POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 119
ZEVACHIM 119 - sponsored anonymously by a talmid of Rabbi Kornfeld in
Passaic, NJ (formerly from West Hempstead, NY)
1) "NOV" AND "GIV'ON"
(a) (Mishnah): When the Mishkan was set up in Nov and (later
in) Giv'on (Bamos were permitted...(Rashi's text -
Ma'aser Sheni was permitted in all Arei Yisrael.)
2) "HA'MENUCHAH VEHA'NACHALAH"
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa): "Ki Lo Vasem Ad Ata El ha'Menuchah v'El
ha'Nachalah" - "Menuchah" refers to Shilo, "Nachalah"
refers to Yerushalayim;
1. Question: (The verse teaches that Bamos will be
permitted until Shilo -) why does the verse also
allude to Yerushalayim?
(d) Question (Reish Lakish): This implies that the Kedushah
of Shilo lapsed when it was destroyed - if so, Ma'aser
Sheni should have to be brought to Nov and Giv'on! (Rashi
- but the Mishnah permits it in all Arei Yisrael; Tosfos
- why did the Tana omit this law?)
2. Answer: This teaches that Bamos were permitted in
the period between Shilo and Yerushalayim.
(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): We learn Ma'aser Sheni from a
Gezerah Shavah "Sham-Sham" from the Aron;
1. Since the Aron was not in Nov and Giv'on, Ma'aser
Sheni need not be brought there (or, it could not be
eaten anywhere - Tosfos.)
(f) Question: If so, you should say the same regarding Pesach
and Kodshim, they are also learned from "Sham-Sham"!
(g) Answer: Our Tana is R. Shimon, who says that even the
Tzibur only offered Pesach and Chovos that have a fixed
time, but Chovos without a fixed time were not offered at
1. Ma'aser Behemah is a Chovah without a fixed time (so
it was not offered), and Ma'aser Sheni is equated to
(h) Inference: According to R. Yehudah, Ma'aser Behemah was
offered in Nov and Giv'on, Ma'aser Sheni had to be eaten
(i) Confirmation: This is correct!
1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): According to R. Yehudah,
Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser Behemah were eaten in Nov
(j) Question: They must be eaten in a Birah (city)!
(k) Answer: Indeed, Rav Yosef taught that there were three
Biros - Shilo, Nov and Giv'on and the Beis ha'Mikdash.
1. (Rav Yosef): The Birah in Nov and Giv'on was for the
sake of eating Ma'aser Sheni.
(a) (Mishnah): When the Beis ha'Mikdash was built in
Yerushalayim, Bamos were forbidden forever...
(b) (Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): "Ki Lo Vasem Ad Ata El
ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" - "Menuchah" refers to
Shilo, "Nachalah" refers to Yerushalayim;
1. It says "Haysah Li Nachalasi k'Aryeh va'Ya'ar", it
also says "Ha'Ayit Tzavu'a Nachalasi Li ha'Ayit
Saviv Aleha" (its enemies gather around it);
(c) R. Shimon says, "Menuchah" is Yerushalayim, "Nachalah" is
1. It says "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad Po Eshev Ki Ivisiha",
and it says "Vachar Hash-m b'Tziyon Ivah l'Moshav
(d) Question: We understand according to R. Yehudah why the
verse mentions Menuchah before Nachalah - but according
to R. Shimon, the order should be reversed!
(e) Answer: The verse teaches, Bamos are permitted, for not
only have you not reached Yerushalayim, you have not even
reached Shilo (but then, they will be forbidden).
(f) (Beraisa #2 - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Both of them refer
(g) (R. Shimon ben Yochai): Both of them refer to
Yerushalayim. (Apparently, Tana'im argue about R.
Shimon's opinion, or R. Shimon retracted.)
(h) Question: We understand according to (both opinions in)
Beraisa #1, Menuchah and Nachalah refer to different
3) LIABILITY FOR "SHECHITAS CHUTZ" AND "HA'ALAS CHUTZ"
1. But according to (both opinions in) Beraisa #2,
Menuchah and Nachalah refer to the same place - it
should say 'ha'Menuchah veha'Nachalah', why does it
say "*V'El* ha'Nachalah"?
(i) This is left difficult.
(j) Question: We understand according to Tana d'vei R.
Yishmael - Shilo is called Menuchah for they rested from
1. It is called Nachalah for that is where inheritances
were apportioned - "Va'Yashlech Lehem Yehoshua Goral
(k) Answer: It is where the Aron rested - "...L'Nuchecha Ata
va'Aron Uzecha" (perhaps this is the verse alluded to.)
2. According to R. Shimon ben Yochai (i.e. his opinion
in Beraisa #2), we understand why Yerushalayim is
called Nachalah, for it is the eternal inheritance
(dwelling of Shechinah);
3. But why it is called Menuchah?
(l) Question: We understand according to R. Shimon ben
Yochai, Bamos were permitted until Yerushalayim,
"Va'Yikach Mano'ach...va'Ya'al Al ha'Tzur la'Sh-m";
1. But according to Tana d'vei R. Yishmael (and the
Tana'im in Beraisa #1), Bamos were forbidden at this
time (Shilo was standing!)
