Zevachim Daf 119 (זבחים דף קי״ט)
Daf: 119 | Amudim: 119a – 119b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (119a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation of chronological calculation for Shiloh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ דָּוִד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל – אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; בְּחֶבְרוֹן מָלַךְ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים [וְגוֹ׳]״.
English Translation:
As it is written: “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: Seven years he reigned in Hebron, and thirty-three years he reigned in Jerusalem” (I Kings 2:11). In the first year that David reigned in Jerusalem he brought the Ark there from Kiriath Jearim. The Ark was therefore in Kiriath Jearim for twenty years. When the thirty-three years of David’s reign in Jerusalem are added to these, there are a total of fifty-three years from the destruction of Shiloh. During all of these years, and at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, the Tabernacle was in Nov and Gibeon (see I Kings 3:4).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues its chronological calculation to determine how long the Tabernacle stood in Shiloh. By establishing that David reigned 40 years (7 in Hebron, 33 in Jerusalem) and brought the Ark to Jerusalem in his first year there, we can calculate that the Ark was in Kiriath Jearim for approximately 20 years after Shiloh’s destruction. This chronology is crucial for understanding the periods when private altars (bamot) were permitted versus prohibited.
Key Terms:
- קרית יערים (Kiriath Jearim) = The city where the Ark rested after it was returned by the Philistines, before David brought it to Jerusalem
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Calculation of Shiloh’s duration
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבִשְׁלֹמֹה כְּתִיב: ״וַיָּחֶל לִבְנוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְמַלְכוּתוֹ״. נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ לְשִׁילֹה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁבְעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת.
English Translation:
And with regard to the construction of the Temple in the time of Solomon, it is written: “And he began to build it in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (II Chronicles 3:2), which was the 480th year following the Exodus (see I Kings 6:1). When the forty years in the wilderness, the fourteen years that the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, and the fifty-seven years that the Tabernacle stood in Nov and Gibeon, which totals 111 years, are subtracted from the 480, there remain for Shiloh 370 less one years in which the Tabernacle stood there.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the chronological calculation. Solomon began building the Temple in the 480th year after the Exodus. Subtracting 40 years in the wilderness, 14 years in Gilgal, and 57 years in Nov and Gibeon yields 369 years for the Tabernacle in Shiloh. This extended period explains why Shiloh achieved special sanctity and why its destruction had significant halachic implications for the permissibility of private altars.
Key Terms:
- בית עולמים (Bet Olamim) = The Eternal House, referring to the Temple in Jerusalem
- שנת ארבע למלכותו = Fourth year of Solomon’s reign when Temple construction began
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה/גמרא
Introduction to Nov and Gibeon period
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן [וְכוּ׳]. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי לֹא בָּאתֶם עַד עָתָּה אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״;
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that when Shiloh was destroyed and they arrived at Nov and Gibeon, private altars were permitted and offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten in any city in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? they are derived as the Sages taught: The Jewish people were told that when they enter Eretz Yisrael they would be permitted to sacrifice on private altars, “for you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9), during which time those altars would be prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now seeks the scriptural basis for the mishna’s teaching about Nov and Gibeon. The verse in Deuteronomy uses two distinct terms—“menucha” (rest) and “nachala” (inheritance)—to describe two stages of sanctity. The separation of these terms creates a framework for understanding when private altars are permitted and when they are forbidden.
Key Terms:
- נוב וגבעון (Nov and Gibeon) = Cities where the Tabernacle stood after Shiloh’s destruction
- במות (Bamot) = Private altars used for sacrifice outside the central sanctuary
- קדשים קלים (Kodashim Kalim) = Offerings of lesser sanctity (peace offerings, thanks offerings, etc.)
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Interpretation of “menucha” and “nachala”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה״ – זוֹ שִׁילֹה, ״נַחֲלָה״ – זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. לָמָּה חִלְּקָן? כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן הֶיתֵּר בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה.
English Translation:
The Gemara interprets the verse: “To the rest”; this is a reference to Shiloh. “The inheritance”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. One may ask: Why does the verse divide them into two terms, i.e., “rest” and “inheritance”? It is in order to give permission to sacrifice on private altars during the period between this one and that one. Therefore, it was permitted to sacrifice on private altars during the period of Nov and Gibeon.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a crucial interpretation explaining the halachic framework of bamot. The Torah deliberately uses two separate terms to indicate two distinct stages of sanctity. Shiloh represents “menucha” (rest from conquest), and Jerusalem represents “nachala” (permanent inheritance). The gap between them—the period of Nov and Gibeon—allows for the temporary permission of private altars.
