas Chutz), where the animal was declared Hekdesh during the era of
Heter Bamos (yet the Torah goes on to render the sinner Chayav Kareis).
(c) We learn from the previous Pasuk (which refers to Shechitah of the above
animal and), which ends "Tiheyeh *Zos* Lahem le'Dorosam" - that for
Shechting the animal one is only Chayav the La'av and the Asei that are
mentioned there (but not the Kareis that is mentioned in the following one).
(d) Besides asking from the Beraisa which we are about to discuss, Rabah
refutes Rav Kahana's Limud from the spelling of "Va'aleihem ... " - which is
spelt with an 'Alef', not with and 'Ayin', negating his theory that the
Parshah of Ha'al'ah on the Bamah is a continuation of the previous Pasuk
(and it speaks about an animal that was both declared Hekdesh during the
Isur Bamos, and sacrificed then).
(a) Rebbi Shimon lists all the Halachos of the Shechitah and the Ha'ala'ah,
in connection with all the possible computations of Heter Bamos and Isur
Bamos. Someone who both declares Hekdesh and sacrifices the animal ba'Chutz
1. ... during the era of Isur Bamos - contravenes a La'av and an Asei, and
is Chayav Kareis.
(b) And he rules that if someone either Shechts or sacrifices in the era of
2. ... during the era of Heter Bamos - is completely Patur.
1. ... Isur Bamos ba'Chutz, an animal that was declared Hekdesh during the
era of Heter Bamos - he contravenes an Asei and a La'av, but does not
(c) This proves - that from Heter Bamos to Isur Bamos there is no Kareis, a
Tiyuvta on Rav Kahana.
2. ... Heter Bamos, an animal that was declared Hekdesh during the era of
Isur Bamos - contravenes only an Asei.
(d) Our Mishnah learns from ...
1. ... "Lifnei Hashem ve'Samach", "Tzafonah Lifnei Hashem", "ve'Zarak ha'Dam
al ha'Mizbe'ach Saviv ... Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - that the Dinim of
Semichah, Tzafon, and Saviv do not apply to a Bamah Ketanah.
2. ... "Ve'heinif ha'Kohen Lifnei Hashem", "ve'Higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach" -
that the Dinim of Tenufah and Hagashah (of a Minchah) do not apply either.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Rebbe Yehudah Omer, Ein Minchah be'Bamah', to
which Rav Sheishes then adds - that the Din of Ofos in this regard follows
that of Menachos.
(b) He learns this from "Zevachim" (mentioned in the Parshah of Shechutei
Chutz) - which implies Beheimos, and not Ofos or Menachos, and "Osam", which
invalidates them completely.
(c) The Tana learns from the Pesukim "Ve'zarak ha'Kohen es ha'Dam Pesach
Ohel Mo'ed", "Leshareis ba'Kodesh" and "Asher Yesharsu bam ba'Kodesh" - that
neither Kehunah, nor Bigdei Kehunah nor K'lei Shareis apply by a Bamah
(d) And finally, he learns from the Pesukim "Ve'hikriv ha'Cheilev le'Rei'ach
Nicho'ach ... Isheh Nicho'ach la'Shem", "Ve'haysah ha'Reshes ad Chatzi
*ha*'Mizbe'ach" and "u've'Korvasam el ha'Mizbe'ach Yirchatzu" - that Rei'ach
Nicho'ach, the Mechitzah (the Chut ha'Sikra, dividing between the upper and
lower halves of the Mizbe'ach), and washing the hands and feet before
performing the Avodah, do not apply either.
(a) Rami bar Chama makes a distinction between Kodshim of a Bamah Gedolah
and Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah that one sprinkled on a Bamah Gedolah -
confining the Din of Mechitzah (on the Mizbe'ach) to the former, but not to
the latter (i.e. it makes no difference as to where on the Mizbe'ach the
blood is sprinkled).
(b) Rabah (perhaps this to read 'Rava') queries this from a Beraisa, which
states 'Chazeh ve'Chok (of a Shelamim) u'Terumas Lachmei Todah Nohagin
be'Kodshei Bamah Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah Ketanah' - implying
that they do not apply to the Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah, even if they are
brought on a Bamah Gedolah.
(c) Rabah therefore asks on Rami bar Chama - that by the same token, if the
blood of Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah is sprinkled on a Bamah Gedolah, it
ought to require a Mechitzah, too.
(d) To reconcile the Beraisa with Rami bar Chama, we amend it to - ' ...
Nohagin be'Bamah Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Bamah Ketanah'.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rami bar Chama - does not require a Mechitzah on a
Bamah Gedolah for Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah that is brought on it.
(b) Rabah asks from the Beraisa - which is worded ' ... Nohagin be'Bamah
Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Bamah Ketanah' (like we concluded in the first
(c) We answer by amending the wording to ' ... Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah
Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah Ketanah'.
(d) This does not however conform with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who
rules - that if an Olas Bamas Yachid is taken, after the Shechitah, into the
confines of a Bamah Gedolah - it adopts all the Dinim of a Korban of a Bamah