Zevachim Daf 112 (זבחים דף קי״ב)
Daf: 112 | Amudim: 112a – 112b | Date: Cycle 15: 24 Tishrei 5786 (October 17, 2025)
Breakdown
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (112a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara analyzes blood placement outside then inside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים — הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָתַן בַּחוּץ, חָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים — כִּיפֵּר. אֶלָּא בִּפְנִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בַּחוּץ — פְּשִׁיטָא!
English Translation:
Granted, with regard to the mishna’s ruling concerning one who placed blood first outside and then returned and placed blood inside — this teaches us that even though he placed blood outside, if he then returned and placed blood inside, he achieved atonement. But regarding the case of one who placed blood inside and then returned and placed blood outside — isn’t it obvious that he is liable?
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara questions why the mishna needs to state that one is liable for placing sacrificial blood outside after already placing it inside. The novel teaching about placing outside first then inside demonstrates that the second placement can still be valid. But the reverse case seems obvious — if the blood was already properly placed inside, placing it outside afterward should clearly incur liability since it’s unnecessary and forbidden.
Key Terms:
- נתן בחוץ (natan ba-chutz) = Placed blood outside the Temple courtyard
- כיפר (kipper) = Achieved atonement
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution attributing clauses to different Tannaim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם מְעַכְּבִין.
English Translation:
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya, who said: The remainder of the blood is indispensable to achieving atonement.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty by attributing this teaching to Rabbi Nechemya, who uniquely holds that pouring out the remaining blood (shirayim) is essential for atonement. According to this view, the first blood placement didn’t complete the service, so placing the remainder outside creates liability since it was still halachically significant blood. Other Tannaim who consider remainder blood optional would indeed find this case obvious.
Key Terms:
- שירי הדם (shirei ha-dam) = The remainder of sacrificial blood after the primary applications
- מעכבין (me’akvin) = Indispensable, essential for the service to be valid
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from the case of blood collected in two cups
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת — נָתַן אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְאֶחָד בִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
If one received the blood in two cups — and placed one outside and one inside, or one inside and one outside — he is exempt.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara presents a parallel mishna that seems to contradict Rabbi Nechemya’s position. If blood was collected in two cups and one was used inside while one was used outside, why is the person exempt? If remainder blood matters (per Rabbi Nechemya), the second cup should still carry liability!
Key Terms:
- קיבל דמה בשני כוסות (kibbel damah bi-shnei kosot) = Received the blood in two cups
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution distinguishing disqualification from remainder
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כּוֹס עוֹשֶׂה דָּחוּי לַחֲבֵירוֹ.
English Translation:
One cup renders its fellow cup disqualified [dachui].
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara distinguishes between “remainder blood” and “disqualified blood.” When blood is divided into two cups and one is used, the other isn’t merely “remainder” — it’s actively disqualified (dachui). The first cup’s use renders the second cup’s blood halachically rejected, so using it outside creates no new prohibition. Rabbi Nechemya’s view about remainder blood applies only when the remaining blood in the same cup still has potential validity.
Key Terms:
- דחוי (dachui) = Rejected/disqualified — a status that removes halachic potential from a sacrificial item
Segment 5
TYPE: ראיה
Comparison to the lost sin offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — אֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יַקְרִיב.
English Translation:
One who separated his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place, and afterward the first was found — whichever he wishes he may sacrifice.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara brings a proof from the laws of sin offerings. When someone designates a sin offering that gets lost, then designates a replacement, and the original is found — both remain valid until one is chosen. But once one is sacrificed, the other becomes permanently disqualified. This parallels the two-cup case: whichever cup is used first renders the other disqualified.
Segment 6
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling on the lost offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה — מֵתָה; אֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה — רוֹעָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If it was lost at the time of the separation of the replacement — it must die. If it was not lost at the time of separation — it grazes until it develops a blemish.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi refines the law: the status of the original offering depends on when the replacement was designated. If the original was completely lost (untraceable) when the replacement was designated, the original must die when found — it was fully replaced. If the original was merely misplaced but findable, the replacement was designated “just in case,” so the original can graze until blemished then be redeemed.
Key Terms:
- מתה (metah) = Must die — the severest status for a disqualified sin offering
- רועה (ro’ah) = Grazes — sent to pasture until blemished, then redeemed
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא
Question about twin sin offerings designated as backup
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת — מַהוּ?
English Translation:
If one separated two sin offerings as a guarantee [backup] — what is the law?
