Zevachim 238:1

שילה נחלה זו ירושלים אי נמי איפכא היינו דכתיב (דברים יב, ט) אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה אלא למאן דאמר זו וזו שילה או זו וזו ירושלים מנוחה נחלה מיבעי ליה קשיא

Shiloh [and] 'inheritance' to Jerusalem; or the reverse; hence it is written, 'to the rest and to the inheritanc But on the view that both allude to Shiloh or both allude to Jerusalem, he should say, 'unto the rest and inheritance'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not repeat 'to'.');">¹</span>

בשלמא למ"ד זו וזו שילה מנוחה דנחו מכיבוש נחלה (זו) דפלגו התם נחלות דכתיב (יהושע יח, י) ויחלק להם יהושע ויפל להם גורל בשילה על פי ה'

That is a difficulty.

אלא למ"ד זו וזו ירושלים בשלמא נחלה נחלת עולמים אלא מנוחה מאי מנוחה מנוחת ארון דכתיב ויהי כנוח הארון

On the view that both allude to Shiloh it is well: 'rest' means when they rested from conquest, while [it is called] 'inheritance' because there they divided their inheritance, as it is said, And Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before the Lord; and there Joshua divided the land unto the children of Israel according to their divisions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XVIII, 10. Cur. edd. quote the text rather differently.');">²</span>

בשלמא למ"ד זו וזו ירושלים אבל שילה הוה שריא במות היינו דכתיב (שופטים יג, יט) ויקח מנוח את גדי העזים ואת המנחה ויעל על הצור לה'

But on the view that both allude to Jerusalem, 'inheritance' is well, as it means the eternal inheritance; but why is it called 'rest'? - It was the place where the Ark rested, as it is written, Arise, O Lord, unto Thy resting-place, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXXXII, 8. Cur. edd. quote: And it came to pass when the Ark rested, but there is no such text in the Bible.');">³</span>

אלא למ"ד זו וזו שילה ובמות הוה אסירן מאי ויקח מנוח הוראת שעה היתה

On the view that both allude to Jerusalem, but that [during the period of] Shiloh bamoth were permitted, it is well; hence it is written, So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. XIII, 19.');">⁴</span>

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כרבי שמעון בן יוחי דאמר זו וזו ירושלים וסימניך משכי גברא לגברי:

But on the view that both allude to Shiloh, and bamoth were [then] forbidden, how [say], 'and offered it upon the rock unto the Lord'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was simply a bamah, which was forbidden.');">⁵</span>

כל הקדשים [וכו']: אמר רב כהנא לא שנו אלא בשחיטה אבל בהעלאה כרת נמי מיחייב

- It was a special dispensation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That permitted him on that occasion.');">⁶</span>

מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, ח) ואליהם תאמר על הסמוכין תאמר

The school of R'Ishmael taught as R'Simeon B'Yohai, who maintained: Both allude to Jerusalem.

מתקיף לה רבה מי כתיב ועליהם תאמר אליהם כתיב (ואליהם קרינן)

And your token is, One man attracted [many] men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Yohai, an individual, won over the school of R. Ishmael to his view. Cf. supra 53b.');">⁷</span>

ועוד תניא ארבעה כללות היה רבי שמעון אומר בקדשים הקדישן בשעת איסור הבמות ושחט והעלה בשעת איסור הבמות בחוץ הרי הן בעשה ולא תעשה ויש בהן כרת הקדישן בשעת היתר הבמות ושחט והעלה בשעת איסור הבמות הרי הן בעשה ולא תעשה ואין בהן כרת

ALL THE SACRIFICES etc. R'Kahana said: They learnt this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if one consecrated an animal when bamoth were permitted and offered it when they were forbidden, he does not incur kareth.');">⁸</span>

הקדישן בשעת איסור הבמות ושחט והעלה בחוץ בשעת היתר הבמות הרי הן בעשה ואין בהן בלא תעשה

only of shechitah.

הקדישן בשעת היתר הבמות ושחט והעלה בשעת היתר הבמות פטור מכלום תיובתא דרב כהנא תיובתא:

But for offering up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the altar, i.e., burning the emurim.');">⁹</span>

ואלו קדשים [וכו']: סמיכה דכתיב (ויקרא א, ג) לפני ה' וסמך

one incurs kareth too.

שחיטת צפון דכתיב צפונה לפני ה' מתנות סביב דכתיב (ויקרא א, ה) וזרק על המזבח סביב (סביב)

What is the reason?

תנופה דכתיב (ויקרא יד, יב) והניף הכהן לפני ה' הגשה דכתיב (ויקרא ב, ח) והגישה אל המזבח:

Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt say unto them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 8.');">¹⁰</span>

רבי יהודה אומר אין מנחה בבמה: אמר רב ששת לדברי האומר יש מנחה בבמה יש עופות בבמה לדברי האומר אין מנחה בבמה אין עופות בבמה

[which means,] thou shalt say concerning those just mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 107a. 'Those just mentioned' are those who consecrated the animal when bamoth were permitted and sacrificed them without when bamoth were forbidden (v. 7 is thus explained) .');">¹¹</span>

(ויקרא יז, ה) זבחים ולא מנחות זבחים ולא עופות

To this Rabbah demurred: Is it then written, 'and thou shalt say concerning them';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would justify this command.');">¹²</span>

וכהן דכתיב (ויקרא יז, ו) וזרק הכהן בגדי שרת (שמות כח, מג) לשרת בקדש

surely, 'and thou shalt say unto them' is written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Hebrew the difference is in one letter only.');">¹³</span>

וכלי שרת (במדבר ד, יב) אשר ישרתו בם בקודש: לריח ניחוח דכתיב (ויקרא א, ט) לריח ניחוח לה':

Moreover It was taught: R'Simeon stated four general rules about sacrifices: If he consecrated them when bamoth were forbidden and slaughtered and offered [them] up when bamoth were forbidden, without, they are subject to a positive and a negative injunction, and entail kareth.

מחיצה בדמים דכתיב (שמות כז, ה) והיתה הרשת עד חצי המזבח: ריחוץ ידים דכתיב (שמות מ, לב) ובקרבתם אל המזבח ירחצו

If he consecrated them when bamoth were permitted and slaughtered and offered [them] up when bamoth were forbidden, without, they are subject to an affirmative and a negative injunction, and do not entail kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This explicitly contradicts R. Kahana.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא לא שנו אלא בקדשי במה קטנה והקריבום בבמה קטנה אבל בקדשי במה קטנה דקרבינהו בבמה גדולה יש חיצוי

If he consecrated them when bamoth were forbidden, and slaughtered and offered them up without when bamoth were permitted, they are subject to an affirmative precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he has violated an affirmative precept; similarly in the other cases.');">¹⁵</span>

מותיב רבה חזה ושוק תרומת לחמי תודה נוהגין בקדשי במה גדולה ואין נוהגין בקדשי במה קטנה אימא נוהגין בבמה גדולה ואין נוהגין בבמה קטנה

but not to a negative precept.

איכא דאמרי אמר רמי בר חמא לא שנו אלא בקדשי במה גדולה והקריבן בבמה גדולה אבל בקדשי במה קטנה אף על גב דקרבינהו בבמה גדולה אין חיצוי

If he consecrated them when bamoth were permitted and slaughtered and offered [them] up when bamoth were permitted, he is not liable to anything at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This last clause is obvious, and probably included merely for the sake of completeness. Tosaf. explains it thus: if one consecrated an animal for a burnt-offering, to be offered at the public bamah; even if he took it to the precincts of this bamah, and then took it out and sacrificed it at a private bamah, he is not liable.');">¹⁶</span>

לימא מסייע ליה חזה ושוק ותרומת לחמי תודה נוהגין בקדשי במה גדולה ואין נוהגין בקדשי במה קטנה

AND THE FOLLOWING SACRIFICES.

אימא נוהגין בבמה גדולה ואין נוהגין בבמה קטנה ופליגא דרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר עולת במת יחיד שהכניסה בפנים קלטוה מחיצות לכל דבר

LAYING [OF HANDS] etc. Laying [of hands] [is not practised at a private bamah] because it is written.

