Zevachim 116

Shalom and welcome! I’m so glad you’re here today as we embark on another fascinating journey into the heart of Jewish thought. Our goal in Judaism 101 is to demystify complex texts and find the profound wisdom within them that speaks to our lives today. We're going to dive into a passage from the Talmud that, at first glance, might seem a bit removed from our modern experience: Zevachim 116, which discusses ancient sacrifices.

But trust me, this text is a treasure trove of insights into fundamental questions about humanity's relationship with the Divine, the nature of worship, and even the spiritual path of non-Jews.

Hook

Have you ever felt a deep yearning to connect with something larger than yourself? Perhaps in a moment of profound gratitude, or during a time of struggle, you’ve sought a way to express your innermost feelings to the universe, to God. For many of us today, that connection comes through prayer, meditation, or acts of kindness. But for millennia, across diverse cultures, one of the most powerful and prevalent forms of expressing devotion, gratitude, and atonement was through sacrifice.

Imagine a time when the scent of burning offerings was a tangible expression of a community’s spiritual life. What did these rituals mean? Who was allowed to participate? And what did they symbolize about the relationship between humans and the Divine? These aren't just historical curiosities; they touch upon universal human questions about our purpose, our connection to a higher power, and the different ways we seek meaning.

Our text today, from the Talmudic tractate Zevachim, plunges us into this ancient world, specifically exploring the laws and practices surrounding sacrifices. But it doesn't stop there. It grapples with how these practices evolved, how they differed for Jews and non-Jews, and even delves into the fascinating story of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and what prompted his spiritual awakening. We'll encounter lively debates among ancient sages, each offering a unique lens through which to understand God's will and humanity's response.

What might seem like obscure legal minutiae about animal offerings quickly transforms into a rich tapestry of theological and ethical discussions. We’ll see how the Talmud, far from being a rigid rulebook, is a vibrant record of dynamic inquiry, where every word of the Torah is scrutinized for its deepest meaning. We’ll uncover how the path to God is diverse and inclusive, recognizing a legitimate spiritual journey even for those outside the Jewish covenant. So, let’s open our minds and hearts to this ancient wisdom, and discover how these distant discussions can illuminate our own spiritual paths.

Context

The text we're studying today comes from the Babylonian Talmud, specifically Tractate Zevachim, which literally means "sacrifices." The Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism, a vast compilation of Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs, and history, primarily consisting of the Mishnah (a concise legal code) and the Gemara (rabbinic discussions and analyses of the Mishnah).

Zevachim focuses on the laws pertaining to animal and bird sacrifices, particularly those offered in the Tabernacle (Mishkan) and later in the Temple in Jerusalem. Our specific passage, Zevachim 116, is a Gemara section that delves into various aspects of sacrificial law, often comparing practices before and after the giving of the Torah, and distinguishing between offerings brought by Israelites and by the "descendants of Noah" (a term often referring to non-Jews). It's a rich discussion that pulls from various biblical verses to derive its intricate legal and ethical conclusions.

Text Snapshot - Zevachim 116

Our journey into Zevachim 116 begins with a baraita, a teaching from the Mishnaic period not formally included in the Mishnah itself. This baraita lays out initial principles about what animals were fit for sacrifice in early times, before the detailed laws of the Tabernacle were fully in place.

The Universal Offering: Noahides and Early Sacrifices

The baraita states: "All animals were fit to be sacrificed: Males and females, unblemished and blemished animals." This immediately raises questions, as later Torah law for Israelites specifies males and unblemished animals for many offerings. The Gemara clarifies that this broad statement "pertains to that which the Master said as a principle concerning the halakhot of sacrifices: The requirements that an offering must have unblemished status and that a burnt offering must have male status apply to animal offerings, but the requirements of unblemished status and male status do not apply to birds."

This distinction between animals and birds is crucial. While birds could be male or female, unblemished or blemished, more stringent rules applied to larger animals once the Tabernacle was established. However, for the earliest offerings, such as those brought by Noah, the rules were much more flexible.