Key Terms:
- מנוחה (Menucha) = Rest, interpreted as referring to Shiloh
- נחלה (Nachala) = Inheritance, interpreted as referring to Jerusalem
Segment 5
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Reish Lakish’s question about second tithe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי נָמֵי לִיתְנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַעֲשֵׂר – ״שָׁם״–״שָׁם״ מֵאָרוֹן קָא יָלְפִי; כֵּיוָן דְּאָרוֹן לָא הֲוָה, מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לָא הֲוַאי.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the tanna of the mishna teach the halakha with regard to second tithe as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Second tithe is derived from what was written with regard to the Ark, by means of the verbal analogy between “there” and “there.” With regard to second tithe, the verse states: “And there you shall eat before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:7), while with regard to the Ark, the verse states: “There you shall place the Ark of the Testimony” (Exodus 40:3). Due to the analogy between second tithe and the Ark, one can infer that since there was no Ark in Nov and Gibeon, as at that time it was in Kiriath Jearim, there was also no second tithe eaten there.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish questions why the mishna doesn’t mention second tithe (maaser sheni) alongside offerings of lesser sanctity. Rabbi Yochanan explains through a gezeira shava (verbal analogy): the word “שם” (there) connects tithe consumption to the Ark’s location. Since the Ark was in Kiriath Jearim during the Nov/Gibeon period, not at the Tabernacle, second tithe couldn’t be eaten there either.
Key Terms:
- מעשר שני (Maaser Sheni) = Second tithe, which must be eaten in Jerusalem (or its equivalent)
- גזירה שוה (Gezeira Shava) = Verbal analogy, a hermeneutical principle linking laws through shared terminology
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: What about Paschal offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, פֶּסַח וְקָדָשִׁים נָמֵי – דְּ״שָׁם״–״שָׁם״ מֵאָרוֹן יָלְפִי; דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָרוֹן לָא הֲוָה, אִינְהוּ נָמֵי לָא הֲווֹ!
English Translation:
Reish Lakish asked: If it is so that this is the source, then with regard to the Paschal offering and other sacrificial animals, which everyone agrees were consumed in Nov and Gibeon, it can also be said that they are derived from the Ark by means of the verbal analogy between “there” and “there,” and since the Ark was not in Nov and Gibeon they too were not there.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish presses his question: if the gezeira shava linking “שם” to the Ark applies to second tithe, shouldn’t it also apply to the Paschal offering and other sacrifices? Yet everyone agrees these were offered in Nov and Gibeon! This challenge forces Rabbi Yochanan to provide a more nuanced explanation.
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan’s answer: This is Rabbi Shimon’s view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּאֲמַר לָךְ הָא, מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אַף צִבּוּר לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא פֶּסַח וְחוֹבוֹת הַקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן, אֲבָל חוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶם זְמַן – הָכָא וְהָכָא לָא קְרוּב. מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה – חוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן הוּא, וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the one who said this to you, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, from which you inferred that second tithe was not eaten in Nov and Gibeon, in accordance with whose opinion is this statement of his? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Even the public sacrificed upon a great public altar, e.g., in Nov and Gibeon, only Paschal offerings and compulsory public offerings that have a set time. But compulsory offerings that do not have a set time were not sacrificed here or there, i.e., on a great public altar or on a small private altar. This includes an animal tithe offering, which is a compulsory offering that has no set time, and grain tithe is juxtaposed to animal tithe. Since animal tithe offerings were not brought at that time, second tithe was not eaten there either.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan identifies the mishna as following Rabbi Shimon’s view. According to Rabbi Shimon, even on the great public altar of Nov/Gibeon, only time-bound offerings (like Pesach and festival offerings) were sacrificed. Non-time-bound obligations, including animal tithe, were not offered. Since grain tithe is linked to animal tithe, second tithe also didn’t apply there.
