Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 120

1) UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION OF REBBI ZEIRA

OPINIONS: Rebbi Zeira asks about an Olah that was supposed to be offered on a Bamas Yachid (at a time when it is permitted to bring Korbanos on private Bamos), but was first brought inside the partitions of a Bamah Gedolah. Afterwards, it was brought back outside of the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah. Does the fact that it went within the partitions require that it be treated with the Halachos of a Korban on a Bamah Gedolah (see Mishnah 112b-113a), or do we say that because it then exited the partitions, that it is treated as a Korban of a Bamas Yachid?

The question seems unclear. At what stage in the process of the Avodah of this Korban is Rebbi Zeira's question addressing? Was the Korban slaughtered already before it was brought into the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah, or was it still alive?

(a) RASHI (DH she'Hichnisah li'Fnim) learns that the question involves an animal that was already slaughtered at the site of a Bamas Yachid. After it was slaughtered, it was brought inside the partitions of a Bamah Gedolah, and then taken out.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Ba'i Rav Ada) learns that the question involves an animal that remained alive during its transfer from the Bamas Yachid to the Bamah Gedolah and back. The question is whether or not all of the Halachos of a Bamah Gedolah apply to this animal.

The CHOK NASAN has difficulty understanding the view of Rashi. How can Rebbi Zeira consider the possibility that this animal might have all of the Halachos of a Korban offered on a Bamah Gedolah because it entered the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah? If it belongs to the Bamah Gedolah, then it becomes Pasul immediately upon exiting the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah ("Yotzei")! According to Tosfos, this is not a difficulty, because the Korban has not yet been slaughtered and there is no Pesul of "Yotzei" for a live animal. How does Rashi learn the Gemara?

The Chok Nasan suggests that there is no Pesul of exiting the partitions of a Bamas Gedolah when the Korban has the Kedushah of a Bamas Yachid and was first slaughtered at a Bamas Yachid. The Pesul of "Yotzei" applies only when the Korban was intended solely for a Bamah Gedolah.

The YAD BINYAMIN says that this is a difficult explanation. Rashi in Me'ilah (3b, DH Kaltuhah) explains the statement of Rebbi Eliezer (cited here on 119b) that the walls of a Bamah Gedolah "accept *for everything*" an animal that was supposed to be offered on a Bamas Yachid. Rashi in Me'ilah describes many of the Halachos that this involves, including the fact that if the animal leaves the confines of the Bamah Gedolah it becomes Pasul because of "Yotzei." This is the exact opposite of the Chok Nasan's first explanation of Rashi.

The Chok Nasan suggests a second explanation for Rashi, with which the Yad Binyamin agrees. When Rebbi Zeira asks about an "Olas Bamas Yachid," he does not mean to ask a question regarding a Korban Olah, but rather he is asking about a Korban Shelamim. A Korban Shelamim does not become Pasul as a result of leaving the walls of a Bamah Gedolah, since it can be eaten in all of the cities of Yisrael.

How, though, does Rashi, according to this explanation, explain Rebbi Zeira's usage of the word "Olah"? It appears that Rashi's text of the Gemara did not include this word. This is also apparent from the fact that Rashi (DH Mahu) explains the question as whether or not the animal requires Terumas Chazeh v'Shok, which is only relevant to a Korban Shelamim, and not to an Olah. Indeed, the SHINUY NUSCHA'OS quotes the OLAS SHLOMO who says that Rashi's text reads, "Korban Bamas Yachid" and not "Olas Bamas Yachid." (Y. Montrose)

QUESTION: Rebbi Yanai asks about the limbs of an Olah that was designated for a Bamas Yachid but that were placed on the Mizbe'ach of a Bamah Gedolah. Does the Halachah of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu" apply to these limbs, such that once they have been placed on the Mizbe'ach, they should not be removed?

This question seems difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (119b) quotes Rebbi Eliezer who states that the walls of a Bamah Gedolah "accept *for everything" an animal that was supposed to be offered on a Bamas Yachid. The words "for everything" apparently refer to all of the Halachos relevant to this Korban, which would be applied if it was brought to a Bamah Gedolah. One of these Halachos is that its limbs would be placed upon the Mizbe'ach. How, then, could Rebbi Yanai have any question whether or not its limbs should be removed from the Mizbe'ach? The Halachah is that its limbs should be placed on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah! It is difficult to say that Rebbi Yanai argues with Rebbi Eliezer, because RASHI (DH d'Ba'i) mentions that Rebbi Yanai's question is asked in Me'ilah (3b) in the name of Rebbi Eliezer! The statement of Rebbi Eliezer here (119b), however, is clearly not in agreement with the question, as we have explained. What, then, is the logic of Rebbi Yanai's question?

ANSWERS:

(a) The YAD BINYAMIN explains that, according to TOSFOS (DH Ba'i Rav Ada), we may understand how this case is different from the case of Rebbi Eliezer's statement. Rebbi Eliezer is discussing a case in which the animal was alive the entire time. If it was brought into the confines of the Bamah Gedolah and then slaughtered there, Rebbi Eliezer's Halachah that we treat it with all of the Halachos of a Bamah Gedolah applies. Rebbi Yanai, in contrast, is referring to a case in which the animal was slaughtered *before* it entered the confines of the Bamah Gedolah. In such a case, does the Korban also receive the Halachos of a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah, even though it was slaughtered at a Bamas Yachid?

However, this explanation is valid only according to Tosfos. Rashi (DH she'Hichnisah) learns that Rebbi Eliezer is discussing a case in which the animal was already slaughtered at a Bamas Yachid, before it was brought to the Bamah Gedolah. According to Rashi, what is Rebbi Yanai's doubt about whether or not the limbs of this animal belong on the Mizbe'ach?

(b) The KEREN ORAH and CHOK NASAN explain that according to Rashi, Rebbi Yanai's question refers to a case in which not only the slaughtering was done at a Bamas Yachid, but the Zerikah was done there as well. Since the Avodah of the Korban was basically finished at a Bamas Yachid, it is certain that these limbs are not supposed to be put on a Bamah Gedolah. This is unlike Rebbi Eliezer's case, in which only the slaughtering was done before the Korban arrived at the Bamah Gedolah, and thus the Korban can be considered to be a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah after the Avodos have taken place there. The only question in our case is whether or not the limbs have the Halachah of " Im Alu Lo Yerdu." Do we say that the limbs are no longer associated with a Bamah Gedolah at all, or do we say that because it is a Korban that could have been brought on a Bamas Yachid or a Bamah Gedolah, the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah "accept" the Korban in a minimal way, giving it the Halachah of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu." That is the question of Rebbi Yanai. (Y. Montrose)

120b