בעי רבי זירא עולת במת יחיד

before the Lord, and he shall lay his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3f. 'Before the Lord' implies at a public place of sacrifice; similarly the others.');">¹⁷</span> Slaughtering in the north, because it is written, [And he shall kill it on the side of the altar] northward before the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., 11.');">¹⁸</span> [Blood] applications round about [the altar], because it is written, And he shall sprinkle the blood round about the altar [that is at the door of the tent of meeting].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5. Hence 'round about' is required only at 'tent of meeting', I.e., at a public altar.');">¹⁹</span> Waving, because it is written, To wave it for a wave-offering before the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. X, 15.');">²⁰</span> Presenting, because it is written, The sons of Aaron shall present it before the Lord, in front of the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 7. This is the reading according to Rashi.');">²¹</span> R'JUDAH MAINTAINED: THERE WERE NO MEAL-OFFERINGS AT THE BAMAH. R'Shesheth said: On the view that there were no meal-offerings at the bamah, there were no bird [-offerings] [either]; on the view that there were meal-offerings at the bamah there were bird [-offerings] [also]. What is the reason? - [And sacrifice them for] sacrifices [zebahim]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVII, 5. (10) Zebahim denotes sacrifices that are slaughtered (with shechitah) . If, then, the word excludes meal-offerings, ipso facto it excludes bird-offerings, since these were killed with melikah, not shechitah.');">²²</span> 'zebahim', but not meal-offerings; 'zebahim', but not bird [-offerings]. PRIESTHOOD, because it is written, And the priest shall sprinkle the blood [on the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 6, excluding then a private bamah.');">²³</span> PRIESTLY VESTMENTS, because it is written, [And they - the priestly vestments-shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons.] to minister in the holy place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVIII, 43. 'In the holy place' implies a public sanctuary, but not a private one.');">²⁴</span> SERVICE VESSELS, because it is written, [The vessels of ministry], wherewith they minister in the sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IV, 12.');">²⁵</span> A SWEET ODOUR, because it is written, A sweet savour unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 9.');">²⁶</span> A LINE OF DEMARCATION FOR [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD, because it is written, That the net may reach halfway up the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVII, 5. From this verse we learn that a line of demarcation is necessary (supra 53a) ; 'the altar' is a limitation, implying only the altar in the Tabernacle, which was a public sanctuary.');">²⁷</span> THE WASHING OF HANDS AND FEET, because it is written, And when they came near unto the altar, they should wash.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XL, 32.');">²⁸</span> Rami B'Hama said: They learnt it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a line of demarcation was necessary at the public bamah.');">²⁹</span> only about sacrifices of the great bamah which were offered at the great bamah; but no demarcation was required for sacrifices of a minor bamah which were offered at the great bamah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M. and margin) . 'Sacrifices of the great bamah . . of a minor bamah' means those which were consecrated for sacrifice at a public or at a private bamah respectively. 'No demarcation was required' - their blood could be sprinkled above or below the line.');">³⁰</span> Rabbah raised an objection: [The laws of] the breast and the thigh, and the separation of the loaves of the thanksoffering, operated at the great bamah, but did not operate at a minor bamah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 117b. This implies that these laws operated whenever a sacrifice was offered at a great bamah, even if it had been consecrated for the small bamah. The same therefore should apply to the other laws which governed the great bamah.');">³¹</span> - Say, they are operative in connection with the sacrifices of the great bamah and are not operative in connection with the sacrifices of a minor bamah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 8.');">³²</span> Others say, Rami B'Hama said: They learnt it only when the great bamah [was essential],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when private bamoth were forbidden.');">³³</span> but when minor bamoth [were permitted], even if one sacrificed at the great bamah, there was no demarcation. Rabbah raised an objection: [The laws of] the breast and the thigh and the separation of the loaves of the thanksoffering operated at the great bamah, but did not operate at a minor bamah? - Say, they operate when the great bamah [was essential], but did not operate when minor bamoth [were permitted]. Now, he disagrees with R'Eleazar, for R'Eleazar said: If one took a burnt-offering of a minor bamah within, its barriers receive it in respect of all things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a burnt-offering which was consecrated for a private bamah was carried within the precincts of the public bamah, the barriers of the public bamah receive it, and all the laws of the public bamah apply to it. This proves that even sacrifices consecrated for a private bamah are governed by the laws of a public bamah in such circumstances. A further corollary is that the laws of the public bamah hold good at all times, whether private bamoth were permitted or forbidden. - Rashi explains here that R. Eleazar means that he took the burnt-offering within the precincts of the public bamah after it was slaughtered. His interpretation in Me'ilah 3a, however, assumes that it applies before its slaughter too.');">³⁴</span> R'Zera asked: If one took the burnt-offering of a private bamah