Zevachim 117bזבחים קי״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 117b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
117bקי״ז ב

וחובות שקבוע להן זמן

and compulsory public offerings that have a set time to be sacrificed, e.g., daily offerings and additional offerings. Public offerings that do not have a set time were not sacrificed upon the great public altar in Gilgal.

מאי טעמא דר"מ דאמר קרא (דברים יב, ח) לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום

§ The Gemara explains the various opinions cited in the baraita: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that only vow offerings and gift offerings, such as nazirite offerings and meal offerings, were sacrificed upon a private altar during the period of Gilgal? It is as the verse states: “You shall not do all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes. For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:8–9).

אמר להן משה לישראל כי עייליתו לארץ ישרות תקריבו חובות לא תקריבו מנחות ונזירות ישרות נינהו

Moses said the following to the Jewish people: When you enter Eretz Yisrael but have not yet arrived at Shiloh or Jerusalem and are therefore permitted to sacrifice upon private altars, you may not sacrifice whatever has been sacrificed in the wilderness, i.e., both obligatory offerings and gift offerings. Rather, the phrase “every man whatsoever is fitting [hayashar] in his own eyes,” means that fitting offerings [yesharot], i.e., offerings that are fitting in one’s eyes and are brought due to one’s own benevolence, you may sacrifice, but you may not sacrifice obligatory offerings. Meal offerings and offerings of a nazirite are included in the category of fitting offerings: Meal offerings are sacrificed as vow offerings or gift offerings while offerings of a nazirite are considered a vow offering, as becoming a nazirite is not compulsory.

ורבנן אין מנחה בבמה נזירות חובות נינהו

And what is the reason that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and state that meal offerings and offerings of a nazirite were not sacrificed on a private altar? They hold that a meal offering is not ever sacrificed upon a private altar and that offerings of a nazirite are considered compulsory. While one assumes the status of a nazirite voluntarily, once he has become a nazirite he is required to bring the offering.

אמר שמואל מחלוקת בחטאת ואשם אבל בעולות ושלמים דברי הכל ישרות נינהו וקרבי

With regard to this, Shmuel says that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis pertains only to the sin offering and the guilt offering brought by the nazirite. But with regard to the burnt offering and the peace offering that the nazirite brings, all agree that they are considered offerings that one deems fitting to sacrifice and are therefore sacrificed on a private altar.

מותיב רבה חזה ושוק ותרומת לחמי תודה נוהגין בבמה גדולה ואין נוהגין בבמה קטנה ואילו הזרוע בשלה שיירה

Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: The halakha of the breast and thigh portions of peace offerings, which are given to the priests (see Leviticus 7:34), and the halakha of the teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., the bread that was given to the priests from each of the four types of loaves that were brought with the thanks offering (see Leviticus 7:14), apply only with regard to a great public altar, and do not apply with regard to a small private altar. Rabba comments: By contrast, another of the priestly gifts, the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram (see Numbers 6:19–20) was omitted by the tanna.

אי אמרת בשלמא בעולה ושלמים פליגי הא מני רבנן היא אלא אי אמרת בחטאת ואשם פליגי הא מני

Rabba notes: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree even with regard to whether a burnt offering and peace offering of a nazirite may be sacrificed upon a private altar, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that omits the nazirite’s ram? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the peace offering of the nazirite was not sacrificed upon a private altar. But if you say that they disagree only with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering, while the Rabbis agree that the peace offering and burnt offering of a nazirite were sacrificed on a private altar, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר שמואל מחלוקת בעולה ושלמים אבל בחטאת ואשם דברי הכל חובות נינהו ולא קרבי

Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Shmuel said that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis pertains only to the burnt offering and peace offering that were brought by the nazirite. But with regard to the sin offering and guilt offering, all agree that they are compulsory, and even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir they are not sacrificed upon a private altar.

אמר מר וחכמים אומרים כל שהצבור מקריבין באהל וכו'

§ The Gemara continues to clarify the opinions in the baraita: The Master, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, said that any offering that the public or an individual could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, including vow offerings, gift offerings, and compulsory offerings, could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. It was only on a private altar that the individual was limited to sacrificing burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the Rabbis say: Any offering that the public could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. An individual could sacrifice only burnt offerings and peace offerings, whether on a great public altar or on a private altar.

מאי טעמייהו דרבנן אמר קרא (שופטים יז, ו) איש הישר בעיניו יעשה איש ישרות הוא דליקרוב חובות לא ליקרוב וצבור אפי' חובות ליקרוב

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that only the public could sacrifice compulsory offerings on a great public altar? The verse states with regard to the period in which private altars were permitted: “You shall not do all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8). This indicates that it is “a man,” i.e., an individual, who may sacrifice only offerings that he deems “fitting,” i.e., voluntary offerings, but may not sacrifice compulsory offerings. But the public may sacrifice even compulsory offerings.