Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 3, 2018 | 讻状讘 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 112

Why did the mishna compare the case of two cups of blood to a sin offering that got lost and another was brought in its place? The gemara concludes that the msihna聽was brought in order to teach a case that can be derived from the mishna and not for the case itself. The mishna聽brings all sorts of cases where the laws of offering sacrifices outside do not apply either because of the type of offering (that isn’t offered inside the mikdash) or because of the animal brought (a disqualified animal). The mishna聽describes historically – when were sacrifices allowed to be brought outside the mishkan (bamot) and when were they forbidden? What were the laws regarding each time period (when they were allowed and when they weren’t)? What sacrifices were allowed to be brought anywhere (during the time when bamot聽were permitted)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讻讜诇讜 专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇谉 讘讞讜抓 砖讬专讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the first clause of the mishna: Granted that one is liable in a case where he first placed the blood on an altar outside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on the altar inside the courtyard; that is because, as the mishna explains: As the blood in its entirety is fit to be placed inside the courtyard. But in a case where he first placed its blood on the altar inside the courtyard and then offered up the remaining blood on an altar outside the courtyard, why he is liable? That blood is merely a remainder, and one should not be liable for offering it up outside.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who says: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and that instead one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable.

讗讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 谞转谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, then say the latter clause: If one collected its blood in two cups and placed the blood from both of them on the altar inside the courtyard, he is exempt. If he placed the blood from both of them on an altar outside the courtyard, he is liable. If he first placed the blood from one cup inside and then placed the blood from the other one outside, he is exempt. By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup a mere remainder. The Gemara asks: How can this clause be attributed to Rabbi Ne岣mya? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Ne岣mya say: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that one offered outside the courtyard, he is liable?

住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜住 注讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬 诇讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we arrive at the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As that tanna says: The placement of the blood from one cup renders the blood of the other cup as disqualified. Since it is actually disqualified and not merely a remainder, one is not liable for offering it up outside.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

搂 The mishna presents an analogy for its ruling: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a case where one separated an animal for his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its place, and thereafter, the first animal was found.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诪转讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to ask: To what is this matter comparable, and provide an analogy to the mishna鈥檚 rulings? What does the analogy add? The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says (see Temura 22b): A sin offering that was lost during the time of the separation of a substitute, if it is later found and one of them is slaughtered as the person鈥檚 sin offering, the other one is put to death. Accordingly, it is actually disqualified from being used as an offering, and one is therefore not liable for offering it up outside.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗讘讚讛 讛讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 注讜诇讛 讛讬讗

And this is what the mishna is saying by presenting its analogy: The reason that one is exempt from liability for offering up the unused sin offering outside is that it was lost at the time its substitute was separated and therefore it is considered disqualified. But if one separated two sin offerings from the outset as a guarantee, so that even if one is lost he can use the other, then if neither is lost and he sacrifices one of them, the other one is not put to death. Rather, it is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and the proceeds used to purchase a voluntary burnt offering. It emerges that from the outset, one of these two animals, i.e., the one that was not ultimately sacrificed as his sin offering, is a burnt offering, and therefore if one offers it up outside the courtyard he is liable. The analogy teaches that with regard to blood collected in two cups, if one offers up blood from the unused cup outside, he is exempt only because the blood in that cup is considered disqualified, but he would not be exempt if it was considered a remainder.

讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇注讜诇讛

And this is in accordance with the statement that Rav Huna says that Rav says, as Rav Huna says that Rav says: A guilt offering that was consigned to grazing per the halakha to leave it to graze if its owner dies or achieves atonement through another guilt offering, and then instead of being left to develop a blemish, at which point it could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a voluntary burnt offering, one slaughtered it, even with unspecified intent, the animal itself is fit to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Similarly, the mishna assumes that in any case where an animal is consigned to grazing it is considered fit, and one would be liable for slaughtering it outside the courtyard.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗砖诐 讝讻专 讜注讜诇讛 讝讻专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讜住转讬谞讬讗 讘砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Are these cases comparable? There, in Rav鈥檚 ruling, it is logical that the animal is considered fit, as a guilt offering is a male animal and a burnt offering is a male animal, so it is possible to bring an animal as the latter even if it had been designated as the former. Therefore, a guilt offering left to graze is still considered fit. But in the mishna鈥檚 case, just because the animal is left to graze does not necessarily indicate that it itself is fit to be brought, as a sin offering is a female animal, which can never be brought as a burnt offering. Therefore, it should be considered unfit. Rav 岣yya from Yostiniyya said: The ruling of the mishna is with regard to the goat of the Nasi, which is a male sin offering. Therefore, in a case where it is left to graze it is still considered fit, as it can be brought as a burnt offering.
This chapter discussed two distinct prohibitions: That of slaughtering an offering outside the Temple courtyard and that of offering up an offering by placing it upon an altar outside the Temple courtyard. Since they are considered two distinct prohibitions, one is liable even if he performs only one of them, and he is liable twice if he performs both.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讛诪注诇讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 驻专转 讞讟讗转 砖砖专驻讛 讞讜抓 诪讙转讛 讜讻谉 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 砖讛拽专讬讘 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: With regard to the red heifer of purification that one burned outside its pit, the pit being an excavation on the Mount of Olives opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary designated for its slaughter and its burning, and likewise the scapegoat that one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard rather than casting it off a cliff as prescribed, he is exempt from punishment for violating the transgression of slaughtering and sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

The source for this is as it is stated with regard to slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the courtyard: 鈥淲hatever man鈥hat slaughters outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥4). From that verse it is derived: For any offering that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for sacrifice on the altar, e.g., the red heifer and the scapegoat, one is not liable for its slaughter and sacrifice outside its place.

讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛诪讞讬专 [讜讛讗转谞谉] 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

With regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or an animal that was worshipped as a deity, or an animal given as the price of a dog that was purchased, or an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or an animal born by caesarean section, any of which one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt.

砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

The source for this is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord.鈥 From this verse, it is derived: For any animal that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for sacrifice on the altar, one is not liable for its slaughter and sacrifice outside the courtyard.

讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 讘讬谉

For blemished animals, whether they are permanently blemished or whether they are

讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 驻讟讜专 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

temporarily blemished, which one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard, one is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: For permanently blemished animals one is exempt; for temporarily blemished animals one is liable for violation of a prohibition, but it is not the type of prohibition for which he will receive karet, because ultimately the animal will be fit for sacrifice.

转讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 砖注讘专 讝诪谞谉 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 砖注讘专 讝诪谞谉 驻讟讜专 讜转讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞谉 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

With regard to doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived, as they are fit for sacrifice only when they are older, after their wings assume a golden hue; and pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are fit only when they are young and their wings did not yet assume a yellowish tint, that one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: For pigeons whose time of fitness has passed one is exempt, and for doves whose time of fitness has not yet arrived he is in violation of a prohibition.

讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讜诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诇讗 转注砖讛

With regard to an animal itself and its offspring that were slaughtered on the same day, where one violates a prohibition for slaughtering the second, and an animal whose time has not yet arrived, if one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: For an animal whose time has not yet arrived, that person is in violation of a mere prohibition, as Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any sacrificial animal that is fit to come and be sacrificed after the passage of time, if one sacrificed it outside the courtyard, that person is in violation of a prohibition but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In any case in which there is no liability for karet there is no violation of a prohibition.

诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讘讬谉 讘讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 讘讘注诇讬讜

The mishna adds: An animal is defined as one whose time has not yet arrived, whether it is intrinsically premature, e.g., doves whose wings have not yet assumed a golden hue or an animal less than seven days old (see Leviticus 22:27), or whether it is premature for its owner.