Key Terms:
- חובות שקבוע להן זמן (Chovot SheKavua Lahen Zman) = Time-bound obligations
- מעשר בהמה (Maaser Behema) = Animal tithe, the tenth animal of a herd dedicated to God
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda’s opposing view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קְרוּב? אִין; דְּהָאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְהָא בָּעֵי בִּירָה! וְלָאו תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ בִּירוֹת הֵן – שִׁילֹה, וְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן, וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים? הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: לַאֲכִילַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Based on this, may it be concluded by inference that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that compulsory offerings for which there is no set time were sacrificed upon a great public altar, second tithe was eaten there and animal tithe offerings were sacrificed? The Gemara responds: Yes, as Rav Adda bar Mattana says: Second tithe and animal tithe offerings were consumed in Nov and Gibeon according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara challenges: But these require the Temple, not a tent, to which people will come to eat tithes. The Gemara responds: But didn’t Rav Yosef teach a baraita that states: There were three temples: Shiloh, Nov and Gibeon, and the Eternal House. He teaches it and he says it: This is referring to consuming second tithe, and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explores the implications of Rabbi Yehuda’s position. Unlike Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yehuda holds that non-time-bound offerings were brought in Nov/Gibeon, meaning second tithe was eaten there too. When challenged that tithes require a “bira” (Temple structure), the Gemara cites Rav Yosef’s teaching that Shiloh, Nov/Gibeon, and the Temple all qualify as “birot” (temples) for this purpose—according to Rabbi Yehuda.
Key Terms:
- בירה (Bira) = Temple/fortress structure, required for eating second tithe
- שלש בירות (Shalosh Birot) = Three temples: Shiloh, Nov/Gibeon, and Jerusalem
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה/גמרא
When they arrived at Jerusalem
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי לֹא בָּאתֶם עַד עָתָּה אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״ – ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה, ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that when they arrived at Jerusalem, private altars were prohibited and there was no subsequent period in which they were permitted. And the Temple in Jerusalem was characterized as “inheritance.” With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse that discusses the permissibility of private altars states: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9). The Gemara interprets: With regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Shiloh, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Jerusalem.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the baraita’s interpretation. This view—that “menucha” refers to Shiloh and “nachala” to Jerusalem—represents one position in a Tannaitic dispute. The sequence matches the historical chronology: first Shiloh (rest from conquest), then Jerusalem (permanent inheritance).
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda’s supporting verses
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאוֹמֵר: ״הָיְתָה לִּי נַחֲלָתִי כְּאַרְיֵה בַיָּעַר״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״הַעַיִט צָבוּעַ נַחֲלָתִי לִי הַעַיִט סָבִיב עָלֶיהָ״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
And similarly, the verse that relates a prophecy with regard to Jerusalem states: “I have forsaken My house, I have cast off My inheritance…My inheritance has become to Me as a lion in the forest” (Jeremiah 12:7–8). And additionally, in that same prophecy the verse states: “Is My inheritance to Me as a speckled bird of prey? Are the birds of prey against her round about?” (Jeremiah 12:9). This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda supports his interpretation—that “nachala” refers to Jerusalem—by citing prophetic verses from Jeremiah where God refers to Jerusalem as “My inheritance.” These verses describe the Temple’s destruction using inheritance terminology, confirming the association.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s opposing interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה. וְאוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת מְנוּחָתִי עֲדֵי עַד פֹּה אֵשֵׁב כִּי אִוִּיתִיהָ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי בָחַר ה׳ בְּצִיּוֹן אִוָּהּ לְמוֹשָׁב לוֹ״.
English Translation:
By contrast, Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh. And this is evident from the verse that says: “This is My resting place forever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it” (Psalms 132:14). And it states in the previous verse: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation” (Psalms 132:13), which indicates that the verses are referring to Jerusalem.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon reverses the interpretation: “menucha” refers to Jerusalem (citing Psalms 132 about Zion being God’s eternal resting place), while “nachala” refers to Shiloh. This creates a different understanding of the verse’s chronological sequence.
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge to Rabbi Shimon’s interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה – ״אֶל הַנַּחֲלָה וְאֶל הַמְּנוּחָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא ״מְנוּחָה״ דְּלָא מְטֵיתוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְ״נַחֲלָה״ נָמֵי לָא מְטֵיתוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Granted, according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Shiloh; that is, as it is written: “To the rest and to the inheritance,” in chronological order, as the period of Shiloh preceded that of Jerusalem. But according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh, the verse should have stated: To the inheritance and to the rest. The Gemara explains: This is what the verse is saying: When you enter Eretz Yisrael private altars will be permitted, and it is not necessary to say that you have not arrived at the “rest,” i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem, but you have not even arrived at the “inheritance,” i.e., the Tabernacle in Shiloh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon: if Jerusalem is “menucha” and Shiloh is “nachala,” the verse should list them in reverse chronological order! The answer: the verse uses the rhetorical structure “not only X, but even Y”—you haven’t even reached Shiloh (the lesser stage), let alone Jerusalem (the ultimate destination).
