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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Zevachim 117

ZEVACHIM 116-117 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.



(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa states that ...
1. ... the Ezras Nashim - was a fourth Machaneh, which was neither considered part of the Har ha'Bayis (mi'de'Rabbanan), nor the Azarah (and a Tamei who entered there was not subject to punishment [see Bartenura, Keilim 1:8]). 2. ... Mishkan Shiloh - only comprised two Machanos, and not three.
(b) Based on the fact that Zavin and Teme'ei Meisim are permitted in Machaneh Yisrael, we presume that it must be Machaneh Leviyah that did not exist in Mishkan Shiloh, and not Machaneh Yisrael - because if it was the latter, then both Zavin and Te'me'ei Meisim would only leave one Machaneh (Shechinah), and in fact, a Zav must leave one Machaneh more that a Tamei Meis ...

(c) ... as the Torah specifically writes "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" (in the plural), implying that each one has its own Machaneh.

(d) We object to this suggestion however - on the grounds that, if the non-existent Machaneh was the Machaneh Leviyah, then Zavin would be sent out of Machaneh Yisrael, together with Metzo'ra'im, and this would contravene the Pasuk "Badad Yeishev mi'Chutz la'Machaneh".

(a) We therefore conclude - that as far as Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav is concerned, all three Machanos applied in Shilo.

(b) And when Rebbi Shimon said that only two Machanos applies there, he meant to preclude - Machaneh Leviyah, with regard to the Din that it gathers in murderers (be'Shogeg) like the Arei Miklat.

(c) And we learn from the Pasuk "Ve'samti Lecha Makom Asher Yanus Shamah" - that in the desert, the Machaneh Leviyah did function as an Ir Miklat.

(d) Hashem referred to Moshe personally regarding this issue - hinting to him that he would fulfill the Mitzvah (of designating Arei Miklat in his lifetime).

(a) A ben Levi who killed in one of the cities of refuge - must run to another Ir Miklat.

(b) We also learn from the above Pasuk however, that if he ran to a different area in the same town, that he may remain there - since the Pasuk "Ve'samti Lecha Makom" also implies that should Moshe kill be'Shogeg, he too would be subject to escape to another area in Machaneh Leviyah (seeing as there was no other city to run to).

(c) We also learn this from the Pasuk "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev" - since the Pasuk implies that a ben Levi may remain in the town which gathered him in, should he kill again.

(a) We have already learned that only Nedarim and Nedavos may be brought on a Bamah. This cannot possibly refer to a Bamah Gedolah - because the Pasuk in Yehoshua states that they brought the Pesach in Gilgal (which was a Bamah Gedolah).

(b) A Bamah Gedolah differed from a Bamah Ketanah - in that they were permitted to bring Korbenos Tzibur on it.

(c) And they were permitted to bring Korban Pesach on a Bamah Gedolah (even though each person brought his own Korban) - because, due to the fact that the entire community brought it at the same time it was considered a Korban Tzibur.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, one may even bring Menachos and Neziros on a Bamah Ketanah. He lists Neziros in the category of Nedarim and Nedavos - because he maintains, a Nazir adopts his status voluntarily.

(b) The Rabbanan however - consider it a Chovah, because once he becomes a Nazir, he is obligated to bring his Korbanos.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Rabbanan regarding a Bamas Yachid, but on a Bamah Gedolah, he permits whatever the Tzibur or a Yachid brought in the Mishkan - including all Korbanos (even Chovos).

(b) He disagrees with Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan - who forbid a Yachid to bring Chovos, even on a Bamah Gedolah.

(c) The problem with the Chachamim, who argue with Rebbi Yehudah in that point, and who then go on to permit a Yachid to bring only Olos and Shelamim, both on a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah, is - that they appear to duplicate the opinion of the Tana Kama, who said the same thing.




(a) Rebbi Shimon restricts even a Tzibur on a Bamah Gedolah to Pesachim and Chovos which have a fixed time - precluding a Par He'elam Davar and Se'irei Ovdei-Kochavim.

(b) Rebbi Meir learns his Din from the Pasuk "Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav", which includes all Nedarim and Nedavos, but precludes all Chovos from all Bamos. The Pasuk cannot include Korbenos Tzibur in this ruling - because it writes "Ish".

(c) The Rabbanan learn from "Zevachim" - that Menachos cannot be brought on a Bamah.

(a) Shmuel maintains that the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan is confined to the Chatas and the Asham - of a Nazir, but does not extend to his Olah and Shelamim ...

(b) ... which even the Rabbanan agree - may be brought on a Bamah.

(a) Rabah queries Shmuel from a Beraisa, where the Tana refers to the Chazeh ve'Shok and the Terumas Lachmei Todah. The ...
1. ... Chazeh ve'Shok (the chest and the right calf) - of every Shelamim is given to the Kohen.
2. ... Terumas Lachmei Todah (one of each of the four kinds of loaves of a Todah - is given to the Kohen).
(b) The Tana rules - that they apply to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

(c) Rabah extrapolates from the fact that he fails to mention the Zero'a Besheilah - that Shalmei Nazir are not brought on a Bamah, a Kashya on Shmuel, who just said that even the Rabbanan agree that they are.

(a) So we restructure Shmuel's statement to read - that the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan is confined to the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir, but even Rebbi Meir agrees that the Chatas and the Asham cannot be brought on a Bamah.

(b) The author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan.

(a) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk "Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav Ya'aseh" - that it is a Yachid who may only bring Nedarim and Nedavos on a Bamah (even a Bamah Gedolah), but a Tzibur may bring even Chovos.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah however, counters that, based on the word "be'Einav" - which teaches us that the previous D'rashah is confined to a Bamah Ketanah, but on a Bamah Gedolah, even a Yachid is permitted to bring Chovos.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, we ask, why the Torah writes "Ish". We cannot answer that the Torah writes "Ish" to preclude a Yachid from Chovos on a Bamah Ketanah - because then it would have sufficed to write "Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav Ya'aseh".

(d) In fact, the Torah writes "Ish" - to permit a Zar to serve on a Bamah.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'zarak ha'Kohen es ha'Dam ... Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - "Kohen Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", 've'Ein Kohen ba'Bamah'.

(b) Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah requires "Ish" to teach us that - because we would otherwise have thought that the Torah precludes Kohanim, but requires Bechorim to replace them.

Next daf


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