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara asks about a case where someone intentionally designates two sin offerings from the start as backup for each other. Neither is primary. Does the offering of one render the other disqualified (like the two cups), or since both were designated equally, does neither disqualify the other?
Key Terms:
- לאחריות (le-achrayut) = As a guarantee/backup
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution applying Rav’s rule about guilt offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה — וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם — כָּשֵׁר לְעוֹלָה.
English Translation:
As Rav said: A guilt offering that was consigned to grazing — if one slaughtered it without specific designation — it is fit as a burnt offering.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara applies Rav’s principle: a guilt offering that became disqualified (consigned to graze) can be repurposed. If slaughtered without specific intent, it’s valid as a burnt offering. This shows that even disqualified consecrated animals retain some sacred potential. Similarly, the backup sin offering, though not used, isn’t completely rejected.
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Problem of gender requirements
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָשָׁם זָכָר, וְעוֹלָה זָכָר; אֲבָל חַטָּאת — נְקֵבָה, וְעוֹלָה זָכָר!
English Translation:
A guilt offering is male, and a burnt offering is male; but a sin offering is female, and a burnt offering is male!
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara challenges applying Rav’s rule to sin offerings. Guilt offerings and burnt offerings are both male animals, so a disqualified guilt offering can become a burnt offering. But sin offerings are female — they can’t become burnt offerings which require males! How does this analogy work?
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution through the Nasi’s goat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא — דְּזָכָר הוּא.
English Translation:
This refers to the sin offering of the Nasi [tribal prince] — which is male.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara resolves this by limiting the application to the Nasi’s sin offering, which uniquely is a male goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). Since both the Nasi’s sin offering and burnt offerings are male, Rav’s principle can apply. The backup sin offering of a Nasi that wasn’t used could theoretically become a burnt offering.
Key Terms:
- שעיר נשיא (se’ir nasi) = The male goat brought as a sin offering by a tribal leader
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: Red heifer and scapegoat exemption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פָּרַת חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׂרָפָהּ חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ, וְכֵן שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
The red heifer of purification that one burned outside its pit, and similarly the scapegoat that one sacrificed outside — he is exempt, as it is stated: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:4) — any animal that is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna introduces the principle that liability for “outside” sacrifice requires eligibility for “inside” sacrifice. The red heifer is burned on the Mount of Olives, not brought to the Tent of Meeting. The scapegoat is sent to Azazel, not sacrificed on the altar. Since neither is destined for the Temple entrance, processing them “outside” incurs no penalty — there’s no “inside” alternative.
Key Terms:
- פרת חטאת (parat chatat) = The red heifer used for purification from corpse impurity
- שעיר המשתלח (sa’ir ha-mishtaleiach) = The scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur
- גתה (gitah) = Its pit — the designated place for burning the red heifer
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
List of nine disqualified animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמֻּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנָן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵיפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן — שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
An animal that mounted or was mounted by a human, one that was set aside for idolatry, one that was worshipped, the payment to a prostitute, the price of a dog, a crossbreed, a tereifah, and an animal born through caesarean section — if one slaughtered them outside — he is exempt.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna lists nine categories of animals that can never be valid offerings. Since they’re permanently disqualified, slaughtering them outside creates no liability. The principle is consistent: “outside” liability mirrors “inside” eligibility. Each category has a specific Torah source rendering it unfit: bestiality (Leviticus 18), idolatry (Exodus 22:19), etnan (Deuteronomy 23:19), crossbreeding (Leviticus 19:19), tereifah (Exodus 22:30), and caesarean birth (derived exegetically).
Key Terms:
- רובע/נרבע (rove’a/nirba) = An animal involved in bestiality
- מוקצה (muktzeh) = Designated for idol worship (even if not yet used)
- נעבד (ne’evad) = Actually worshipped as an idol
- אתנן (etnan) = Payment given to a prostitute
- מחיר (mechir) = The price of a dog (exchanged for an animal)
- כלאים (kilayim) = Crossbreed of two species
- טריפה (tereifah) = Mortally wounded animal that cannot survive
- יוצא דופן (yotzei dofen) = Born via caesarean section
Amud Bet (112b)
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Temporarily blemished animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עוֹבְרִין — הַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עוֹבְרִין — פָּטוּר; בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין קְבוּעִין — אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
Animals with temporary blemishes — if one slaughtered them outside — he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: Animals with temporary blemishes — exempt; animals with permanent blemishes — there is no violation of slaughtering outside for them at all.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna addresses blemished animals. Temporarily blemished animals (which will heal) are exempt from liability because they’re currently unfit. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes: temporary blemishes involve exemption (implying a prohibition exists but has no punishment), while permanent blemishes have no prohibition whatsoever since they can never become fit.