讗讬讝讛讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讘讘注诇讬讜 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讞讟讗转诐 讜讗砖诪诐 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专讬谉 注讜诇讜转讬讛谉 讜砖诇诪讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉

Which is the animal whose time has not yet arrived because it is premature for its owner? It is the animal of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], and a woman after childbirth, and a leper whose period of impurity is not yet complete, where these owners, who are ritually impure, sacrificed their sin offerings or guilt offerings outside the Temple courtyard. In this case they are exempt, as they are neither obligated nor permitted to bring those offerings. But if they sacrificed their burnt offerings or their peace offerings outside the courtyard they are liable, as those offerings may be brought as gift offerings even if their owner is ritually impure.

讛诪注诇讛 诪讘砖专 讞讟讗转 诪讘砖专 讗砖诐 诪讘砖专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪讜转专 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转

One who offers up outside the Temple courtyard a portion of the meat of a sin offering that is eaten; of the meat of a guilt offering; of the meat of other offerings of the most sacred order that are eaten, e.g., the sheep sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot, or of the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, is exempt, as all these are eaten by the priests and not sacrificed on the altar. And for the same reason, one who sacrificed a portion of the surplus of the omer offering, a measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of the Hebrew month of Nisan, after the handful was removed; or the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat; or the shewbread arranged on the Table each Shabbat in the Sanctuary; or the remainder of meal offerings, is also exempt.

讜讛讬讜爪拽 讜讛驻讜转转 讜讛讘讜诇诇 讜讛诪讜诇讞 讜讛诪谞讬祝 讜讛诪讙讬砖 讜讛诪住讚专 讗转 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讗转 讛谞专讜转 讜讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诪拽讘诇 讚诪讬诐 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

And likewise with regard to one who pours oil onto a meal offering; and one who breaks the loaves of a meal offering into pieces; and one who mixes oil into the flour of a meal offering; and one who salts a meal offering or other offerings; and one who waves a meal offering; and one who brings a meal offering to the corner of an altar, if he performs these actions outside the courtyard; and one who arranges shewbread on the table outside the Sanctuary; and one who removes the ashes from the lamps of the Candelabrum; and one who removes a handful from a meal offering; and one who collects the blood of an offering in a vessel, if he did so outside the Temple courtyard: In all of these cases he is exempt. This is because one is liable only if he performs an action similar to sacrifice that completes the sacrificial service, while all of these actions are ones that are normally followed by additional sacrificial rites.

讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 [砖诇讗] 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

And one is likewise not liable for any of these actions, neither due to the prohibition against a non-priest performing the Temple service, nor due to the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, nor due to the prohibition against a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments while performing the Temple service, nor due to the prohibition against performing the Temple service without washing one鈥檚 hands and feet.

注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 讛讬讜 讛讘诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讘讻讜专讜转 讜诪砖讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 谞讗住专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谞讬诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讘讻诇 诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗讜 诇讙诇讙诇 讛讜转专讜 讛讘诪讜转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. And from the time that the Tabernacle was established, private altars were prohibited and the sacrificial service was performed by the priests. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel. When the Jewish people arrived at Gilgal private altars were permitted, offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains, and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten anywhere.

讘讗讜 诇砖讬诇讛 谞讗住专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 转拽专讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讗讘谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚 诪诇诪讟谉 讜讛讬专讬注讜转 诪诇诪注诇谉 讜讛讬讗 讛讬转讛 诪谞讜讞讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讻诇 讛专讜讗讛

When they arrived at Shiloh, private altars were prohibited. And there was no roof of wood or stone there, i.e., in the Tabernacle in Shiloh; rather there was only a building of stone below and the curtains of the roof of the Tabernacle were spread above it. And the period that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh was characterized in the Torah as 鈥渞est鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:9). Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh.

讘讗讜 诇谞讜讘 讜讙讘注讜谉 讛讜转专讜 讛讘诪讜转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讘讻诇 注专讬 讬砖专讗诇

When Shiloh was destroyed (see I聽Samuel 4:18), the Jewish people arrived with the Tabernacle at Nov, and later at Gibeon, and private altars were permitted. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten in all the cities of Eretz Yisrael.