The text continues, linking this back to Noah's sacrifices upon exiting the ark: "And in the verses that recount Noah’s sacrifices upon exiting the ark, a domesticated animal is juxtaposed with a bird, in the verse: “Of every pure animal, and of every pure fowl” (Genesis 8:20), which teaches that kosher animals had a status identical to that of birds, and could be sacrificed whether male or female, unblemished or blemished." This means that in Noah's time, the strict requirements for animal sacrifices that later applied to Israel (like being male and unblemished for a burnt offering) were not yet in effect.

Steinsaltz on Zevachim 116a:1 clarifies this initial statement: "That which was taught in the baraita: All animals were fit to be sacrificed: Males and females, unblemished and blemished, pertains to that which the Master said as a principle concerning the halakhot of sacrifices: The requirement of unblemished status (to exclude blemished animals) and the requirement of male status (to exclude females, in a burnt offering) apply specifically to offerings brought from animals, but the laws of unblemished status and male status do not apply to offerings brought from birds. And regarding the sacrifices that Noah offered when he exited the ark..." This commentary helps us understand that the baraita is presenting a general rule that applies specifically to pre-Sinai sacrifices, particularly those of Noah, where the distinctions were less rigid.

The Gemara then adds an important caveat: "That which was taught in the baraita: Unblemished and blemished animals, serves to exclude animals that are lacking a limb, which were not fit for sacrifice." So, while minor blemishes were acceptable, a missing limb rendered an animal unfit. This is derived from a statement by Rabbi Elazar: "From where is it derived that an animal that is lacking a limb is forbidden to the descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, to be used as a sacrifice? The verse states with regard to Noah: “And of every living being of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the ark” (Genesis 6:19). With regard to the phrase: “And of every living being,” which is superfluous, the Torah stated: Bring an animal whose limbs are all living, not one lacking a limb, as that animal is disqualified from sacrifice." The extra phrase "living being" implies wholeness.

A challenge is raised: "But perhaps this phrase: “And of every living being,” serves to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] from being fit as a sacrifice." The Gemara explains that the disqualification of a tereifa (an animal with a fatal injury) is derived from the phrase: “To keep seed alive” (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot propagate.

This leads to a deeper discussion: "This works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot give birth. In this case the disqualification of the tereifa is derived from the verse: “To keep seed alive,” while the disqualification of the animal lacking a limb is derived from the verse: “And of every living being.” But according to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, what can be said?" The Gemara resolves this by pointing to another phrase: "Doesn’t the verse state with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: “You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19)? The term “with you” indicates that the verse is stated with regard to animals that are similar to you, not a tereifa." This implies that just as Noah was whole, the animals should be whole.

The Gemara then probes this: "But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa." If Noah was flawed, then "similar to you" wouldn't exclude a tereifa. The answer: "It is written about Noah that he was “complete” (Genesis 6:9), which indicates that he was physically whole and unblemished." But what if "complete" refers to his moral character? The Gemara addresses this: "But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, and it is not referring to Noah’s physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was “righteous” (Genesis 6:9), which means that his actions were perfect. Consequently, when the verse says that he was also complete, it must be referring to his body." The redundancy in descriptions ("righteous" and "complete") necessitates that "complete" refers to physical wholeness.

One final challenge: "But perhaps the verse means that Noah was complete in his manner, and he was righteous in his good deeds." The Gemara dismisses this with a rhetorical question: "If it enters your mind to say that Noah himself was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to him: Bring in tereifot like you to the ark, but do not bring in whole and perfect animals? It is not reasonable to say that there would be a preference for him to bring tereifot. Rather, Noah was certainly not a tereifa, and the fact that a tereifa is disqualified for sacrifice is derived from “with you.”"

