Komentarz do Zewachim 14:11

פרת חטאת – the red heifer. It is stated there (Numbers 19:9): “[A man who is pure shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a pure place…]. It is for purification.”

Introduction The first three mishnayot of our chapter continue to deal with the prohibition of slaughtering an animal outside the Temple.

חוץ מגתה (outside of its marked-off space – the phrase also appears in Tractate Parah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2) – the pile of wood on the altar in the Temple that are arranged like a vat (i.e., marked off space) that they make for it in the place that they slaughter it on the Mount of Olives opposite the entrance of the Temple (i.e., the Hall containing the golden altar). But if he slaughtered it outside of that place, it is invalid. But he is not liable for it because one can slaughter Holy Things outside [the Temple], for the All-Merciful exempted him since it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people.],” but since Scripture was strict to punish him that he did not bring it [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting], one learns from it that while standing to bring it in [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting] is what Scripture is speaking about.

If one slaughtered the hatat cow [the red heifer] outside its appointed place, and likewise if one offered the scapegoat [of Yom Kippur] outside, he is not liable, because it says, “And has not brought it unto the door of the Tent of Meeting,” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account. The hatat cow (see Numbers 19:9) is burned and its ashes are placed into water which is then used to purify people from corpse impurity. None of this is performed inside the Temple. The scapegoat of Yom Kippur is brought to Azazel, a place in the wilderness, and there it is thrown off a cliff. Neither of these animals is sacrificed in the Temple. One who slaughters the heifer in the wrong place, or offers up the scapegoat outside the Temple is not liable. This is derived from the wording of the verse: one is liable for offering outside the Temple only animals that were supposed to be brought into the Temple (Tent of Meeting while in the desert).

כל שאינו ראוי לבוא – etc. that will not offer a sacrifice in the future.

בלא תעשה – since they are worthy to come [before the altar of God] at another time, they do not suffer extirpation, but rather it is a mere negative commandment of (Deuteronomy 12:8): “You shall not act at all as we now act here, [every man as he pleases.”

[As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. All of the animals on this list were explained in 8:1, so for a more detailed explanation, look there. None of these animals can be sacrificed and they all became unfit to be put onto the altar outside the Temple. Since none of these can be sacrificed, one who offers one of them up outside the Temple is not liable.

תורים שלא הגיע זמנן – [as it is taught in the Mishnah (note: but it is NOT a Mishnah, but rather a Baraita; the Mishnah is found in Tractate Hullin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5 on 22a) of Tractate Hullin (22b): when their plumage is glittering, they are kosher, but before this they are invalid], for we require large turtle-doves and not small ones.

[As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. Blemished animals cannot be offered as sacrifices. Animals that have permanent blemishes will never be able to be used as sacrifices whereas animals that have passing blemishes are only temporarily disqualified. According to the sages (the first opinion in the mishnah), since the animal cannot now be sacrificed in the Temple, one is not liable if one offers it outside the Temple. Rabbi Shimon says that if one offers up outside the Temple an animal that is only temporarily disqualified from being used as a sacrifice on the Temple’s altar, he has transgressed the negative commandment found in Deuteronomy 12:13, “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place” but he has not transgressed the commandment found in Leviticus 17:8-9, which is punished with karet. This seems to be Rabbi Shimon’s way of answering why the Torah repeats the same prohibition, once in Leviticus 17 and once in Deuteronomy 12. The case in Deuteronomy refers to a person who sacrifices outside the Temple an animal that is only temporarily disqualified from being put on the altar inside the Temple.

ובני יונה שעבר זמנן – small pigeons and not large ones, and they are invalid from the incipient stage of brightening plumage and onward (see Tractate Hullin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5).

[As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. Turtledoves are valid as sacrifices only when they are older (about three months) whereas pigeons are valid as sacrifices when they are younger (before three months). According to the sages, if one sacrifices either of these outside the Temple at a time when it cannot be sacrificed in the Temple, he is not liable. Rabbi Shimon holds that since a turtledove that is not yet three months will eventually become fit for the altar, if one sacrifices it outside the Temple, he is liable for transgressing a negative commandment although he is exempt from karet.