Key Terms:
- מומין עוברין (mumin ovrin) = Temporary/passing blemishes that will heal
- מומין קבועין (mumin kvu’in) = Permanent blemishes
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Doves and pigeons — age requirements
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן — הַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן — פָּטוּר; תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן — אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
Turtledoves whose time has not yet arrived, and young pigeons whose time has passed — if one slaughtered them outside — he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: Young pigeons whose time has passed — exempt; turtledoves whose time has not yet arrived — there is no violation of slaughtering outside for them at all.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Bird offerings have age requirements: turtledoves must be mature; young pigeons must be young. A turtledove too young or a pigeon too old is unfit. Rabbi Shimon again distinguishes: pigeons that aged out are permanently disqualified (no prohibition at all); young turtledoves will eventually become fit (exempt from punishment but prohibited).
Key Terms:
- תורים (torim) = Turtledoves — valid when mature
- בני יונה (bnei yonah) = Young pigeons — valid when young
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Animal and offspring on the same day
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ — הַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ — חַיָּיב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
An animal and its offspring [slaughtered on the same day] — if one slaughtered them outside — he is liable. Rabbi Shimon says: Exempt.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Torah prohibits slaughtering a mother and offspring on the same day (Leviticus 22:28). If both were designated as offerings and one was slaughtered inside, is slaughtering the second outside a violation? The first Tanna says yes — the second animal was technically fit before its parent was slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon exempts — once the parent was slaughtered, the offspring became unfit for that day.
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Time-deficient animals defined
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְחוּסַּר זְמַן — בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ בֵּין בִּבְעָלִים — הַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
An animal lacking time — whether due to itself or due to its owner — if one slaughtered it outside — he is exempt.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna introduces “time deficiency” in two forms: (1) In the animal itself — under 8 days old, not yet eligible for sacrifice. (2) In the owner — the owner hasn’t completed a required waiting period. Both result in temporary unfitness, hence exemption from liability for outside slaughter.
Key Terms:
- מחוסר זמן בגופו (mechusar zman be-gufo) = Time-deficient in its body (under 8 days)
- מחוסר זמן בבעלים (mechusar zman bi-ve’alim) = Time-deficient in the owners (still in purification period)
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Zav, Zava, Yoledet, Metzora — owner time-deficiency
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת וְהַמְּצֹרָע — שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ חַטָּאתָן וַאֲשָׁמָן בַּחוּץ — פְּטוּרִין. עוֹלוֹתֵיהֶן וְשַׁלְמֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ — חַיָּיבִין.
English Translation:
A zav, zava, woman after childbirth, and metzora — who offered their sin offerings and guilt offerings outside — are exempt. Their burnt offerings and peace offerings outside — they are liable.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Individuals with certain impurities must bring offerings after purification. During the waiting period, their sin/guilt offerings are “not yet due” — hence exempt if offered outside. But their burnt/peace offerings (which aren’t time-bound to the purification process) create liability if offered outside since they’re technically valid.
Key Terms:
- זב/זבה (zav/zava) = Male/female with abnormal genital discharge
- יולדת (yoledet) = Woman after childbirth
- מצורע (metzora) = One afflicted with tzara’at (biblical skin disease)
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Non-altar portions exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת, מִבְּשַׂר אָשָׁם, מִבְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, מִבְּשַׂר קׇדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּמוֹתַר הָעֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת — הַמַּעֲלָן בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
One who offers up outside: meat of a sin offering, meat of a guilt offering, meat of most sacred offerings, meat of lesser sacred offerings, the remainder of the Omer, the Two Loaves, the Showbread, and remnants of meal offerings — he is exempt.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna lists items meant to be eaten, not burned on the altar. Since these portions were never destined for altar consumption, offering them “outside” creates no liability. The prohibition concerns altar-eligible items being diverted; items meant for human consumption have no altar alternative.
Key Terms:
- עומר (omer) = The barley offering brought on 16 Nisan
- שתי הלחם (shtei ha-lechem) = The Two Loaves brought on Shavuot
- לחם הפנים (lechem ha-panim) = The Showbread displayed in the Temple
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Preparatory actions exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַיּוֹצֵק, וְהַפּוֹתֵת, וְהַמּוֹלֵחַ, וְהַמֵּנִיף, וְהַמַּגִּישׁ, וְהַמְסַדֵּר אֶת הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְהַמֵּטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, וְהַקּוֹמֵץ, וְהַמְקַבֵּל דָּמִים — בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
And one who pours oil, breaks bread into pieces, salts, waves, brings near to the altar, arranges the Showbread, prepares the lamps, takes the handful from a meal offering, or receives blood — outside — he is exempt.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna exempts preparatory actions performed outside. Pouring oil, breaking bread, salting, waving, arranging — none of these consummate the sacrifice. Only the final act (sprinkling blood, burning on the altar) triggers liability. Earlier steps, even if done outside, don’t constitute “offering outside.”