讘讗讜 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讗住专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛谉 讛讬转专 讜讛讬讗 讛讬转讛 谞讞诇讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜诪讛

When the Jewish people arrived at Jerusalem and built the Temple during the reign of Solomon, private altars were prohibited, and private altars did not have a subsequent period when they were permitted. And the Temple in Jerusalem was characterized as 鈥渋nheritance鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you.鈥 Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten within the walls of the city, whose legal status was that of the Israelite camp in the wilderness.

讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 诪讘讞讜抓 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

With regard to all offerings that one consecrated during a period of prohibition of private altars and sacrificed during a period of prohibition of private altars, if he sacrificed them outside their designated area, for these animals he is in violation of both the positive mitzva to sacrifice the offering in the place chosen by God and the prohibition against sacrificing them on a private altar, and he is liable to receive karet for doing it.

讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讘讞讜抓 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻专转 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讗 转注砖讛

If one consecrated the animals during a period of permitting of private altars and sacrificed them during a period of prohibition of private altars, outside their designated area, for these animals he is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but he is not liable to receive karet for sacrificing them. If he consecrated the animals during a period of prohibition of private altars and sacrificed them during a period of permitting of private altars, outside their designated area, for these animals he is in violation of a positive mitzva for failure to bring it to the Tabernacle, but these animals are not subject to a prohibition, as it is permitted to sacrifice on a private altar.

讜讗诇讜 拽讚砖讬诐 拽专讘讬谉 讘诪砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 诇诪砖讻谉 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 拽专讘讬谉 讘诪砖讻谉 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讘诪讛 拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 诇诪砖讻谉 讬拽专讬讘讜 讘诪砖讻谉 讜讗诐 讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讘诪讛 驻讟讜专

And these are the sacrificial items that are sacrificed only in the Tabernacle even when private altars are permitted: Sacrificial animals that were presumed to be consecrated for sacrifice in the Tabernacle. Therefore, communal offerings are sacrificed in the Tabernacle, but offerings of an individual may be sacrificed on a private altar. In addition, with regard to offerings of an individual that were consecrated expressly for sacrifice in the Tabernacle, one must sacrifice them in the Tabernacle. But if he sacrificed them on a private altar, he is exempt.

讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 诇讘诪转 爪讬讘讜专 住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讞讬讟转 爪驻讜谉

And what is the difference between the private altar of an individual and the public altar at the site of the Tabernacle when it was located in Gilgal, Nov, and Gibeon? It is that on a private altar there is no placing of hands on the head of an offering, no slaughter in the north,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 112

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讻讜诇讜 专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇谉 讘讞讜抓 砖讬专讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the first clause of the mishna: Granted that one is liable in a case where he first placed the blood on an altar outside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on the altar inside the courtyard; that is because, as the mishna explains: As the blood in its entirety is fit to be placed inside the courtyard. But in a case where he first placed its blood on the altar inside the courtyard and then offered up the remaining blood on an altar outside the courtyard, why he is liable? That blood is merely a remainder, and one should not be liable for offering it up outside.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who says: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and that instead one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable.

讗讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 谞转谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, then say the latter clause: If one collected its blood in two cups and placed the blood from both of them on the altar inside the courtyard, he is exempt. If he placed the blood from both of them on an altar outside the courtyard, he is liable. If he first placed the blood from one cup inside and then placed the blood from the other one outside, he is exempt. By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup a mere remainder. The Gemara asks: How can this clause be attributed to Rabbi Ne岣mya? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Ne岣mya say: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that one offered outside the courtyard, he is liable?

住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜住 注讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬 诇讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we arrive at the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As that tanna says: The placement of the blood from one cup renders the blood of the other cup as disqualified. Since it is actually disqualified and not merely a remainder, one is not liable for offering it up outside.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

搂 The mishna presents an analogy for its ruling: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a case where one separated an animal for his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its place, and thereafter, the first animal was found.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诪转讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to ask: To what is this matter comparable, and provide an analogy to the mishna鈥檚 rulings? What does the analogy add? The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says (see Temura 22b): A sin offering that was lost during the time of the separation of a substitute, if it is later found and one of them is slaughtered as the person鈥檚 sin offering, the other one is put to death. Accordingly, it is actually disqualified from being used as an offering, and one is therefore not liable for offering it up outside.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗讘讚讛 讛讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 注讜诇讛 讛讬讗