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Additional Tannaitic opinions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זוֹ וְזוֹ שִׁילֹה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ וְזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ
English Translation:
§ With regard to the words “rest” and “inheritance” in the aforementioned verse, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that this and that, i.e., both terms, are a reference to Shiloh. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: This and that are a reference to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is
קלאוד על הדף:
Two additional opinions emerge: The school of Rabbi Yishmael says both terms refer to Shiloh, while Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says both refer to Jerusalem. These views differ fundamentally from Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon (bar Yochai’s teacher), creating a four-way dispute about the verse’s meaning.
Key Terms:
- תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (Tanna D’vei Rabbi Yishmael) = The school of Rabbi Yishmael, a major Tannaitic academy
Amud Bet (119b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation of the challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁילֹה ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אִי נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ וָזוֹ שִׁילֹה, אוֹ זוֹ וָזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – ״מְנוּחָה נַחֲלָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a textual difficulty against both the school of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. If both terms refer to the same place, why does the verse use the definite article and conjunction “el ha-menucha ve-el ha-nachala” (to THE rest AND to THE inheritance) rather than simply “menucha nachala”? The repetition implies two distinct locations. This challenge remains unresolved (“kashya”).
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Explanation of both terms for Shiloh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ וָזוֹ שִׁילֹה; ״מְנוּחָה״ – דְּנָחוּ מִכִּיבּוּשׁ, ״נַחֲלָה (זוֹ)״ – דִּפְלַגוּ הָתָם נַחֲלוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְחַלֵּק לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיַּפֵּל לָהֶם גּוֹרָל בְּשִׁילֹה עַל פִּי ה׳״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains how both terms could apply to Shiloh: “menucha” (rest) because Israel rested from the conquest of Canaan during the Shiloh period, and “nachala” (inheritance) because the tribal territories were divided there by lot. The verse from Joshua 18 explicitly connects Shiloh with the division of inheritances.
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Explanation of both terms for Jerusalem
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ וָזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם; בִּשְׁלָמָא ״נַחֲלָה״ – נַחֲלַת עוֹלָמִים. אֶלָּא ״מְנוּחָה״ – מַאי מְנוּחָה? מְנוּחַת אָרוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּנוֹחַ הָאָרוֹן״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
For those who say both terms refer to Jerusalem: “nachala” fits because Jerusalem is the eternal inheritance. But why “menucha”? The answer is that Jerusalem is the resting place of the Ark—referencing verses about the Ark “resting” in its permanent home.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Support for bamot being permitted during Shiloh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ וָזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֲבָל שִׁילֹה הֲווֹ (שריא) [שַׁרְיָאן] בָּמוֹת – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח מָנוֹחַ אֶת גְּדִי הָעִזִּים וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיַּעַל עַל הַצּוּר לַה׳״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
According to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (both terms = Jerusalem), private altars were permitted during Shiloh’s time. This explains the story of Manoach (Samson’s father) who sacrificed on a rock—a private altar—during the Shiloh period. The verse supports the view that bamot were not prohibited until Jerusalem.
Key Terms:
- מנוח (Manoach) = Samson’s father, who offered a sacrifice on a rock
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge from Manoach’s sacrifice
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ וָזוֹ שִׁילֹה, וּבָמוֹת הֲוֹה אֲסִירָן – מַאי ״וַיִּקַּח מָנוֹחַ״? הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
For the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who hold bamot were forbidden during Shiloh, Manoach’s sacrifice presents a problem. The answer: it was a “hora’at sha’ah” (temporary prophetic dispensation). An angel appeared to Manoach, and prophetic authority can permit temporary deviations from the norm.
Key Terms:
- הוראת שעה (Hora’at Sha’ah) = A temporary ruling/dispensation issued by a prophet
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Mnemonic for the opinions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וָזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וְסִימָנָיךְ: (משכי) [מַשְׁכִינְהוּ] גַּבְרָא לְגַבְרֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes an alternative version where the school of Rabbi Yishmael agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai that both terms refer to Jerusalem. The mnemonic “mashkinehu gavra l’gavrei” (the man pulled the men) helps remember that one individual (Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai) convinced a group (the school of Rabbi Yishmael) to adopt his position.
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה/גמרא
Liability for slaughter vs. offering up
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל בְּהַעֲלָאָה – כָּרֵת נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב.