(m) Answer: This was Hora'as Sha'ah (Hash-m permitted it,
just like he permitted Eliyahu to offer on Har
(n) (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Both of these refer
(o) R. Shimon ben Yochai persuaded Tana d'vei R. Yishmael to
(a) (Mishnah): If a Korban (was Hukdash when Bamos were
permitted and offered when Bamos were forbidden, he
transgresses an Ase and a Lav, there is no Kares.)
4) "AVODOS" THAT DO NOT APPLY TO "BAMOS"
(b) (Rav Kahana): There is no Kares for slaughter, there is
Kares for Ha'alah (offering on a Bamah.)
(c) Question: What is the reason?
(d) Answer: (The Parshah of Ha'alah b'Chutz begins)
"Va'Aleihem Tomar...", we read this like 'Va'Aleihem'
(with an Ayin, i.e. it is a continuation of the previous
Parshah, which discussed Shechutei Chutz of a Korban
Hukdash when Bamos were permitted, there is no Kares for
(e) Objection #1 (Rabah): "Va'Aleihem" is written (and read)
with an Aleph (to them (Benei Yisrael) tell...), it is
not an addendum to the previous verse!
(f) Objection #2 (Beraisa - R. Shimon): There are four
general rules about Kodshim:
1. If a Korban was Hukdash, slaughtered and offered
(b'Chutz) at a time of Isur (when Bamos were
forbidden), he transgresses an Ase and a Lav, there
(g) Rav Kahana is refuted.
2. If it was Hukdash at a time of Heter and slaughtered
and offered at a time of Isur, he transgresses an
Ase and a Lav, there is no Kares;
3. If it was Hukdash at a time of Isur and slaughtered
and offered at a time of Heter, he transgresses an
Ase, there is no Lav or Kares;
4. If it was Hukdash, slaughtered and offered at a time
of Heter, he does not transgress anything.
(a) (Mishnah): The following apply on a Bamas Tzibur, not on
a Bamas Yachid - Semichah...
(b) We learn Semichah from "Lifnei Hash-m v'Somach";
(c) We learn slaughter (of Kodshei Kodoshim) in the north
from "Tzafonah Lifnei Hash-m";
(d) We learn Zerikah Soviv (two Matanos that are like four)
from "Al ha'Mizbe'ach Soviv (Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed)"
(e) We learn Tenufah from "Lehanif Tenufah Lifnei Hash-m"
(f) We learn Hagashah from "V'Higishah El ha'Mizbe'ach".
(g) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (Tenufah and Hagashah do not
apply, for) a Minchah is not offered on a Bamah.
(h) (Rav Sheshes): According to the opinion that Menachos may
be brought on a Bamah, also birds may be brought on a
1. According to the opinion that Menachos are not
brought on a Bamah, also birds are not brought.
(i) We learn Kehunah from "V'Zorak ha'Kohen (...Pesach Ohel
2. This latter opinion (R. Yehudah) expounds "Zevachim"
to exclude Menachos, and also to exclude birds.
(j) We learn Bigdei Shares (Bigdei Kehunah) from "B'Vo'am El
Ohel Mo'ed...Leshares ba'Kodesh" (Rashi - "Asher Yesharsu
Vam ba'Kodesh" (Bamidbar 4:12));
(k) We learn Re'ach Nicho'ach from ("Pesach Ohel
Mo'ed...l'Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Sh-m";
(l) We learn a separation of (upper and lower) blood from
"V'Haysah ha'Reshes Ad Chetzi *ha*'Mizbe'ach (the special
Mizbe'ach, i.e. in the Mishkan)";
(m) We learn washing hands and feet from "(B'Vo'am El Ohel
Mo'ed) uv'Karvasam El ha'Mizbe'ach Yirchatzu..."
(n) Version #1 (Rami bar Chama): (We adopt the text of Shitah
Mekubetzes.) A division of blood only applies to Kodshim
of (i.e. that were Hukdeshu for) a Bamas Tzibur that were
offered on a Bamas Tzibur, not to Kodshim of a Bamas
Yachid offered on a Bamas Tzibur.
(o) Question (Rabah - Beraisa): Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas
Lachmei Todah apply (are given to and eaten by Kohanim)
on a Bamas Tzibur, not on a Bamas Yachid. (Similarly, for
every difference between Bamos Tzibur and Yachid, the law
depends on where they were offered, not what they were
(p) Answer: It means, Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah
apply to Kodshei Bamas Tzibur, not to Kodshei Bamas
(q) Version #2 (Rami bar Chama): A division of blood only
applies to Kodshim offered on Bamas Tzibur at a time of
Bamas Tzibur (i.e. Isur Bamas Yachid), not at a time of
(Heter) Bamas Yachid, even if they were offered on a
(r) Question (Rabah - Beraisa): Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas
Lachmei Todah apply to a Bamas Tzibur, not to a Bamas
Yachid. (The laws depend on where they were offered, not
whether or not Bamos are permitted!)
(s) Answer: It means, Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah
apply at a time of Bamas Tzibur, not at a time of Bamas