And this is what the mishna is saying by presenting its analogy: The reason that one is exempt from liability for offering up the unused sin offering outside is that it was lost at the time its substitute was separated and therefore it is considered disqualified. But if one separated two sin offerings from the outset as a guarantee, so that even if one is lost he can use the other, then if neither is lost and he sacrifices one of them, the other one is not put to death. Rather, it is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and the proceeds used to purchase a voluntary burnt offering. It emerges that from the outset, one of these two animals, i.e., the one that was not ultimately sacrificed as his sin offering, is a burnt offering, and therefore if one offers it up outside the courtyard he is liable. The analogy teaches that with regard to blood collected in two cups, if one offers up blood from the unused cup outside, he is exempt only because the blood in that cup is considered disqualified, but he would not be exempt if it was considered a remainder.

讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇注讜诇讛

And this is in accordance with the statement that Rav Huna says that Rav says, as Rav Huna says that Rav says: A guilt offering that was consigned to grazing per the halakha to leave it to graze if its owner dies or achieves atonement through another guilt offering, and then instead of being left to develop a blemish, at which point it could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a voluntary burnt offering, one slaughtered it, even with unspecified intent, the animal itself is fit to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Similarly, the mishna assumes that in any case where an animal is consigned to grazing it is considered fit, and one would be liable for slaughtering it outside the courtyard.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗砖诐 讝讻专 讜注讜诇讛 讝讻专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讜住转讬谞讬讗 讘砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Are these cases comparable? There, in Rav鈥檚 ruling, it is logical that the animal is considered fit, as a guilt offering is a male animal and a burnt offering is a male animal, so it is possible to bring an animal as the latter even if it had been designated as the former. Therefore, a guilt offering left to graze is still considered fit. But in the mishna鈥檚 case, just because the animal is left to graze does not necessarily indicate that it itself is fit to be brought, as a sin offering is a female animal, which can never be brought as a burnt offering. Therefore, it should be considered unfit. Rav 岣yya from Yostiniyya said: The ruling of the mishna is with regard to the goat of the Nasi, which is a male sin offering. Therefore, in a case where it is left to graze it is still considered fit, as it can be brought as a burnt offering.
This chapter discussed two distinct prohibitions: That of slaughtering an offering outside the Temple courtyard and that of offering up an offering by placing it upon an altar outside the Temple courtyard. Since they are considered two distinct prohibitions, one is liable even if he performs only one of them, and he is liable twice if he performs both.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讛诪注诇讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 驻专转 讞讟讗转 砖砖专驻讛 讞讜抓 诪讙转讛 讜讻谉 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 砖讛拽专讬讘 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: With regard to the red heifer of purification that one burned outside its pit, the pit being an excavation on the Mount of Olives opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary designated for its slaughter and its burning, and likewise the scapegoat that one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard rather than casting it off a cliff as prescribed, he is exempt from punishment for violating the transgression of slaughtering and sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

The source for this is as it is stated with regard to slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the courtyard: 鈥淲hatever man鈥hat slaughters outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥4). From that verse it is derived: For any offering that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for sacrifice on the altar, e.g., the red heifer and the scapegoat, one is not liable for its slaughter and sacrifice outside its place.

讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛诪讞讬专 [讜讛讗转谞谉] 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

With regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or an animal that was worshipped as a deity, or an animal given as the price of a dog that was purchased, or an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or an animal born by caesarean section, any of which one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt.

砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

The source for this is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord.鈥 From this verse, it is derived: For any animal that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for sacrifice on the altar, one is not liable for its slaughter and sacrifice outside the courtyard.

讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 讘讬谉

For blemished animals, whether they are permanently blemished or whether they are

讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 驻讟讜专 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

temporarily blemished, which one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard, one is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: For permanently blemished animals one is exempt; for temporarily blemished animals one is liable for violation of a prohibition, but it is not the type of prohibition for which he will receive karet, because ultimately the animal will be fit for sacrifice.

转讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 砖注讘专 讝诪谞谉 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 砖注讘专 讝诪谞谉 驻讟讜专 讜转讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞谉 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

With regard to doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived, as they are fit for sacrifice only when they are older, after their wings assume a golden hue; and pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are fit only when they are young and their wings did not yet assume a yellowish tint, that one sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: For pigeons whose time of fitness has passed one is exempt, and for doves whose time of fitness has not yet arrived he is in violation of a prohibition.

讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讜诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诇讗 转注砖讛

With regard to an animal itself and its offspring that were slaughtered on the same day, where one violates a prohibition for slaughtering the second, and an animal whose time has not yet arrived, if one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: For an animal whose time has not yet arrived, that person is in violation of a mere prohibition, as Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any sacrificial animal that is fit to come and be sacrificed after the passage of time, if one sacrificed it outside the courtyard, that person is in violation of a prohibition but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In any case in which there is no liability for karet there is no violation of a prohibition.

诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讘讬谉 讘讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 讘讘注诇讬讜

The mishna adds: An animal is defined as one whose time has not yet arrived, whether it is intrinsically premature, e.g., doves whose wings have not yet assumed a golden hue or an animal less than seven days old (see Leviticus 22:27), or whether it is premature for its owner.

讗讬讝讛讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讘讘注诇讬讜 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讞讟讗转诐 讜讗砖诪诐 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专讬谉 注讜诇讜转讬讛谉 讜砖诇诪讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉

Which is the animal whose time has not yet arrived because it is premature for its owner? It is the animal of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], and a woman after childbirth, and a leper whose period of impurity is not yet complete, where these owners, who are ritually impure, sacrificed their sin offerings or guilt offerings outside the Temple courtyard. In this case they are exempt, as they are neither obligated nor permitted to bring those offerings. But if they sacrificed their burnt offerings or their peace offerings outside the courtyard they are liable, as those offerings may be brought as gift offerings even if their owner is ritually impure.

讛诪注诇讛 诪讘砖专 讞讟讗转 诪讘砖专 讗砖诐 诪讘砖专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪讜转专 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转

One who offers up outside the Temple courtyard a portion of the meat of a sin offering that is eaten; of the meat of a guilt offering; of the meat of other offerings of the most sacred order that are eaten, e.g., the sheep sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot, or of the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, is exempt, as all these are eaten by the priests and not sacrificed on the altar. And for the same reason, one who sacrificed a portion of the surplus of the omer offering, a measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of the Hebrew month of Nisan, after the handful was removed; or the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat; or the shewbread arranged on the Table each Shabbat in the Sanctuary; or the remainder of meal offerings, is also exempt.

讜讛讬讜爪拽 讜讛驻讜转转 讜讛讘讜诇诇 讜讛诪讜诇讞 讜讛诪谞讬祝 讜讛诪讙讬砖 讜讛诪住讚专 讗转 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讗转 讛谞专讜转 讜讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诪拽讘诇 讚诪讬诐 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

And likewise with regard to one who pours oil onto a meal offering; and one who breaks the loaves of a meal offering into pieces; and one who mixes oil into the flour of a meal offering; and one who salts a meal offering or other offerings; and one who waves a meal offering; and one who brings a meal offering to the corner of an altar, if he performs these actions outside the courtyard; and one who arranges shewbread on the table outside the Sanctuary; and one who removes the ashes from the lamps of the Candelabrum; and one who removes a handful from a meal offering; and one who collects the blood of an offering in a vessel, if he did so outside the Temple courtyard: In all of these cases he is exempt. This is because one is liable only if he performs an action similar to sacrifice that completes the sacrificial service, while all of these actions are ones that are normally followed by additional sacrificial rites.

讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 [砖诇讗] 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

And one is likewise not liable for any of these actions, neither due to the prohibition against a non-priest performing the Temple service, nor due to the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, nor due to the prohibition against a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments while performing the Temple service, nor due to the prohibition against performing the Temple service without washing one鈥檚 hands and feet.