בלא תעשה – since for they are worthy after the time [for the offering of he sacrifice] there is for them a negative commandment to slaughtered them outside [the Temple courtyard].

[One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. Leviticus 22:28 prohibits one from slaughtering a mother animal and her offspring on the same day. If one already slaughtered one of these animals, he can’t then slaughter the other and the other animal would not be fit on that day to be a sacrifice. Thus, according to the sages, if one offers up the other animal outside the Temple he is liable. Rabbi Shimon says that since the animal can be offered on the next day, if he offers it on the day its mother/offspring was already slaughtered, he has transgressed a negative commandment. It is also forbidden to sacrifice an animal before it is eight days old (Leviticus 22:27). The same rules apply here: the sages hold that he is exempt if he sacrifices it outside the Temple whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that he has transgressed a negative commandment, since the animal can be sacrificed after it is eight days old.

אותו ואת בנו – that he slaughtered one of them (either the parent-bird or the offspring) and he came to offer up the second on the second day, but it is prohibited because of (Leviticus 22:28): “[However, no animal from the herd or from the flock] shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young.”

For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment. In this section we see the debate that serves as the basis for the particular debates in sections 2-4. Rabbi Shimon holds that Deuteronomy 12:13 applies to one who sacrifices an animal outside the Temple that cannot currently be sacrificed on the altar, but that will be fit later on. The other sages disagree and hold that if karet (Leviticus 17) doesn’t apply, then he doesn’t transgress the negative commandment found in Deuteronomy either.

מחוסר זמן (an offering that cannot be offered because the time for it be offered has not yet arrived (i.e., for an animal not yet eight days old, or a peace-offering is offered before the Temple gates were opened.) – whether it is because it is lacking time in its body that it was not seven days with its mother, or whether the owners are lacking time, as will be explained further (see the next Mishnah). And it is necessary to teach the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis in all of these [three segments of the Mishnah], for it if (i.e., the Mishnah) only mentioned to us regarding animals with a blemish, in that, the Rabbis state because they are repulsive, but turtle-doves and pigeons are not repulsive. I would say that they agree [on this] with Rabbi Shimon. But if it (i.e., the Mishnah) mentioned only turtle-doves and pigeons, because they were not appropriate/eligible and superseded, I would say that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbis. But if it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches these two, because of the invalid (i.e., intrinsic) nature of its body, but the parent animal and its offspring which is invalid eternally (i.e., as a result of an accident of time), they would bring them, I would say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon, hence it is necessary, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon (see Tractate Zevakhim 114a).

הזב והזבה – whose sacrifices were offered outside, within the days of their counting [of seven days] (see Leviticus 15:13-15 for the ZAV and 28-30 for the ZAVAH)