English Translation:
§ 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 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses the mishna’s ruling about offerings consecrated during a period when bamot were permitted but sacrificed during a period of prohibition. Rav Kahana distinguishes: for slaughter there’s no karet, but for offering up (hakrava) there is karet.
Key Terms:
- שחיטה (Shechita) = Slaughter
- העלאה (Ha’ala’ah) = Offering up/placing on the altar
- כרת (Karet) = Divine excision, the most severe spiritual punishment
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Kahana’s proof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַאֲלֵהֶם תֹּאמַר״ – עַל הַסְּמוּכִין תֹּאמַר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana derives his distinction from a wordplay: “va-alehem” (to them) sounds like “al-hem” (about them/regarding the adjacent passage). This suggests the karet penalty applies to the offering-up described in the adjacent verses, even when slaughter itself doesn’t carry karet.
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rabba’s objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: מִי כְּתִיב ״וַעֲלֵיהֶם תֹּאמַר״?! ״אֲלֵהֶם״ כְּתִיב, וַ״אֲלֵיהֶם״ קָרֵינַן!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba challenges Rav Kahana’s wordplay: the verse clearly reads “alehem” (to them), not “aleihem” (about them). The straightforward meaning is that the command should be conveyed to the people mentioned earlier—not a reference to adjacent passages.
Segment 10
TYPE: תיובתא
Conclusive refutation from a baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא, אַרְבָּעָה כְּלָלוֹת הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר בְּקָדָשִׁים: הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת בַּחוּץ – הֲרֵי הֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כָּרֵת. הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a baraita with Rabbi Shimon’s four principles. The first two cases: (1) Consecrated and sacrificed during prohibition = positive and negative violations + karet. (2) Consecrated during permission, sacrificed during prohibition = positive and negative violations but NO karet. This explicitly refutes Rav Kahana’s distinction—both slaughter and offering are treated the same.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Third case: Consecrated during prohibition, sacrificed during permission
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה, וְאֵין בָּהֶן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third case: consecrated during prohibition but sacrificed during permission. Here there’s only a positive commandment violation (to bring offerings to the central sanctuary), but no negative prohibition—since during the period of permission, bamot weren’t prohibited.
Segment 12
TYPE: תיובתא
Fourth case and conclusive refutation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת – פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The fourth case: both consecration and sacrifice during permission = completely exempt. The baraita makes no distinction between slaughter and offering up, directly contradicting Rav Kahana. The Gemara concludes with “teyuvta” (conclusive refutation)—Rav Kahana’s position is rejected.
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה/גמרא
Source for semicha (laying of hands)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ קֳּדָשִׁים [וְכוּ׳]. סְמִיכָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְסָמַךְ״.
English Translation:
§ 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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now provides scriptural sources for each service listed in the mishna that applies only to a great public altar (bama gedola) and not a private altar (bama ketana). Semicha (laying hands on the sacrifice) requires “before the Lord”—i.e., at the Tabernacle/Temple.
Key Terms:
- סמיכה (Semicha) = Laying hands on the head of a sacrifice
- במה גדולה (Bama Gedola) = Great/public altar (Tabernacle)
- במה קטנה (Bama Ketana) = Small/private altar
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Sources for northern slaughter and blood placement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן – דִּכְתִיב: ״צָפוֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה׳״. מַתָּנוֹת סָבִיב – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזָרַק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב (סָבִיב)״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more requirements specific to the public altar: slaughter in the north (for most-sacred offerings) and placement of blood around all sides of the altar. Both derive from verses specifying “before the Lord” or “at the Tent of Meeting,” limiting these requirements to the central sanctuary.
Key Terms:
- שחיטת צפון (Shechitat Tzafon) = Northern slaughter, required for offerings of the most sacred order
- מתנות סביב (Matanot Saviv) = Blood placements around the altar
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Sources for waving and bringing near
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנוּפָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳״. הַגָּשָׁה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Waving (tenufa) and bringing near (hagasha) are also limited to the public altar. The definite article “ha-mizbe’ach” (THE altar) specifies the main altar of the Tabernacle/Temple.
Key Terms:
- תנופה (Tenufa) = Waving, a service performed with certain offerings
- הגשה (Hagasha) = Bringing near, approaching the altar with a meal offering
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Dispute about meal offerings on bamot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – יֵשׁ עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – אֵין עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda holds there were no meal offerings on private altars at all. Rav Sheshet links meal offerings and bird offerings: whoever permits one permits both; whoever forbids one forbids both. This creates a broader disagreement about what types of offerings were brought on bamot.