注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 讛讬讜 讛讘诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讘讻讜专讜转 讜诪砖讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 谞讗住专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谞讬诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讘讻诇 诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗讜 诇讙诇讙诇 讛讜转专讜 讛讘诪讜转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. And from the time that the Tabernacle was established, private altars were prohibited and the sacrificial service was performed by the priests. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel. When the Jewish people arrived at Gilgal private altars were permitted, offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains, and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten anywhere.

讘讗讜 诇砖讬诇讛 谞讗住专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 转拽专讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讗讘谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚 诪诇诪讟谉 讜讛讬专讬注讜转 诪诇诪注诇谉 讜讛讬讗 讛讬转讛 诪谞讜讞讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讻诇 讛专讜讗讛

When they arrived at Shiloh, private altars were prohibited. And there was no roof of wood or stone there, i.e., in the Tabernacle in Shiloh; rather there was only a building of stone below and the curtains of the roof of the Tabernacle were spread above it. And the period that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh was characterized in the Torah as 鈥渞est鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:9). Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh.

讘讗讜 诇谞讜讘 讜讙讘注讜谉 讛讜转专讜 讛讘诪讜转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讘讻诇 注专讬 讬砖专讗诇

When Shiloh was destroyed (see I聽Samuel 4:18), the Jewish people arrived with the Tabernacle at Nov, and later at Gibeon, and private altars were permitted. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten in all the cities of Eretz Yisrael.

讘讗讜 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讗住专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛谉 讛讬转专 讜讛讬讗 讛讬转讛 谞讞诇讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜诪讛

When the Jewish people arrived at Jerusalem and built the Temple during the reign of Solomon, private altars were prohibited, and private altars did not have a subsequent period when they were permitted. And the Temple in Jerusalem was characterized as 鈥渋nheritance鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you.鈥 Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten within the walls of the city, whose legal status was that of the Israelite camp in the wilderness.

讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 诪讘讞讜抓 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

With regard to all offerings that one consecrated during a period of prohibition of private altars and sacrificed during a period of prohibition of private altars, if he sacrificed them outside their designated area, for these animals he is in violation of both the positive mitzva to sacrifice the offering in the place chosen by God and the prohibition against sacrificing them on a private altar, and he is liable to receive karet for doing it.

讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讘讞讜抓 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻专转 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讗 转注砖讛

If one consecrated the animals during a period of permitting of private altars and sacrificed them during a period of prohibition of private altars, outside their designated area, for these animals he is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but he is not liable to receive karet for sacrificing them. If he consecrated the animals during a period of prohibition of private altars and sacrificed them during a period of permitting of private altars, outside their designated area, for these animals he is in violation of a positive mitzva for failure to bring it to the Tabernacle, but these animals are not subject to a prohibition, as it is permitted to sacrifice on a private altar.

讜讗诇讜 拽讚砖讬诐 拽专讘讬谉 讘诪砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 诇诪砖讻谉 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 拽专讘讬谉 讘诪砖讻谉 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讘诪讛 拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 诇诪砖讻谉 讬拽专讬讘讜 讘诪砖讻谉 讜讗诐 讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讘诪讛 驻讟讜专

And these are the sacrificial items that are sacrificed only in the Tabernacle even when private altars are permitted: Sacrificial animals that were presumed to be consecrated for sacrifice in the Tabernacle. Therefore, communal offerings are sacrificed in the Tabernacle, but offerings of an individual may be sacrificed on a private altar. In addition, with regard to offerings of an individual that were consecrated expressly for sacrifice in the Tabernacle, one must sacrifice them in the Tabernacle. But if he sacrificed them on a private altar, he is exempt.

讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 诇讘诪转 爪讬讘讜专 住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讞讬讟转 爪驻讜谉

And what is the difference between the private altar of an individual and the public altar at the site of the Tabernacle when it was located in Gilgal, Nov, and Gibeon? It is that on a private altar there is no placing of hands on the head of an offering, no slaughter in the north,

Scroll To Top