“Before time” applies both to [the animal] itself and to its owner. What is “before time” as applied to its owner? If a zav or a zavah, a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, offered their hatat or their asham outside [before the time in which they were obligated], they are exempt;
[If they offered] their olah or their shelamims outside [before their time], they are liable.
One who offers up flesh of a hatat, or flesh of an asham, or flesh of most holy sacrifices, or flesh of less holy sacrifices; or the remainder of the omer, or the two loaves, or the showbread, or the remainder of meal-offerings;
Or if he pours [the oil on to the meal-offering], or mingles [it with flour], or breaks up [the meal-offering cakes], or salts [the meal-offering], or waves it, or presents it; or sets the table [with the showbread], or trims the lamps, or takes out the fistful, or receives the blood; [If he does any of these] outside, he is exempt.
One is also not liable for any of these acts on account of not being a priest, or uncleanness, or lack of [priestly] vestments, or the non-washing of hands and feet.
This is the final mishnah that deals with the prohibition of sacrificing an animal outside the Temple (take a deep breath, we’re almost there).
Section one: At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, we learned that if someone sacrifices an animal outside the Temple before that animal is eight days old he is not liable because that animal could not be sacrificed on the altar. This section explains that “before time” refers not only to animal but also to a person who is not yet obligated to bring an animal to the Temple. There are several such categories of people: the zav or zavah, a man or woman with unusual genital discharge, bring expiatory sacrifices after having been pure for eight days (Leviticus 15:14, 29). A woman after childbirth brings a sacrifice after a set amount of time, depending upon whether the child is male or female (Leviticus 12:6). A metzora, a person suffering some sort of skin affliction, brings his sacrifices after eight days of purity (Lev 14:10). In all of these cases, if a person offered up the hatat or the asham outside the Temple that he/she would have to bring at the end of that period, they are exempt because they had not yet become liable to bring those sacrifices to the Temple.
However, if someone who is liable to bring a shelamim or an olah offers it up outside the Temple before the prescribed time has arrived, for instance if a nazirite offers up his shelamim before his naziriteship is complete, or if a zav or a zavah brings his/her olah before the eight days are over, he is liable. This is because a person can always voluntarily bring an olah or a shelamim, even without being liable for one. Since this olah or shelamim could be brought inside the Temple and put on the altar, one who brings it outside the Temple is liable. In contrast, a hatat and an asham can only be brought by someone obligated to bring such a sacrifice, and therefore if someone is not obligated and he offers one outside the Temple he is exempt.
Section three: Sections three and four teach that liability is incurred for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple only if it was an animal, or a part thereof, that could have been put on the altar. Section three contains a list of parts of animals or other parts of sacrifices that are eaten by priests or non-priests. Since these are eaten and not sacrificed, one who offers them up outside of the Temple is not liable.
Section four: One is liable for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple but not for performing other parts of the worship service. The first set of these are directly taken from Leviticus 2 which discusses preparing the minhah (meal-offering). Then the mishnah proceeds to note other types of work done in the Temple, such as arranging the showbread on the table, trimming the wicks of the menorah, taking a fistful of the minhah offering, and receiving blood from an animal’s neck.
The general rule is that one is liable only for an act of the sacrificial service which is the completion of that sacrifice, such as burning the animal on an altar. Since all of these acts are merely preparatory, one is not liable for performing them outside the Temple.
Section five: The mishnah now adds that just as one is not liable for performing one of these acts outside the Temple, so too several other prohibitions are not transgressed. If a non-priest does one of these acts, he is not liable for death (by the hands of heaven), as he would be had he actually offered a sacrifice (see Numbers 18:7). An impure priest is also not liable, nor is a priest who is not wearing the prescribed clothing or has not washed his hands and feet. In all of these cases, the act done by the priest (or non-priest) is invalid, but nevertheless he is not liable for having done so.

והיולדת – (Leviticus 12:6): “On the completion [of her period of purification, for either son or daughter].”

פטורין – they are not accepted, neither for an obligatory offering nor for a free-will offering.

ואשמן – in the Gemara (Tractate Zevakhim 114b) an objection is raised: a ZAB (i.e., a man with a flux) and a ZAVAH (i.e., a woman with a flux) and a woman in childbirth are these subject to guilt-offerings? And it responds (in the name of Ze’iri): Include a leper among them (i.e., a guilt-offering is mentioned only in connection with the leper, who is also enumerated), that the leper brings a guilt-offering.

עולותיהן ושלמיהן – In the Gemara (Tractate Zevakhim 114b): And are these subject to peace-offerings? And the Gemara responds [in the words of Zei’ri]: The Tannaim [explicitly] included it (i.e., Nazirites), for a Nazirite brings a peace-offering.

בחוץ חייבין – for they are accepted inside as a free-will offering for their own sakes after they sacrificed their sin-offerings and the leper his guilt-offering.

מבשר חטאת מבשר אשם כו' - for all of these are consumed by the Kohanim and are not offered on the altar, for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 17:8): “[If anyone of the House of Israel or of strangers who reside among them] offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice,” just as a burnt-offering which is offered on the altar, so also everything is offered on the altar.

מבשר קדשי קדשים – the lambs for Atzeret/Shavuot which are the peace-offerings for the community and they have the law of the Highest Holy Things (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 5).

היוצק – [the person who pours] the oil on the meal offering.

הבולל. הפותת – the person who mixes the meal offering in oil. And who breaks the meal-offering cakes into pieces.