Finally, the Gemara asks: "And once we derive the disqualification of a tereifa from the term “with you,” why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”?" The answer: "If one could derive only from “with you,” you would say that Noah brought the animals to the ark only for the purpose of companionship, and therefore even an animal that is old or even one who is castrated can come into the ark, provided that it is not a tereifa. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “To keep seed alive,” which teaches us that only animals that can bear offspring were allowed to be brought into the ark." Each phrase in the Torah teaches a distinct law.

Defining Purity: Noah and the Ark

The baraita also teaches that before the Tabernacle, sacrifices were brought from animals and birds that were kosher, but not from non-kosher species. This is based on Noah's sacrifice: "And he took of every pure animal and of every pure fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20).

The Gemara asks: "And were there pure and impure species at that time, during the period of Noah?" The distinction between kosher ("pure") and non-kosher ("impure") species was formally given only with the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: The pure animals that Noah took were "from those that had not been used in the performance of sin." This offers a pre-Sinai definition of "purity."

But how did Noah know? The Gemara answers: "It is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda. As Rav Ḥisda says: Noah caused all of the animals to pass before the ark. All animals that the ark accepted, i.e., drew in, was known to be pure; if the ark did not accept them, it was known that they were impure." The ark itself had a mystical, discerning quality.

Steinsaltz on Zevachim 116a:10 confirms this: "They ask: From where did Noah and his sons know in which animals a sin had been committed, so as not to bring them into the ark? And they answer: In accordance with the words of Rav Ḥisda, for Rav Ḥisda said: Noah made all the animals pass before the ark. All that the ark accepted – it was known that they were pure; if the ark did not accept them – it was known that they were impure."

Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different explanation: "The verse states: “And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh” (Genesis 7:16), which means: Those that went in on their own. Consequently, Noah did not need to distinguish between pure and impure animals, as only the pure ones approached." The pure animals were drawn to the ark by divine will.

Rashi on Zevachim 116a:11:1 elaborates: "Those that came on their own — And all those that came to the ark came on their own, and from them he recognized those that came seven by seven, he knew they were pure, and those that came two by two, that they were impure." This interpretation links the self-selection to the numerical distinction of pure vs. impure animals (seven pairs of pure, one pair of impure). Steinsaltz on Zevachim 116a:11 supports this: "Rabbi Abbahu said another explanation of how Noah knew which animals were pure, and only those he brought into the ark: The verse states in the description of the animals that entered the ark: 'And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh' (Genesis 7:16), to say: Those that went in on their own. And Noah did not need to distinguish between the pure and impure animals, since only the pure animals came."

The Nature of Early Offerings: Burnt vs. Peace

The discussion shifts to the type of offerings brought before the Tabernacle. "The Master said: And all offerings brought before the construction of the Tabernacle were sacrificed as burnt offerings." This implies a specific type of sacrifice where the entire animal is consumed on the altar.

The Gemara infers: "Burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed." Peace offerings (Shlamim) involved the worshipper consuming part of the meat after the fat was offered to God, symbolizing a shared meal with the Divine.

A challenge arises: "But with regard to the offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah, it is written: “And they offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5). This event occurred prior to the construction of the Tabernacle." This contradicts the idea that only burnt offerings were brought.

The Gemara resolves this: "Rather, say that the baraita means: All offerings sacrificed were either burnt offerings or peace offerings." This reconciles the accounts.

However, the Gemara challenges again: "And isn’t it taught in another baraita: But peace offerings were not sacrificed before the construction of the Tabernacle; rather, only burnt offerings were sacrificed? Clearly, burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed." This brings us to a fundamental dispute:

This baraita is "in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that peace offerings were not sacrificed by the descendants of Noah. As it was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina with regard to this: One says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings, and one says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings."

Rashi on Zevachim 116a:12:2 clarifies: "To all – both to Israel and to the descendants of Noah, burnt offerings were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed by the descendants of Noah, and from the time of the giving of the Torah, when Israel was chosen, peace offerings were sacrificed for them." This highlights the distinction between offerings for Jews and non-Jews.

