(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 118



(a) We already cited the Kashya that the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah ('Kol she'ha'Tzibur Makrivin be'Ohel Mo'ed ... , ve'Ka'an ve'Ka'an Lo Karvu le'Yachid Ela ... ') appears to duplicate the Tana Kama. Rav Papa answers - that they argue over Nesachim, which they brought in the desert according to Rebbi Yehudah, but not according to the Tana Kama.

(b) We extrapolate from the Chachamim's words 'Kol she'ha'Tzibur Makrivin be'Ohel Mo'ed she'ba'Midbar Makrivin be'Gilgal', that they are the ones who are coming to add Nesachim and not the Tana Kama - since Rebbi Yehudah (and his Chachamim) also agree with them be'Tzibur, and all they needed to have said was 'Ka'an ve'Ka'an Lo Karvu le'Yachid Ela Olah u'Shalamim', since that is their chief bone of contention.

(a) The Pasuk in Yehoshua writes "Va'ya'asu B'nei Yisrael es ha'Pesach ba'Gilgal", which appears redundant, and from which Rebbi Shimon extrapolates - that only Chovos which (like Pesach) are time-related are permitted on a Bamah.

(b) The Chachamim (who permit on a Bamah Gedolah even Chovos that are not time-related) learn from the Pasuk in Yehoshua, the Din of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Ban'ah - namely, that an Areil may be sprinkled with the Mei Parah.

(c) Even though they crossed the Yarden on the tenth of Nisan, they must have been Areilim when they were sprinkled with the Mei Parah (which was vital for them to be able to eat the Korban Pesach) - because seeing as they did not perform the Milah until the eleventh, had they waited until after the Milah for the first Haza'ah, it would have taken place on the eleventh, and the second Haza'ah, only on the fifteenth (too late to enable them to bring the Korban Pesach).

(d) They did not perform the B'ris Milah on the tenth, immediately after crossing the Yarden - because they were tired from traveling.

(e) Most of them must have been Tamei - because the previous generation (their fathers) had been dying throughout the forty years in the desert.

(a) A Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Ada bar Ahavah stating that there are only two differences between a Bamah Ketanah and a Bamah Gedolah - Pesachim and Chovos ha'Kavu'a Lahem Z'man.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah told him to restrict the latter to Olos Chovah (but not to Chata'os) - because Chata'os do not have an equivalent by Nedarim and Nedavos of a Yachid.

(c) The sort of ...

1. ... Olos the Tana is referring to are - Temidin and Musafin ...
2. ... Chata'os that we might have thought the Tana is referring to are - Se'irei ha'Regalim (but which in fact, they did not bring, even on the Bamah Gedolah).
(d) The Beraisa must be speaking in a case which has an equivalent on a Bamah Ketanah - because the Tana could have just said 'Chovos ha'Kavu'a Lahem Z'man' (which would have incorporated Pesachim). He added 'Pesachim' however, to differentiate between Pesachim, which are brought even though they have no equivalent by Korbenos Nedavah of a Yachid, and other Korbenos Tzibur, which do.
(a) We ask why Rav Ada bar Ahavah did not establish the Beraisa by a Minchas Chovah - the Minchas Chavitin (of the Kohen Gadol).

(b) And we answer - that Rav Ada bar Ahavah subscribes to the opinion that 'Ein Minchah be'Bamah'.

(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah does not establish the Beraisa by Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur - because, seeing as they are Kodshei Kodshim, they have no equivalent by Nedarim and Nedavos of a Yachid (since Shalmei Yachid are Kodshim Kalim).

(a) The Pasuk in Shmuel writes "Va'tevi'ehu Beis Hashem Shiloh", whereas the Pasuk in Tehilim writes "Va'yitosh Mishkan Shiloh, Ohel ... ". This is an apparent contradiction - since first Pasuk refers to the Mishkan as a house, and the second, as a tent.

(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore - cites these Pesukim as the source of our Mishnah, which describes Shiloh as a building with a curtain as a roof.

(a) Rebbi Oshaya learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Shiloh) ...
1. ... "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom Asher Tir'eh ..." - that although one is not allowed to sacrifice wherever one can see (from Shiloh), one is allowed to eat Kodshim Kalim at that distance.
2. ... "ve'Sham Ta'aseh" - that the Din regarding Shechting Kodshim is the same as sacrificing them. Otherwise, we would have explained the previous Pasuk with regard to Shechitas Kodshim.
1. Rebbi Avdimi bar Chama derives this from the Pasuk "Mizrachah Te'einas Shiloh" - that there will come a time when they will mourn (from the Lashon of "Ta'aniyah va'Aniyah") from there, over the time when they were able to eat Kodshim as far as they could see.
2. Rebbi Avahu learns it from the Pasuk "ben Poras Yosef, ben Poras Alei Ayin" - that as a reward for controlling his eyes from gazing at what not his (the wife of Potifera), Shiloh was built in his portion, where they were permitted to eat Kodshim as far as the eye could see.
3. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns it from the Pasuk there "u'Retzon Shochni S'neh" - that eventually, because Yosef's eye did not benefit from what did not belong to it, he will eat the Kodshim that is brought in his portion (beyond his borders) in the territory of the tribes who had previously hated (S'neh = Senu'in) him.



(a) The Beraisa qualifies the Din of eating Kodshim Kalim within eyesight of Shiloh - by restricting it to where the view is total, with nothing obstructing it.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rebbi Elazar to show him an example of such a location - he mentioned the Shul of Ma'on.