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
No liability for related violations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו לֹא מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם רְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.
English Translation:
And one is not liable for it on account of being a non-priest, nor on account of impurity, nor on account of lacking vestments, nor on account of not washing hands and feet.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Since preparatory actions don’t constitute Temple service, they don’t trigger related prohibitions either. A non-priest doing them isn’t liable for unauthorized service. An impure person isn’t liable for serving while impure. No vestments, no hand-washing — none of these requirements apply to mere preparation.
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
Historical survey: Before the Tabernacle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן — הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת, וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּבְּכוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
Before the Tabernacle was erected — private altars were permitted, and the service was performed by the firstborn.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna begins a grand historical survey of where sacrifice was permitted. Before Sinai and the Tabernacle, anyone could build an altar and offer sacrifices. The firstborn sons — not Levites — performed the service. This was the original system from Creation through the Patriarchs.
Key Terms:
- במות (bamot) = Private altars
- בכורות (bekhorot) = Firstborn sons, who originally served as priests
Segment 22
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Tabernacle period: Centralization begins
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִשֶּׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן — נֶאֶסְרוּ בָּמוֹת, וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּכֹּהֲנִים. קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים; קׇדָשִׁים קַלִּים — בְּכׇל מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
Once the Tabernacle was erected — private altars were forbidden, and the service was performed by priests. Most sacred offerings were eaten inside the curtains; lesser sacred offerings — anywhere in the camp of Israel.
What the Gemara is Doing:
With the Tabernacle’s establishment at Sinai, the system changed dramatically. Private altars became forbidden. The Levitical priesthood replaced the firstborn. New eating restrictions emerged: the holiest offerings could only be eaten within the Tabernacle courtyard (inside the curtains); lesser offerings could be eaten throughout the Israelite camp.
Key Terms:
- קדשי קדשים (kodshei kodashim) = Most sacred offerings (sin offerings, guilt offerings, etc.)
- קדשים קלים (kodashim kalim) = Lesser sacred offerings (peace offerings, firstborn, tithes)
- קלעים (kela’im) = The curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard
Segment 23
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Gilgal period: Relaxation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לַגִּלְגָּל — הוּתְּרוּ בָּמוֹת. קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים; קׇדָשִׁים קַלִּים — בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
When they came to Gilgal — private altars were permitted. Most sacred offerings were eaten inside the curtains; lesser sacred offerings — anywhere.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Upon entering the Land of Israel, the Tabernacle was set up at Gilgal. During this 14-year period (7 years of conquest + 7 years of division), private altars were again permitted. The eating rules remained similar, but “anywhere” now meant anywhere in the Land of Israel.
Key Terms:
- גלגל (Gilgal) = First Israelite encampment in the Land of Israel
Segment 24
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Shiloh period: Re-centralization
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לְשִׁילֹה — נֶאֶסְרוּ בָּמוֹת. לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם תִּקְרָה, אֶלָּא בַּיִת שֶׁל אֲבָנִים מִלְּמַטָּן וִירִיעוֹת מִלְּמַעְלָן, וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״מְנוּחָה״.
English Translation:
When they came to Shiloh — private altars were forbidden. There was no ceiling, rather a stone building below and curtains above, and it was called “the resting place.”
What the Gemara is Doing:
At Shiloh, the Tabernacle became semi-permanent: stone walls with fabric roof. Private altars were again forbidden. The term “menuchah” (rest) from Deuteronomy 12:9 refers to Shiloh — the first “rest” for the Divine Presence in the Land. The 369-year Shiloh period represented significant centralization.
Key Terms:
- שילה (Shiloh) = Location of the Tabernacle for 369 years
- מנוחה (menuchah) = “Resting place” — prophetic term for Shiloh
Segment 25
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Nov and Gibeon: Dispersion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן — הוּתְּרוּ בָּמוֹת. קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים; קׇדָשִׁים קַלִּים — בְּכׇל עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
When they came to Nov and Gibeon — private altars were permitted. Most sacred offerings were eaten inside the curtains; lesser sacred offerings — in all the cities of Israel.
What the Gemara is Doing:
After Shiloh’s destruction, the Tabernacle moved to Nov and then Gibeon. Without a permanent structure, private altars were again permitted. This period lasted 57 years (13 at Nov until the priests’ massacre, 44 at Gibeon until Solomon built the Temple). Lesser offerings could be eaten in any Israelite city.
Segment 26
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Jerusalem: Permanent sanctity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם — נֶאֶסְרוּ בָּמוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶם עוֹד הֶיתֵּר. וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״נַחֲלָה״.
English Translation:
When they came to Jerusalem — private altars were forbidden, and they no longer had any permission. And it was called “the inheritance.”
What the Gemara is Doing:
Jerusalem marks the final, irreversible centralization. Once the Temple was built, private altars became permanently forbidden — even when the Temple is destroyed, bamot remain prohibited. The term “nachalah” (inheritance) from Deuteronomy 12:9 refers to Jerusalem — the eternal inheritance. Unlike Shiloh, Jerusalem’s sanctity is permanent.
Key Terms:
- נחלה (nachalah) = “Inheritance” — prophetic term for Jerusalem
Segment 27
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Liability framework based on timing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר בָּמוֹת וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר בָּמוֹת בַּחוּץ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
All offerings that were consecrated during a period when private altars were forbidden and offered during a period when private altars were forbidden, outside — these involve a positive commandment, a negative commandment, and one is liable for karet.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna establishes the liability matrix. Maximum liability (positive + negative + karet) applies when both consecration and offering occurred during a prohibition period. The positive command: bring offerings to the chosen place. The negative command: don’t sacrifice elsewhere. Karet: the most severe spiritual penalty.
Key Terms:
- עשה (aseh) = Positive commandment
- לא תעשה (lo ta’aseh) = Negative commandment
- כרת (karet) = Spiritual excision, the most severe biblical punishment
Segment 28
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Mixed periods: Consecrated during permission
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר בָּמוֹת וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר בָּמוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
If consecrated during a period when private altars were permitted and offered during a period when private altars were forbidden, outside — these involve a positive commandment and a negative commandment, but one is not liable for karet.
What the Gemara is Doing:
If the animal was consecrated when bamot were permitted (e.g., at Gilgal) but offered outside during a prohibition period (e.g., Shiloh), liability is reduced. The positive and negative commands still apply, but karet doesn’t — since at consecration, the animal could validly have been offered on a private altar.
Segment 29
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Reverse mixed period
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר בָּמוֹת וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר בָּמוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בַּעֲשֵׂה, וְאֵין בָּהֶם לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
If consecrated during a period when private altars were forbidden and offered during a period when private altars were permitted — these involve only a positive commandment, without a negative commandment.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The reverse scenario: consecrated during prohibition (e.g., Shiloh), offered outside during permission (e.g., after Shiloh’s destruction at Nov/Gibeon). Only a positive command is violated — the obligation to bring to the central location when it existed. No negative command or karet, since at the time of offering, private altars were permitted.
Segment 30
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Tabernacle-only offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ קָדָשִׁים קְרֵבִין בַּמִּשְׁכָּן: קׇדָשִׁים שֶׁהֻקְדְּשׁוּ לַמִּשְׁכָּן. קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר קְרֵבִין בַּמִּשְׁכָּן, וְקׇרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד — בְּבָמָה וּבַמִּשְׁכָּן.
English Translation:
These offerings are brought in the Tabernacle: Offerings that were consecrated for the Tabernacle. Communal offerings are brought in the Tabernacle, and individual offerings — on a private altar or in the Tabernacle.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna clarifies which offerings could use private altars (during permitted periods). Communal offerings (daily tamid, musaf, etc.) were always Tabernacle-only. Individual offerings could go either way. If specifically designated for the Tabernacle, they required the Tabernacle; if not, private altars worked during permitted periods.
Segment 31
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Differences between private and public altars
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמָה בֵּין בָּמַת יָחִיד לְבָמַת צִבּוּר? סְמִיכָה, וּשְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן…
English Translation:
What is the difference between a private altar and the public altar? The placing of hands, slaughter in the north…
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna begins listing ritual distinctions between private altars (bamah) and the central altar. Private altars didn’t require semicha (leaning hands on the animal’s head), northward slaughter, or certain other formalities. The daf ends mid-list, continuing onto 113a.
Key Terms:
- סמיכה (semichah) = Leaning/placing hands on the offering’s head
- שחיטת צפון (shechitat tzafon) = Slaughter on the north side of the altar