Key Terms:
- מנחה (Mincha) = Meal offering
- עופות (Ofot) = Bird offerings
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Derivation excluding meal and bird offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״זְבָחִים״ – וְלֹא מְנָחוֹת, ״זְבָחִים״ – וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The term “zevachim” (slaughtered offerings) excludes meal offerings and bird offerings. “Zevach” implies slaughter, which doesn’t apply to meal offerings (which are burned) or bird offerings (which use melicha, not standard slaughter).
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Priest and service vestments
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֹהֵן – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזָרַק הַכֹּהֵן״. בִּגְדֵי שָׁרֵת – ״לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more distinctions: a priest is required only at the public altar (derived from “the priest shall sprinkle”), and priestly vestments are required only at the public altar (derived from “to minister in the sacred place”). On a private altar, a non-priest could offer, and special vestments weren’t required.
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Service vessels and pleasing aroma
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – ״אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ בָם בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״. לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Service vessels (klei sharet) and the requirement for a “pleasing aroma” (rei’ach nichoach) apply only to the public altar. The latter means that previously roasted limbs cannot be placed on the altar—the sacrifice must produce a fresh pleasing aroma.
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Partition for blood and washing hands
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְחִיצָה בְּדָמִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה הָרֶשֶׁת עַד חֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. רִיחוּץ יָדַיִם – דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְקׇרְבָתָם אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יִרְחָצוּ״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The red line dividing the altar (mechitza ba-damim) and the washing of hands and feet (kiddush yadayim v’raglayim) were required only at the public altar. These refinements of service procedure didn’t apply to private bamot.
Key Terms:
- מחיצה בדמים (Mechitza Ba-Damim) = Partition for blood, the red line on the altar
- ריחוץ ידים ורגלים (Richutz Yadayim V’Raglayim) = Washing hands and feet from the laver
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Rami bar Chama’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה, וְהִקְרִיבוּם בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה; אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה דְּקָרְבִינְהוּ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה – יֵשׁ חִיצּוּי.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rami bar Chama qualifies: the exemptions from partition requirements apply only when offerings intended for a private altar are actually sacrificed on a private altar. But if offerings intended for a private altar are brought to the great public altar, the partition requirements do apply.
Key Terms:
- חיצוי (Chitzuy) = The requirement to distinguish between upper and lower blood applications
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
Rabba’s challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹתֵיב רַבָּה: חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה. אֵימָא: נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba challenges from a baraita about breast and thigh portions. The Gemara reinterprets: the rule depends on where the offering is brought, not where it was originally intended. If brought to the great altar, the rules apply.
Key Terms:
- חזה ושוק (Chazeh Va-Shok) = Breast and thigh, given to the priest from peace offerings
- תרומת לחמי תודה (Terumat Lachmei Toda) = Teruma from the loaves of a thanks offering
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative version of Rami bar Chama
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְהִקְרִיבָן בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה; אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָרְבִינְהוּ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, אֵין חִיצּוּי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative version reverses Rami bar Chama’s ruling: the partition requirement depends on the original consecration, not where it’s ultimately sacrificed. Offerings originally intended for a private altar never acquire the partition requirement, even if brought to the great altar.
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
Supporting the alternative version
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק וּתְרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to support the alternative version from the baraita about breast and thigh portions, which distinguishes based on the type of consecration rather than where the offering is brought.
Segment 25
TYPE: גמרא
Rejection and Rabbi Elazar’s opinion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ בִּפְנִים – קְלָטוּהָ מְחִיצוֹת לְכׇל דָּבָר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that the alternative version of Rami bar Chama contradicts Rabbi Elazar’s position. Rabbi Elazar holds that once an offering from a private altar enters the sanctuary’s partitions, it becomes fully sanctified with all the stringencies of the great altar.
Key Terms:
- קלטוה מחיצות (Klatuha Mechitzot) = The partitions absorbed/sanctified it
Segment 26
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma (incomplete)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד,
English Translation:
With regard to the previous matter, Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to a burnt offering of a private altar
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf concludes mid-sentence with Rabbi Zeira beginning to raise a dilemma about a burnt offering from a private altar. This dilemma continues on the next daf, exploring the implications of Rabbi Elazar’s principle about partitions absorbing offerings.