(c) Rav Papa, on the other hand - learned that it was not necessary to see the whole of Shiloh from that location, and that part of it would suffice.

(d) Rav Papa asked what the Din would be regarding a location from which one could see Shiloh from a standing position, but not sitting, Rebbi Yirmiyah what the Din would be - if one could see Shiloh from the ground overlooking a ravine, but not from the ravine itself.

(e) The outcome of these She'eilos is 'Teiku'.

(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said - that the Shechinah rested in three places, in Nov and Giv'on (which he considered one), Shiloh and Yerushalayim.

(b) And based on the Pasuk (in connection with the B'rachah of Binyamin) "Chofef Alav Kol ha'Yom" ('He hovers over it all day'), he added - that all the hoverings of the Shechinah were in the territory of Binyamin.

(c) When Abaye repeated Rav Dimi's statement to Rav Yosef, the latter objected - on the basis of the Pesukim in Tehilim, which refer to Mishkan Shiloh as being located in the territory of Yosef.

(d) When he lamented that Kaylil had only one son who couldn't get it right - he was referring to Abaye, whose father was called Kaylil.

(a) Rav Ada bar Masna was surprised at Rav Yosef's objection. He reconcile the Pesukim - by differentiating between the Shechinah, which rested in Binyamin's territory, and the Sanhedrin (which was based in a section of the Mishkan), which sat in the territory of Yosef ...

(b) ... just like it was, in the Beis-Hamikdash, only there the Sanhedrin sat in (the Lishkas ha'Gazis, which was) the territory of Yehudah.

(c) He answered the Kashya, that Shiloh was not on the border between Yosef and Binyamin, by citing Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina, who said - that the portion of Yehudah upon which most of the Mizbe'ach (in the Beis-Hamikdash) was built, was built on a strip of land that protruded from Yehudah's territory into Binyamin's, over which the latter was most perturbed.

(d) Similarly, he was most perturbed over this strip of land from Yosef's territory - based on the Pasuk "Ta'anas Shiloh" (from the Lashon 'Mis'onen' [mourning]).

(a) Rav Dimi's statement is in fact, subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa explains "Chofef Alav" - 'Zeh 'Mikdash Rishon', "Kol ha'Yom", 'Zeh Mikdash Sheini', "u'Bein Keseifav Shachein", 'Eilu Yemos ha'Mashi'ach', whilst Rebbi interprets the Pasuk "Chofef Alav" - 'Zeh Olam ha'Zeh' (incorporating all three locations of Rav Dimi), "Kol ha'Yom", 'Zeh Yemos ha'Mashi'ach', "u'Bein Keseifav Shachein", 'Zeh ha'Olam ha'Ba'.

(b) Another Beraisa discusses the length of the various eras currently under discussion. The era of the Mishkan in the desert lasted thirty-nine years, that of the Bamah in Gilgal, fourteen (as we have already explained), the combined eras of Nov and Giv'on lasted - fifty-seven years.

(a) We learn the fourteen years of Gilgal (which is synonymous with the fourteen years that Yisrael captured and distributed the land) from the fact that Kalev was forty at the time of the Meraglim, and eighty-five at the beginning of the distribution period, when he came to claim Chevron (as he had been promised). Bearing in mind that he must have been seventy-eight when they entered Eretz Yisrael (forty plus thirty-eight), that leaves seven years until he turned eighty-five (the years during which they distributed the land).

(b) We learn the seven years of distribution - from the assumption that since it took seven years to capture, it probably took seven years to distribute (seeing as the Pasuk gives no other clear indication of how long it took).

(c) Alternatively, we learn it from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which gives fourteen years between the Churban Beis-Hamikdash and the next Yovel year. We extrapolate that the Pasuk is referring to the Yovel year from the fact that it speaks about Rosh Hashanah and then refers to the same day as the tenth of the month - and the only year that begins (in certain respects) on Yom Kipur, is the Yovel.

(a) The Beis-Hamikdash was ...
1. ... built - four hundred and forty years after they arrived in Eretz Yisrael.
2. ... destroyed - four hundred and ten years later.
(b) Eight hundred and fifty years comprise exactly seventeen Yovlos. So for the Churban to take place fourteen years before the Yovel, they must have begun counting the Yovlos (which is synonymous with the end of the distribution) fourteen years after entering the land. The conquest, as we explained earlier, lasted seven years, leaving seven years for the distribution.

(c) The downfall of ...

1. ... Shiloh (and the era of Nov) was - heralded by the death of Eli ha'Kohen.
2. ... Nov was - heralded by the death of Shmuel.
(d) The Aron stood for twenty years in Kiryas Ye'arim - where it was taken four months after the P'lishtim captured it (by the men of Beis Shemesh, where the P'lishtim returned it).
(a) If the first eleven of the ensuing twenty years comprised the ten years that Shmuel ruled alone, and the year that he shared with Shaul, the remaining nine consisted of - the two years of Shaul's reign and the seven years that David ruled in Chevron.

(b) The remaining thirty-seven years of 'Giv'on' comprised - the thirty-three years that David ruled over the whole of Yisrael and the four years of Shmuel's reign until he built the Beis-Hamikdash.

(c) Having accounted for the fourteen years of Gilgal and the fifty seven years of Nov and Giv'on (of the four hundred and forty years until the Beis-Hamikdash was built) - that leaves three hundred and sixty nine years for the era of Shiloh.

Next daf


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