Zevachim 239:1

שהכניסה לפנים והוציאה לחוץ מהו מי אמרי כיון דעיילא קלטה לה מחיצתא או דלמא כיון דהדר הדר

within, and then took it out again, what is the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the law of a public bamah apply to it, so that it must be taken back and have its breast and thigh waved before the altar, or not? Here too Rashi explains that it was taken within after it was slaughtered.');">¹</span> do we say, Since it has entered, the barriers [of the public bamah] have received it; or perhaps, since it has returned, it has returned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is subject to the laws of a private bamah only.');">²</span> - Is this not the controversy of Rabbah and R'Joseph?

לאו היינו פלוגתא דרבה ורב יוסף דתנן קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום מועלין בהן (ואם עלו לא ירדו)

For we learnt: If sacrifices of higher sanctity were slaughtered in the south,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the north.');">³</span> they are subject to trespass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 176, n. 10. We do not say that since they were slaughtered in the wrong place, it is as though they were simply killed unritually, when they cease to be subject to trespass.');">⁴</span> Now the [scholars] asked: If they ascended [the altar], must they be taken down?

ואיבעיא להו ירדו מהו שיעלו רבה אמר לא יעלו ורב יוסף אמר יעלו

Rabbah maintained: They must be taken down; R'Joseph maintained: They must not be taken down!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Rashi and Sh.M.) . Now, Rabbah who says that they must be taken down holds that these are not the same as other sacrifices which were disqualified in the Sanctuary, but as though they were killed unritually. Thus he holds that the barriers have not received them. Whereas R. Joseph, who rules that they must be taken down, holds that the barriers have received them.');">⁵</span> - The question arises on both Rabbah's and R'Joseph's views. The question arises on Rabbah's view, [for you can argue:] Rabbah rules thus only in respect of the altar, [for] what is eligible for it, it sanctifies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it must not be removed thence, once it is placed thereon.');">⁶</span>

תיבעי לרבה תיבעי לרב יוסף תיבעי לרבה עד כאן לא קאמר רבה אלא במזבח דחזי ליה מקדש דלא חזי לא מקדש אבל מחיצה אע"ג דלא חזי ליה קלטה

and what is not eligible for it, it does not sanctify;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since it is as though it were not ritually slaughtered (in his view) , it is not eligible for it.');">⁷</span> but the barrier may receive it even when it is not eligible for it. Or perhaps, there is no difference?

או דלמא אפי' לרב יוסף עד כאן לא קאמר רב יוסף התם אלא דחד מקום הוא אבל הכא דתרי מקומות נינהו לא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו

The question arises on R'Joseph's view, [for you may argue:] R'Joseph rules thus only there, since it is one place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was slaughtered in the Temple court, after all.');">⁸</span> but here, that they are two places,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The public and the private bamoth.');">⁹</span> it is not so Or perhaps, there is no difference?

מילתא דפשיטא ליה לרבה בחד גיסא ולרב יוסף בחד גיסא מיבעי ליה לרבי ינאי דבעי רבי ינאי אברי עולת במת יחיד שעלו למזבח וירדו מהו היכא דלא משלה בהן האור לא תיבעי לך כי תיבעי לך היכא דמשלה בהן האור מאי תיקו

The question stands over. That which is certain to Rabbah in one direction and to R'Joseph in the opposite direction, was a question to R'Jannai. For R'Jannai asked: If the limbs of the burnt-offering of a private bamah ascended the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the public bamah. Rashi apparently explains that the question refers to a burnt-offering consecrated for sacrifices at a public bamah, which was slaughtered at a private bamah.');">¹⁰</span>

איתמר שחיטת לילה בבמת יחיד רב ושמואל חד אמר כשרה וחד אמר פסולה וקא מיפלגי בדרבי אלעזר

and were taken down, what is the law? If the fire has not taken hold of them, there is no question;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They certainly must descend.');">¹¹</span> the question arises where the fire had taken hold of them: what then?

דרבי אלעזר רמי קראי אהדדי כתיב (שמואל א יד, לג) ויאמר בגדתם גלו אלי היום אבן גדולה

The question stands over. It was stated: As for night slaughtering at a private bamah, Rab and Samuel [disagree]. One maintains: It is valid; the other maintains: It is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi reads: Rab says it is valid; Samuel says: It is invalid.');">¹²</span>

וכתיב (שמואל א יד, לד) ויאמר שאול פוצו בעם ואמרתם להם הגישו אלי איש שורו ואיש שיהו ושחטתם בזה ואכלתם ולא תחטאו לה' לאכול על הדם ויגישו כל העם איש שורו בידו הלילה וישחטו שם

Now, they disagree on R'Eleazar's [difficulty]. For R'Eleazar pointed out a contradiction between texts. It is written, And he said.'