המניף. המגיש – who waves the meal offering that requires waving And who brings it near outside. The meal-offering requires bringing it near inside in the southwestern corner [of the altar], as it is written (Leviticus 2:8): “[When you present to the LORD a grain offering, etc….it shall be brought to the priest who shall take it up to the altar.”

המסדר – the shewbread on the table.

פטור – for Scripture states (Leviticus 17:8): “[If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them] offers a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” just as bringing it up/offering is the conclusion of the Divine Service, so also anything which is the conclusion of the Divine Service, excluding those [actions] where none of them is the conclusion of the Divine Service.

אין חייבין עליו משום זרות – if a non-Kohen (i.e., literally, “foreigner”) performed one of these actions of Divine Service, as for example, mixing he meal offering in oil or breaking the meal-offering cake into pieces, etc. and similarly, someone who is ritually impure, or someone who is lacking the appropriate clothing, or someone whose hands and feet are not washed, is not liable for death even though he invalidated that thing in which was engaged in Divine Service.

והעבודה בבכורות – as it is written (Exodus 24:5): “He designated some of the young men among the Israelites, [and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls and offerings of well-being to the LORD], these are the first-born that the Divine Service was upon them.

Introduction Since the past chapter and a half have dealt with the prohibition of offering a sacrifice outside the Temple, the mishnah now notes that in the past, before the Temple was built, there were periods where it was permissible to offer a sacrifice anywhere one wished. These local altars are called “bamot,” which is close to the Hebrew word for the pulpit, “bimah.

משהוקם המשכן נאסרו הבמות – as it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it (i.e., ox, sheep or goat in the camp) to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [to present it as an offering to the LORD,” it follows that the prohibition depends upon the Tent of Meeting. But particularly for the Israelite, the improvised altars were forbidden, but heathens are permitted to offer up [sacrifices] to Heaven in any place, and even at this time. But it is prohibited for an Israelite to be their agents to offer up [sacrifices] or to assist them. But to instruct them in the order of the offering of sacrifices is permitted.

Before the Tabernacle was set up bamot (local were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. Before the Israelites set up the Tabernacle in the desert it was permitted to offer a sacrifice anywhere. This was the way that sacrifices were performed from the time of Adam until the Tabernacle was set up in the desert. In addition, the Temple service was performed by the firstborns. This is hinted at in several places. First of all, Numbers 3:12 states, “I hereby take the Levites from among the Israelites in place of all the first-born.” This seems to state that at some earlier point in Israelite history, the firstborns performed the worship that the Levites (which here includes priests) used to perform. Second, in Exodus 24:5 Moses designates “some young men among the Israelites” to offer sacrifices. The rabbis understand these “young men” to be firstborns.

After the Tabernacle was set up bamot were forbidden and the service was performed by priests. After the Tabernacle was set up, it became forbidden to offer sacrifices elsewhere, as it says in Leviticus 17:5, “This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making in the open…to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” At this point, the worship was performed at the Tabernacle and by priests.

Most holy sacrifices were [then] eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere in the camp of the Israelites. When in the desert, most holy sacrifices, the asham and hatat, had to be eaten within the curtain of the Tabernacle. Lesser sacrifices, such as the shelamim and todah, had to be eaten within the camp of Israel.

באו לגלגל – there wasn’t a Temple there, but rather just the curtains/tent-cloth of the Tabernacle of the wilderness.

When they came to Gilgal, bamot (local were [again] permitted. When the Israelites crossed the Jordan they came first to Gilgal and they set up the Tabernacle there. However, they didn’t set up camp around the Tabernacle, as they did in the desert. The Tabernacle contained an altar, but the ark was not inside it. At this point it became permitted to offer sacrifices elsewhere. Communal sacrifices and mandatory individual sacrifices (such as the hatat and the asham) were offered in the Tabernacle whereas voluntary individual offerings could be sacrificed at local altars.

הותרו הבמות – for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 17:3-4): [if anyone of the house of Israel] slaughters [an ox or sheep or goat] in the camp,…and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” excluding Gilgal, where there was [no longer] a camp there, for the camps were abolished and the people began to be scattered throughout the Land [of Canaan/Israel]. And for this reason, also, lesser Holy Things are eaten in any place, for there wasn’t there a camp like there was in the wilderness.

Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere. The most holy sacrifices continued to be eaten within the Tabernacle’s curtains. Lesser sacrifices could now be eaten anywhere, since there was no official encampment.

באו לשילה נאסרו הבמות – as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:9): “because you have not yet come to the allotted haven,” it follows that when they would come to the מנוחה/the haven,” the improvised altars would be prohibited. But this “haven” is Shiloh, where there was there a haven/rest, where they did not travel from one place to another like in the wilderness (i.e., during the forty-years of wandering).

When they came to Shiloh, bamot were forbidden. When they came to Shiloh (see Joshua 18:1) the ark was put back into the Tabernacle (see I Samuel 3:3). At this point bamot were again forbidden because at Shiloh the Tabernacle was considered to be at “rest”, a reference to Deuteronomy 12:9, “Because you have not yet come to the resting place, to the inheritance, that the Lord your God is giving you.” “Resting place” is understood to be Shiloh because the Israelites came to Shiloh after fourteen years spent conquering the land of Israel. Once the Tabernacle came to rest in Shiloh, local altars, bamot, were prohibited.

בית של אבנים מלמטה ויריעות מלמעלה – as it is written (I Samuel 1:24): “she (i.e., Hannah) brought him (i.e., Samuel) to the House of the LORD at Shiloh,” so we see that it was a “house”, and it is written (Psalm 78:60): “He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, [the tent He had set among men,]” so we see that it was of curtains, teaching that there was no ceiling, but rather a house of stones from below and curtains from above.

[The Tabernacle] there had no roof, but [consisted of] a base of stones with a ceiling of curtains, and that was the “resting place” [referred to in the Torah]. In the desert, the Tabernacle was made of wood. In Shiloh the Tabernacle was made of a base of stones and a roof of curtains.

ומעשר שני בכל הרואה – but above, it (i.e., the Mishnah in Mishnayot 4-5 of this chapter) does not teach about the Second Tithe, because all fourteen years that they were in Gilgal, they (i.e., the Israelites) were not obligated in the tithes until they conquered and divided up [the land]. And [the words] בכל הרואה/within sight of [Shiloh] , that is in every place where they see Shiloh from there, as Scripture states (Deuteronomy 12:13): “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place you like” (in Hebrew – בכל – מקום אשר תראה ). In every place that you can see, you don’t bring them up, but you do eat [of them] in every place you can see.

Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe [were eaten] wherever [Shiloh] could be seen. As always, most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains of the Tabernacle. Less holy sacrifices and second tithe could now be eaten in any place that could see Shiloh. According to the Talmud’s account, the ark was in Shiloh for 369 years.

באו לנוב ולגבעון – when Shiloh was destroyed at the end of three-hundred and seventy years minus one (i.e., 369 years), when the Sanctuary was there, and the Ark was taken in the days of Eli [the priest, at the time when Samuel had been serving him], they came to Nob [for thirteen years], but Nob was destroyed during the days of [King] Saul (see First Samuel, Chapter 22, verses 17-19) and they came to Givon. And all the days of Nob and Givon were fifty-seven years, and all that time, the Bamot/platforms/improvised altars (i.e., name of legitimate altars prior to, and of the illegitimate after, the establishment of a century sanctuary - at Shiloh – and of the Temple at Jerusalem) were permitted, for the All-Merciful stated regarding the prohibition of the improvised altars (Deuteronomy 12:9): “Because you have not yet come to the allotted haven/אל – המנוחה ואל – הנחלה [that the LORD your God is giving you].” מנוחה – is Shiloh, נחלה – is Jerusalem, but Scripture did not did not divide them other in order to provide a permission for improvised altars whether in this or that period.

When they came to Nov and to Givon, bamot were [again] permitted. When Shiloh was destroyed and the ark was taken by the Philistines (I Samuel 4) the Tabernacle was set up in Nov (I Samuel 21). And after Nov was destroyed during Saul’s reign (I Samuel 21-22), they brought the Tabernacle to Givon (I Kings 3:4). While the Tabernacle was in Nov and Givon local altars were again permitted. It seems that these were not important central places, as were Shiloh and subsequently Jerusalem. Thus sacrifices could be offered outside of the Tabernacle.

קדשי קלים בכל ערי ישראל – and the same law applies to the Second Time, for Scripture made an analogy between them, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:17): “You may not partake in your settlements of the tithes of your new grain [or wine or oil, of the firstlings of your herds and flocks,] or any of the votive offerings that you vow.” At the time when the lesser Holy Things require being brought to the Place (i.e., the Sanctuary), at the time when the lesser Holy Things [are brought] throughout the cities of Israel, even the Second Tithe is within all the cities of Israel (after the conquest and the division of the Land.

Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices in all of the cities of Israel. As was the situation before Shiloh, once Shiloh was destroyed most holy sacrifices must be eaten within the Tabernacle, whereas less holy sacrifices, specifically voluntary offerings, could be eaten anywhere within the cities of Israel. Note that when the Tabernacle was in Gilgal (mishnah five) they could eat anywhere. Once the cities were built they offered sacrifices there.

והיא היתה נחלה – that is stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 12:9): “because you have not yet come to the allotted haven,” that implies that when they would come to the “allotted haven,” the improvised altars would be prohibited.

When they came to Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden and were never again permitted, and that was the ‘inheritance’. Deuteronomy 12:9 reads, “Because you have not yet come to the resting place, to the inheritance, that the Lord your God is giving you.” As we saw in mishnah six “resting place” refers to Shiloh. “Inheritance” refers to Jerusalem. Once Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, local altars were forever thereafter prohibited, even after the destruction of the altar. We should note that this mishnah represents an ideology and not an historic fact. There were definitely Jews who offered sacrifices in places other than the Temple, both while the Temple stood and when it was destroyed. The rabbis, at least those speaking in this mishnah, were opposed to this.

Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe within the walls [of Jerusalem]. As before, most holy sacrifices must be eaten inside the Temple, whereas less holy sacrifices could be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem (see also 5:3, 5).

הרי אלו בעשה – (Deuteronomy 12:11): “then you must bring everything [that I command you to the site where the LORD our God will choose to establish His name] your burnt-offerings [and other sacrifices, your tithes and contributions, and all the choice votive offerings that you vow to the LORD].,” that implies [there] but not at the temporary altars, and the prohibition is inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment [and its law is like a positive commandment]. Alternatively, the positive commandment of (Leviticus 17:5): “that they may bring them before the LORD, [to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the LORD],” and the negative commandment of (Deuteronomy 12:13): “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings [in any place that you like],” and “every place”/"כל מקום" that is stated [in this verse], [the words]"השמר"/ “take care,” "פן"/not and "אל" /”do not” is not anything other than a negative commandment.

Introduction When it comes to sacrificing outside the Temple, according to rabbinic reckoning one can transgress three commandments: 1) A negative commandment “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place you like” (Deuteronomy 12:13); 2) A positive commandment “But only in the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribal territories” (ibid 14); 3) A commandment punished by karet “If anyone of the house of Israel or of strangers who reside among them offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer it to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 17:8-9). Our mishnah deals with various situations in which one might transgress one of these commandments, but not all of them.

ואין חייבין עליהם כרת – because he dedicated them at the time when the temporary altars were permitted, that the person offering the sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] is not liable for extirpation other than on a sacrifice that if he offered it outside at the time he dedicated it, he would be liable similar to the wilderness, for extirpation is written regarding thoses who slaughtered it outside [of the Tabernacle], it is written (Leviticus 17:7): “[and that they offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom they stray.] This shall be to them a law for all time, [throughout the ages,” “that shall be to them,” but not another to them.

All sacrifices consecrated while bamot were forbidden and offered outside while bamot were forbidden involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable for karet on their account. The simplest situation is one in which a person consecrated the animal to be a sacrifice while bamot were forbidden and then offered it up outside Shiloh/Jerusalem also while bamot were forbidden. Such a person has transgressed both the positive and negative commandment and is liable for karet.

הקדישן בשעת איסור הבמות – from that time, we call them: (Leviticus 17:5): “that they may bring them before the LORD,” but since he waited until he was not able to fulfill it, the positive command was nullified through him, but there is no negative command nor extirpation, for the warning and the punishment at the time of the offering is written, but surely the temporary altars were permitted.

If one consecrated them while bamot were permitted, but offered them without when bamot were forbidden, they involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, but one is not liable for karet on their account. If he consecrated the animal when it was permitted to offer sacrifices at bamot, for instance when the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, and when the Tabernacle came to Shiloh he didn’t offer it there but rather at a local altar, he is not liable for karet. However, he has transgressed both a positive and negative commandment.

If one consecrated them when bamot were forbidden, and offered them when bamot were permitted, they involve the transgression of a positive commandment, but they do not involve the transgression of a negative commandment. If he consecrated the animal when bamot were forbidden, for instance when the Tabernacle stood in Shiloh, and then offered it once Shiloh was destroyed and bamot were again permitted, he has transgressed the positive commandment of not bringing the animal to Shiloh while the Tabernacle was still there. However, he has not transgressed the negative commandment, nor is he liable for karet.

ואלו קדשים קרבין במשכן – as for example at the time that Gilgal, Nov and Givon was where the Tabernacle was and the improvised altars were permitted. These Holy Things needed to be offered in the Tabernacle but not at an improvised altar.

Introduction When the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, Nov and Givon, it was permitted to offer sacrifices at local altars. Still there were certain sacrifices that were offered only at the Tabernacle, as we explained in connection to some of the earlier mishnayot of this chapter. Our mishnah discusses the difference between the “bamah of the congregation” that was in the Tabernacle and the “bamah of the individual,” the local altars that were found elsewhere.

קדשים – those undefined/not explicitly stated things were sanctified for the Tabernacle, and what were they – the community sacrifices.

The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. The general rule is that public sacrifices had to be performed at the Tabernacle, and that any private sacrifices could be offered at the local altar, the bamah of the congregation.

קרבנות יחיד – that were undefined for the improvised altars.

If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. If an individual specifically stated that he was consecrating an animal in order to offer it at the Tabernacle, then it must be offered at the Tabernacle. If he nevertheless goes ahead and offers it at a bamah, he is not liable for offering a sacrifice outside the Temple.

קרבנות יחיד שהוקדשו למשכן – that he specified at the time of their sanctification on the conidition to offer them to the Tabernacle.

What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the; priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. This list consists of actions that were to be performed at the Tabernacle, but not at a local bamah. I shall explain each separately: a) Laying [of hands]: Laying one’s hands on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered. b) Slaughtering in the north: side of the altar, obligatory for most holy sacrifices. c) Sprinkling around [the altar]: sprinkling the blood on various corners of the altar. d) Waving and presenting: the minhah (meal) offering. i) (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah): Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that minhah offerings were only offered at the Tabernacle. e) Priesthood: sacrifices could be offered by non-priests at the local bamot. f) Sacrificial vestments: neither did the person offering have to wear the priestly clothing. g) Ministering vessels: He also did not need to use sanctified vessels. h) A sweet fragrance: Inside the Tabernacle (and subsequently the Temple) it was prohibited to put onto the altar limbs of a sacrifice that have already been roasted elsewhere. Such limbs will not give off the sweet fragrance of roasting meat (think bbq!). This was not prohibited at local altars, where one could first roast the limb and then put it onto the altar. i) A line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood: On the altar in the Tabernacle there was a crimson line separating the upper and lower parts. Blood of some sacrifices was sprinkled below and of others it was sprinkled above. There was no such line on the local altar. j) And the washing of hands and feet: In the Tabernacle and Temple priests had to wash their hands and feet before performing any of the worship service. There was no such requirement for local altars.

ואם הקריבן בבמה פטור – from warning and from punishment, for the improvised altars were permitted. But however, it is prohibited to change, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:24): “You must fulfill what has crossed your lips [and perform what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, having made the promise with your own mouth].”

But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both. When it comes to these three prohibitions, they apply to local altars just as they do to the public altar. If one offering the sacrifice intends to eat it after the prescribed time, he has rendered it invalid. The laws governing when a sacrifice must be eaten, and when it becomes “remnant,” which is prohibited, apply in all places. And the prohibition of offering or eating a sacrifice when impure, applies to individual bamot as well. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Zevahim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Zevahim introduced us to a world which probably seems quite strange. To imagine a version of Judaism centered on animal sacrifice is probably quite difficult for modern Jews, myself included. For two thousand years, Jews have not offered sacrifices, and it is hard to imagine returning to such a form of Judaism. However, that is not the point of learning Zevahim. In my opinion, there are at least three solid reasons to study Zevahim in particular and Seder Kodashim in general. The first is that it is always interesting and helpful to remind ourselves of where our religion comes from and what it would have been like in ancient times. I also hope that learning Zevahim will make Leviticus more interesting, when you hear it in the synagogue. Second, and more importantly, in Zevahim we can see a system created by the rabbis based on their interpretation of Torah, and not just a simple record of how things were done in the Temple. This allows us to get into the mindset of the rabbis and understand better who they were and how they created their laws. Third, many later principles of halakhah, especially those connected with prayer, have their origins in sacrificial law. So while most of these laws are no longer observed, their principles often still manifest themselves. In any case, I hope you enjoyed Zevahim. I know that I especially enjoyed writing my commentary on it, for I always learn the most when I have to try to explain something to others. Tomorrow we start Tractate Menahot.

במות צבור – Gilgal and Nob and Givon.

סמיכה – as it is written (Leviticus 1:2-3): “[for acceptance in his behalf] before the LORD. He shall lay his hand [upon the head of the burnt offering],” for there os no laying of his hand on an improvised altar.

שחיטת צפון – as it is written (Leviticus 1:11): “[It shall be slaughtered] before the LORD on the north side of the altar,” but there is no “north side” in an improvised altar.

ומתן סביב – two gifts which are four, as it is written regarding them (Exodus 29:20): “and dash the rest of the blood against every side of the altar round about,” but not on an improvised altar.

תנופה – as it is written ((Leviticus 7:30; 10:15; 14:12 and other places) “as an elevation offering before the LORD,” and there is no waving on an improvised altar.

והגישה – as it is written (Leviticus 2:8): “[it shall be brought to the priest] who shall take it up to the altar,” and there is no bringing it with an improvised altar.

מנחה בבמה – for Scripture states (Leviticus 17:5): “This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making in the open – that they may bring them before the LORD, to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the LORD,” that sacrifices are brought on an improvised altar but not meal-offerings.

כיהון – as it is written (Leviticus 17:6): “that the priest may dash the blood against the altar of the LORD,” the altar requires a Kohen but an improvised altar does not require a Kohen.

ובגדי שרת – for since there is no need for a Kohen, there is no place for wearing garments of ministry, that regarding the wearing garments of ministry it is written (Exodus 29:30): “[He among his sons] who becomes priest [in his stead, who enters the Tent of Meeting to officiate within the sanctuary,] shall wear them seven days.”

וכלי שרת – and regarding the utensils of ministry, it is written (Exodus 28:43): [They shall be worn by Aaron and his sons when they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar] to officiate in the sanctuary,”and not an an improvised altar.

וריח ניחוח – limbs that had been roasted and offered on the altar, they don’t have with them “of pleasing odor to the LORD”, and specifically on the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 1:13): “It is burnt offering, a gift, of pleasing odor to the LORD.,” but on an improvised altar, even if he roasted them and offered them on the altar there is nothing in this.

ומחיצת דמים – the red line to distinguish between the lower blood and the upper blod, but there is no red line in the improvised altar, as it is written (Exodus 27:5):”[Set the mesh below, under the ledge of the altar,] so that it extends to the middle of the altar,” but not in an improvised altar.

רחוץ ידים ורגלים – as it is written (Exodus 30:20): “When they enter the Tent of Meeting they wash with water,” but not in an improvised altar.

הזמן – if he intended regarding the sacrifice to consume it outside of I ts appropriate time.

והטמא – even though the foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) is fit to offer it on an improvised altar, an impure person does not offer on an improvised altar.