(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 119

ZEVACHIM 119 - sponsored anonymously by a talmid of Rabbi Kornfeld in Passaic, NJ (formerly from West Hempstead, NY)


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 Kedushah.

(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)


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 HA'KODESH)


(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 Korban?

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 Bamah.

(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)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,