מר משני כאן בחולין כאן בקדשים ומר משני כאן בקדשי במה גדולה כאן בקדשי במה קטנה

'Ye have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone unto me this day',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XIV, 33, q.v. As they were engaged in pursuit of the enemy, this could only have been in the nature of a private bamah, and his emphasis on 'this day' proves that the night was not valid for slaughtering.');">¹³</span> But it is written: And Saul said.' 'Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them: Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood'.

איתמר עולת במת יחיד רב אמר אין טעונה הפשט וניתוח ורבי יוחנן אמר טעונה הפשט וניתוח וקא מיפלגי בדר"י הגלילי דתניא ר"י הגלילי אומר עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר אין טעונה הפשט וניתוח שאין הפשט וניתוח אלא מאהל מועד ואילך

And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XIV, 34. R. Eleazar leaves the difficulty unanswered.');">¹⁴</span> One master answered: one [text] applies to hullin, the other to sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text specifying 'day' applies to sacrifices, which must be slaughtered by day even at a private bamah.');">¹⁵</span> The other master answered: One refers to the sacrifices of a great bamah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These must be sacrificed by day. - He would explain then that when Saul specified day, he referred to those who would wait until they could sacrifice at the public bamah.');">¹⁶</span>

מר סבר מאהל מועד ואילך לא שנא במה גדולה ולא שנא במה קטנה ומר סבר בבמה גדולה אין בבמה קטנה לא

the other refers to the sacrifices a minor bamah. It was stated: As for the burnt-offering of a private bamah, Rab maintained: It does not require flaying and dismembering; while R'Johanan said: It does require flaying and dismembering. Now, they disagree on R'Jose the Galilean['s dictum].

תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן דברים שבין במה גדולה לבמה קטנה קרן וכבש ויסוד וריבוע בבמה גדולה ואין קרן ויסוד וכבש וריבוע בבמה קטנה כיור וכנו בבמה גדולה ואין כיור וכנו בבמה קטנה חזה ושוק בבמה גדולה ואין חזה ושוק בבמה קטנה

For it was taught, R'Jose the Galilean said: The burnt-offering[s] which the Israelites sacrificed in the wilderness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the Tabernacle was erected.');">¹⁷</span> did not require flaying and dismembering, because flaying and dismembering were required only from [the erection of] the Tent of Meeting and onward. One master holds: From [the erection of] the Tent of Meeting and onward, there was no difference [in this respect] between the great bamah and the minor bamah; while the other master holds: At the great bamah, yes; at the lesser bamah, no.

דברים ששוותה במה גדולה לבמה קטנה שחיטה בבמה גדולה וקטנה הפשט וניתוח בגדולה וקטנה דם מתיר ומפגל בגדולה וקטנה מומין וזמן בגדולה וקטנה

It was taught in accordance with R'Johanan: In the [following] matters the great bamah differed from the minor bamah: Horn, ascent, base, and squareness [were required at] the great bamah; but there were no horn, ascent, base and squareness at a minor bamah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 62a.');">¹⁸</span> There were a laver and its base at the great bamah, but there were no laver and base at a minor bamah. The breast and the thigh were [waved] at the great bamah, but there were no breast and thigh at a minor bamah.

אבל נותר והזמן והטמא שוין בזה ובזה:

In the [following] matters the great bamah and a minor bamah were alike: shechitah was required at the great bamah and at a minor bamah; flaying and dismembering were required at the great and at the minor [bamoth]. Blood permitted, and rendered piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sprinkling of the blood permitted the flesh, while a piggul intention at the sprinkling rendered the sacrifice piggul.');">¹⁹</span> at the great and at a minor [bamoth].

ת"ר מנין לעשות זמן בבמה קטנה כבמה גדולה (אמרה תורה לן ישרף) ופיגול ישרף מה פיגול פסול בבמה אף לן פסול בבמה

[The laws of] blemishes and time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a blemish disqualified an animal, and that there was a time limit for the eating of the flesh.');">²⁰</span> [operated] at the great and at a minor [bamah]. BUT TIME, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT WERE ALIKE IN BOTH.

או כלך לדרך זו) דהא אמרה תורה לן ישרף ויוצא ישרף מה יוצא כשר בבמה אף לן כשר בבמה ולאו ק"ו הוא מעופות

Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that time operates at a minor bamah as at a great bamah? For [you might argue:] the Torah ordered [flesh] that was kept overnight<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., nothar, flesh kept after its prescribed period.');">²¹</span> to be burnt, and [flesh] that went out [of its permitted boundaries] to be burnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced in Pes. ');">²²</span> just as flesh which went out is fit at a [minor] bamah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it had no walls to define its boundaries.');">²³</span> so [flesh] which was kept overnight is fit at a [minor] bamah. But does not [the reverse] follow from birds, a minori: