Previous daf

1)

(a) The proof from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Ba'sem el ha'Menuchah ve'el ha'Nachalah", that Bamos are permitted between Shiloh and Yerushalayim is - the fact that the Torah inserts 'el ha'Nachalah' (because if Bamos would be forbidden from Shiloh and onwards, the Torah ought to have omitted it).

(b) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan why the Tana did not then include Ma'aser Sheini (together with Kodshim Kalim) during this period. The latter replied - that since we learn Ma'aser Sheini from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" Sham" from "Venasata Sham es ha'Aron", Ma'aser Sheini can only be eaten there where the Aron is, and we learned earlier that during the era of Nov and Giv'on the Aron was in Kiryas Ye'arim (and later even in Yerushalayim).

(c) Resh Lakish then asked Rebbi Yochanan from Pesach and Kodshim - where the Torah also writes "Sham", yet the Tana permitted them during the era of Nov and Giv'on, in spite of the fact that the Aron was not there.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan therefore retracted from his previous answer, establishing the author as Rebbi Shimon, who rules that Korbanos that Kodshim other than Pesach and Chovos with a fixed time (i.e. Chovos with no fixed time) - cannot be brought in Nov and Giv'on.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan's final interpretation, the Tana omits Ma'aser Sheini - because it is compared to Ma'aser Beheimah, which is a Chov which is has no fixed time, which one is Patur from bringing on a Bamah.

(b) Rav Ada bar Masna bears out what we extrapolate from Rebbi Yochanan's statement. He says - that Ma'aser Beheimah and Ma'aser Sheini are indeed brought on the Bamah (Gedolah) according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) We ask on this however, from the Pasuk "Va'achaltem Lifnei Hashem Elokeichem" (in connection with Kodshim and Ma'aser Sheini) - from which we learn that they all require a palace (which we assume to mean the Beis-Hamikdash).

(d) We answer from a Beraisa of Rav Yosef - which lists three Biyros 'Shiloh, Nov and Giv'on and the Beis Hamikdash (all of which the Tana considers palaces).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa proves from the Pesukim "Haysah Li Nachalasi ke'Aryeh be'Ya'ar" and "ha'Ayit Tzavu'a Nachalasi Li, ha'Ayit Saviv Alehah" (see Agados Maharsha) - that Nachalah refers to Yerushalayim (though that "Munuchah" refers to Shiloh, he learns from the same source as Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai [Agados Maharsha] later in the Sugya).

(b) Whereas Rebbi Shimon proves from the Pesukim "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad, Poh Eishev ki Ivisihah" and "Ki Bachar Hashem be'Tziyon, Ivah le'Moshav Lo" - that "Menuchah" refers to Yerushalayim. (presumably, he learns that "Nachalah" refers to Shiloh from the same source as Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, later in the Sugya).

(c) Rebbi Shimon will explain the Pasuk "Ki Lo Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah ve'el ha'Nachalah" (instead of vice-versa) to mean - that, in the time of Gilgal, not only had Yisrael not arrive in Yerushalayim, but they had even arrived yet in Shiloh.

(d) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, both "Menuchah" and "Nachalah" refer to Shiloh; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, they both refer to Yerushalayim (see Rashash)?

4)

(a) We ask on the latter two Tana'im from the Lashon "el ha'Menuchah *ve'el* ha'Nachalah" (and not just "el ha'Menuchah ve'Nachalah") - but remain with a Kashya.

(b) According to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, Shiloh is referred to as ...

1. ... "Menuchah" - because that is where they rested from the battles.
2. ... "Nachalah" - because that is where they distributed the land.

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, on the other hand, Yerushalayim is referred to "Nachalah", because it is a 'Nachalas Olamim' (an everlasting inheritance), and it is called "Menuchah" - because that is where the Aron finally came to rest.

(a) The ramifications of the Machlokes between Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai are - that according to the former, the Bamos were (permanently) forbidden after Shiloh, whereas according the latter, they were not.

(b) The episode with Mano'ach poses a problem - in that, seeing as he lived in the time of Mishkan Shiloh, it transpires that he sacrificed on a Bamah at a time when Bamos were forbidden, according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.
(c) And we answer - that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary ruling), which Beis-Din have the power to issue, even if it contravenes Torah law.

(d) When, commenting on a Beraisa cited in the Beis-Hamedrash of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learned 'Zeh va'Zeh Yerushalayim' like their Rebbe, we gave a Si'man 'Mashchi (or 'Mashchinhu') Gavra le'Gavri', we meant - that Rebbi Shimon, who was only one person, convinced Rebbi Yishmael's Talmidim to leave their Rebbi and side with him (in this matter).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if someone sacrificed ba'Chutz an animal during the era of Isur Bamos, that had been declared Hekdesh during the era of Heter Bamos, he is not Chayav Kareis. Rav Kahana qualifies this ruling - by restricting it to Shechitah, but not to Ha'ala'ah, for which he will indeed be Chayav Kareis.

(b) He learns this from the Pasuk in "Va'aleihem Tomar ... " - implying that the Ha'ala'as Chutz that follows refers to the previous Pasuk (regarding Shechitas Chutz), where the animal was declared Hekdesh during the era of Heter Bamos (yet the Torah goes on to render the sinner Chayav Kareis).

(c) We learn from the previous Pasuk (which refers to Shechitah of the above animal and), which ends "Tiheyeh *Zos* Lahem le'Dorosam" - that for Shechting the animal one is only Chayav the La'av and the Asei that are mentioned there (but not the Kareis that is mentioned in the following one).

(d) Besides asking from the Beraisa which we are about to discuss, Rabah refutes Rav Kahana's Limud from the spelling of "Va'aleihem ... " - which is spelt with an 'Alef', not with and 'Ayin', negating his theory that the Parshah of Ha'al'ah on the Bamah is a continuation of the previous Pasuk (and it speaks about an animal that was both declared Hekdesh during the Isur Bamos, and sacrificed then).

(a) Rebbi Shimon lists all the Halachos of the Shechitah and the Ha'ala'ah, in connection with all the possible computations of Heter Bamos and Isur Bamos. Someone who both declares Hekdesh and sacrifices the animal ba'Chutz ...

1. ... during the era of Isur Bamos - contravenes a La'av and an Asei, and is Chayav Kareis.
2. ... during the era of Heter Bamos - is completely Patur.

(b) And he rules that if someone either Shechts or sacrifices in the era of ...

1. ... Isur Bamos ba'Chutz, an animal that was declared Hekdesh during the era of Heter Bamos - he contravenes an Asei and a La'av, but does not receive Kareis.
2. ... Heter Bamos, an animal that was declared Hekdesh during the era of Isur Bamos - contravenes only an Asei.

(c) This proves - that from Heter Bamos to Isur Bamos there is no Kareis, a Tiyuvta on Rav Kahana.

(d) Our Mishnah learns from ...

1. ... "Lifnei Hashem ve'Samach", "Tzafonah Lifnei Hashem", "ve'Zarak ha'Dam al ha'Mizbe'ach Saviv ... Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - that the Dinim of Semichah, Tzafon, and Saviv do not apply to a Bamah Ketanah.
2. ... "Ve'heinif ha'Kohen Lifnei Hashem", "ve'Higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Dinim of Tenufah and Hagashah (of a Minchah) do not apply either.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Rebbe Yehudah Omer, Ein Minchah be'Bamah', to which Rav Sheishes then adds - that the Din of Ofos in this regard follows that of Menachos.

(b) He learns this from "Zevachim" (mentioned in the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz) - which implies Beheimos, and not Ofos or Menachos, and "Osam", which invalidates them completely.

(c) The Tana learns from the Pesukim "Ve'zarak ha'Kohen es ha'Dam Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", "Leshareis ba'Kodesh" and "Asher Yesharsu bam ba'Kodesh" - that neither Kehunah, nor Bigdei Kehunah nor K'lei Shareis apply by a Bamah Ketanah.

(d) And finally, he learns from the Pesukim "Ve'hikriv ha'Cheilev le'Rei'ach Nicho'ach ... Isheh Nicho'ach la'Shem", "Ve'haysah ha'Reshes ad Chatzi *ha*'Mizbe'ach" and "u've'Korvasam el ha'Mizbe'ach Yirchatzu" - that Rei'ach Nicho'ach, the Mechitzah (the Chut ha'Sikra, dividing between the upper and lower halves of the Mizbe'ach), and washing the hands and feet before performing the Avodah, do not apply either.

(a) Rami bar Chama makes a distinction between Kodshim of a Bamah Gedolah and Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah that one sprinkled on a Bamah Gedolah - confining the Din of Mechitzah (on the Mizbe'ach) to the former, but not to the latter (i.e. it makes no difference as to where on the Mizbe'ach the blood is sprinkled).

(b) Rabah (perhaps this to read 'Rava') queries this from a Beraisa, which states 'Chazeh ve'Chok (of a Shelamim) u'Terumas Lachmei Todah Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah Ketanah' - implying that they do not apply to the Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah, even if they are brought on a Bamah Gedolah.

(c) Rabah therefore asks on Rami bar Chama - that by the same token, if the blood of Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah is sprinkled on a Bamah Gedolah, it ought to require a Mechitzah, too.

(d) To reconcile the Beraisa with Rami bar Chama, we amend it to - ' ... Nohagin be'Bamah Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Bamah Ketanah'.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rami bar Chama - does not require a Mechitzah on a Bamah Gedolah for Kodshim of a Bamah Ketanah that is brought on it.

(b) Rabah asks from the Beraisa - which is worded ' ... Nohagin be'Bamah Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Bamah Ketanah' (like we concluded in the first Lashon).

(c) We answer by amending the wording to ' ... Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah Gedolah ve'Ein Nohagin be'Kodshei Bamah Ketanah'.

(d) This does not however conform with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who rules - that if an Olas Bamas Yachid is taken, after the Shechitah, into the confines of a Bamah Gedolah - it adopts all the Dinim of a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah.