THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ZEVACHIM 119 - sponsored anonymously by a talmid of Rabbi Kornfeld in
Passaic, NJ (formerly from West Hempstead, NY)
1) THE "KEDUSHAH" OF SHILO
QUESTION: The Gemara has four different opinions regarding the
interpretation of the verse, "El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" -- "to the
resting place and the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). One opinion says that
"Menuchah" refers to the Mishkan in Shilo, while "Nachalah" refers to the
Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. A second opinion says that "Menuchah"
refers to the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim, while "Nachalah" refers to
Shilo. Another opinion says that both words refer to Yerushalayim, while a
fourth opinion maintains that they both refer to Shilo.
We know that there is an argument in the Gemara (see 60b, and Megilah 10a)
regarding whether or not the Kedushah of Yerushalayim remains in place after
the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. This argument has many practical
ramifications (for example, whether or not one may offer Korbanos nowadays;
see Insights to Zevachim 61a). Is the argument concerning the Kedushah of
Yerushalayim also relevant to the Kedushah of Shilo? Is there an opinion
which maintains that the Kedushah of Shilo is permanent and still remains?
(a) RASHI (DH Zo v'Zo Shilo) implies that there is also a Machlokes
regarding whether the Kedushah of Shilo is lasting. Rashi comments that even
though both words, "Menuchah" and "Nachalah," refer to Shilo according to
this opinion, Bamos could still be used afterwards, since this opinion
maintains that Shilo's Kedushah was present only when the Mishkan was
standing, but not afterwards. Rashi continues and says that even this
opinion maintains that it is permitted to bring Korbanos after the
destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, as the Gemara in Megilah states, "I
heard that they offer Korbanos in Beis Chonyo in our times."
The KEREN ORAH is in doubt about Rashi's intentions. The verse explicitly
says, "va'Yitosh Mishkan Shilo" -- "and he forsake the Mishkan in Shilo"
(Tehilim 78:60). How, then, could we think that any of the Kedushah remains?
The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Rashi is not saying that Shilo could possibly
have Kedushah after its destruction. Rather, Rashi is simply explaining that
according to Rebbi Yishmael, who learns that the verse of "Menuchah" and
"Nachalah" is telling us that Bamos are forbidden once the Mishkan in Shilo
is built, one should not think that this means that Bamos are also forbidden
*after* the Mishkan in Shilo is no longer standing. This is because he holds
(Megilah 10a) that even in Yerushalayim itself it is permitted to offer
Korbanos after the Churban. Shilo certainly does not have any lasting
(b) The KEREN ORAH gives his own insight into how the argument in our Gemara
concerning the verse of "El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" could have
implications regarding whether the Kedushah of Yerushalayim was lasting or
not after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara in Megilah
(10a) says that the opinion that maintains that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim
was not lasting learns this from the verse of "El ha'Menuchah...." The
Gemara explains that "Menuchah" refers to Shilo, and "Nachalah" refers to
the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. Just as one was permitted to offer
Korbanos after Shilo, one is permitted to do so after the destruction of the
Beis ha'Mikdash as well.
The Keren Orah explains that the opinion that learns that the Kedushah of
Yerushalayim was lasting understands that the fact that the Torah calls
Yerushalayim a "Nachalah" implies that it is the "inheritance" of the Jewish
people with regard to Korbanos, and thus Korbanos may not be brought after
the Churban in any other place. The argument seems to depend on the meaning
of the reference to Yerushalayim as "Nachalah."
TOSFOS in Megilah (10a, DH u'Mai) says that everyone agrees that a Bamah
remains prohibited even after Yerushalayim loses its Kedushah. The only
argument is whether or not Korbanos may be offered in the place of the
Mizbe'ach after the Beis ha'Mikdash is destroyed. According to Tosfos, from
where does the opinion that maintains that both "Menuchah" and "Nachalah"
refer to Shilo learn that it is forbidden to offer Korbanos on Bamos outside
the area of the Mizbe'ach?
The Keren Orah answers that one could say that there is a logical argument,
independent of the verse, which tells us that the Beis ha'Mikdash is the
only place in which Korbanos may be brought. We know that we are not allowed
to build another Beis ha'Mikdash and start offering Korbanos (see RAMBAM,
Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:3). This tells us that nowhere else may Korbanos
be brought outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, even without the verse of "Nachalah"
referring to Yerushalayim. (Y. Montrose)
2) WEARING THE "BIGDEI KEHUNAH" WHEN OFFERING A KORBAN ON A "BAMAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses how we know that certain Halachos that apply
in the Mishkan and the Beis ha'Mikdash do not apply when offering a Korban
on a Bamas Yachid, a private Bamah. Among these teachings, the Gemara
derives that one does not need to wear the Bigdei Kehunah from the verse,
"l'Shares ba'Kodesh" -- "to serve in the Kodesh" (Shemos 28:43).
This teaching seems redundant. We know that the reason why a Kohen is
disqualified from performing the Avodah when he is not wearing the Bigdei
Kehunah is because he is considered like a Zar (non-Kohen). The Gemara
earlier (17b) teaches that "when they wear their Begadim, they have their
status of Kehunah, but when they do not wear their Begadim, they do not have
their status of Kehunah." The Gemara earlier already gives a different
teaching for why a Zar may bring Korbanos on a Bamah. Why, then, do we need
another teaching for why the Bigdei Kehunah do not need to be worn? (TAHARAS
(a) The TAHARAS HA'KODESH answers that the verse is not telling us that one
does not need to wear Bigdei Kehunah. Rather, it is telling us that there is
not even a Mitzvah to wear Bigdei Kehunah.
However, this still needs explanation. Why would we have thought that it is
a Mitzvah to wear Bigdei Kehunah when anyone, even a non-Kohen, may offer
The EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests an answer based on the opinion of the MAHARAM
MI'ROTENBURG (in SHA'AREI TESHUVOS 2:218). The Maharam maintains that even
though a Zar may offer Korbanos on a Bamah, a Levi may not offer Korbanos on
a Bamah. This is because a Levi is forbidden from doing the Avodah of
Kohanim. The KANFEI YONAH explains that the Maharam is not referring to the
slaughtering of a Korban at a Bamah, since that is obviously an Avodah which
may be done by both a Kohen and a Zar, even in the Beis ha'Mikdash. However,
the other parts of the Avodah are called "Avodas Kohanim" and may be done
only by a Kohen, while at a Bamah they may be done even by a Zar. This is
why a Levi may not do the rest of the Avodah.
Once we understand that the Avodah of a Bamah retains its title of "Avodas
Kohanim," we can understand that a Kohen should have a Mitzvah to wear the
Bigdei Kehunah when he offers a Korban on a Bamah. The verse is telling us
that although the Avodah of the Korban is still considered "Avodas Kohanim,"
the Kohen should not wear the Bigdei Kehunah when he offers a Korban on a
(b) The TORAS HA'KODESH (I:53:5) answers that not only is a Kohen called a
"Zar" when he performs the Avodah without the Bigdei Kehunah, but the Avodah
itself requires Bigdei Kehunah, and it is valid if performed without the
Bigdei Kehunah. We might have thought that since the Avodah of a Bamah is
similar to that of the Beis ha'Mikdash, perhaps even though the Avodah of a
Zar is valid, the Avodah itself still requires the Bigdei Kehunah, and thus
anyone who does the Avodah -- even a Zar -- would have to ear the Bigdei
Kehunah. The verse of "l'Shares ba'Kodesh" tells us that this is not the
case. (Y. Montrose)