The Gemara then provides the reasoning for each side: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings? As it is written: “And Abel, he also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat thereof” (Genesis 4:4). Abel, a descendant of Noah, offered fat, which is characteristic of peace offerings where the fat is burnt and the meat is eaten. "What is an item, i.e., an offering, the fat of which is sacrificed upon the altar, but that is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar? You must say: This is the peace offering, the meat of which is consumed."

What is the reasoning of the one who says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings? **As it is written: “Awake [uri], O north; and come, south…**Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his precious fruits” (Song of Songs 4:16). The Gemara interprets this homiletically: The nation, i.e., the nations of the world, who are the descendants of Noah, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are only in the north, i.e., they sacrifice only burnt offerings, which are slaughtered and their blood collected in the north of the Temple courtyard, shall be removed [titna’er], and in its place shall come the Jewish nation, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are in the north and in the south, as they sacrifice burnt offerings, whose rites are performed in the north, and peace offerings, whose rites may also be performed in the south, as the entire courtyard is fit for their rites." This verse is seen as distinguishing Israel, with its comprehensive sacrificial system, from the nations.

The Gemara reconciles these views: Regarding Abel's offering: "And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: “And of the fat thereof,” from which it may be derived that Abel sacrificed a peace offering? The Gemara answers: “The fat thereof,” does not mean that Abel sacrificed only the fats of his offerings; rather, it means that he sacrificed the fattest of them, i.e., the fattest and choicest of his animals." This reinterpretation removes the proof for peace offerings.

Regarding "Awake, O north": "And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: “Awake, O north,” from which it may be derived that the nations of the world do not sacrifice peace offerings? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, that verse is written with regard to the ingathering of the exiles, i.e., the Jewish exiles will come from the north and the south." This means the verse is not about types of sacrifices but about geographical origin.

The Gemara continues to explore the idea that Noahides did not offer peace offerings: "But isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices [zevaḥim] and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This indicates that sacrifices [zevaḥim], i.e., peace offerings, were sacrificed before the Torah was given." The Gemara answers: In this context, "“zevaḥim” is referring to animals to be used for consumption, as the word zevaḥ can also be translated as an animal for slaughter, and “burnt offerings” is referring to animals to be used for sacrifice."

Another challenge: "But isn’t it written before the giving of the Torah: “And Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices [zevaḥim] for God” (Exodus 18:12)? Since the word zevaḥim there is referring to sacrifices, as the verse clearly states that Yitro took them for God, evidently peace offerings were sacrificed before the giving of the Torah." This is a strong textual proof. The Gemara answers: "That verse was written with regard to the period after the giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people were permitted to sacrifice peace offerings."

This resolution hinges on the timing of Jethro's visit: "This works out well according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, what can be said? As it was stated: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi engage in a dispute concerning this issue. One says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, and one says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah." The Gemara concludes: "The one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah maintains that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings." This shows how different interpretations of historical timing can lead to different legal conclusions about universal practices.

Rashi on Zevachim 116a:12:1 supports the initial challenge from Sinai: "And they sacrificed peace offerings — And Sinai was before the erection of the Tabernacle, and you say that until the Tabernacle was erected, peace offerings were not sacrificed at all." This emphasizes the difficulty in reconciling the timing of these offerings.

Steinsaltz on Zevachim 116a:12 synthesizes the various arguments: "And the Master further said in describing the service before the Tabernacle was established: And all offerings were burnt offerings. And they infer: Burnt offerings – yes, were offered, but peace offerings – no, were offered. And they ask: But it is written regarding the offerings made at Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah: 'And they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord' (Exodus 24:5), and this was before the Tabernacle was established! Rather, say that the meaning of the baraita is: All offerings were offered, both burnt offerings and peace offerings."

Jethro's Journey: Why Did He Come?

The Gemara notes that the disagreement about Jethro's timing is "like a dispute between tanna’im: The Torah states with regard to Yitro, before he came to Mount Sinai: “Now Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt” (Exodus 18:1). What tiding did he hear that he came and converted?" This leads to three distinct opinions:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He heard about the war with Amalek, as it is written adjacent to the verses that state that Yitro came: “And Joshua weakened Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 17:13)." The proximity of the verses suggests a connection.

Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: He heard about the giving of the Torah and came. As when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, the voice of the Holy One, Blessed be He, went from one end of the world to the other end, and all of the kings of the nations of the world were overcome with trembling in their palaces and recited a song of praise, as it is stated: “The voice of the Lord makes the hinds to calve…and in his palace all say: Glory” (Psalms 29:9), i.e., each king in his own palace recited songs of praise to God." This vivid midrash describes a universal impact of the Sinai revelation.

At that time, "all of the kings gathered around Balaam the wicked, who was the greatest gentile prophet, and said to him: What is the tumultuous sound, i.e., the loud noise, that we have heard? Perhaps a flood is coming to destroy the world, as it is stated: “The Lord sat enthroned at the flood” (Psalms 29:10)? Balaam said to them: “The Lord sits as King forever” (Psalms 29:10), which means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, already took an oath after the flood never to bring a flood to the world, as it is stated: “And the waters shall no more become a flood” (Genesis 9:15)."

The kings then worried about a flood of fire: "He will not bring a flood of water... but perhaps He will bring a flood of fire, as in the future the Lord will punish the nations with fire, as it is stated: “For by fire will the Lord contend, and by His sword with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many” (Isaiah 66:16). Balaam said to them: He already took an oath that He will not destroy all flesh in any manner, as it is stated: “To destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). Therefore, there will not be a flood of fire."

They asked: "And if so, what is this tumultuous sound that we have heard?" Balaam said to them: He has a good and precious item in His treasury, that was hidden away with Him for 974 generations before the world was created, and He seeks to give it to his children, as it is stated: “The Lord will give strength to His people” (Psalms 29:11). “Strength” is a reference to the Torah, which is the strength of the Jewish people. Immediately, they all began to say: “The Lord will bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11)." This beautiful Midrash portrays the Torah as a pre-existent treasure revealed at Sinai.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and came, as it is stated in a similar context with regard to the splitting of the Jordan in the days of Joshua: “And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites…heard how that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan…that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them anymore…And even Rahab the prostitute said to Joshua’s messengers: “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you” (Joshua 2:10)." The miraculous splitting of the sea was a powerful testament to God's power.

The Gemara asks about a slight linguistic difference in Rahab's statement: "What is different there, i.e., with regard to the splitting of the Jordan, where the verse states: “Neither was there spirit in them anymore,” and what is different here, i.e., in the statement of Rahab, where the verse states: “Neither did there remain [kama] any more spirit in any man” (Joshua 2:11)?" The Gemara replies that Rahab used this phrase euphemistically, to say that their fear was so great that their male organs were not even able to become erect, as “kama” also means rise. The Gemara asks: "And how did Rahab know this?" The Gemara replies: "As the Master said: You do not have any prince or ruler at that time who did not engage in intercourse with Rahab the prostitute." A rather blunt, but historically grounded, statement about Rahab's access to information.

The Gemara adds a fascinating detail about Rahab: "She was ten years old when the Jewish people left Egypt, and she engaged in prostitution all forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness. After that, when she was fifty years old, she converted when the two spies visited her. She said: May all of my sins of prostitution be forgiven me as a reward for having endangered myself with the rope, window, and flax, by means of which I saved Joshua’s two spies." This shows the power of teshuvah (repentance) and the reward for righteous acts, even from unexpected sources.

Petach Einayim on Zevachim 116a:1 brings a deeper layer of discussion, concerning how Rashi (a primary commentator on the Talmud) interprets these varying opinions on Jethro's timing. It highlights that the phrase "it is like tanna'im (Mishnaic sages) dispute" itself can be interpreted in different ways depending on whether one believes these sages truly disagreed, or if their statements were simply different aspects of a single truth, or if the amora'im (Talmudic sages) themselves disagreed on whether the tanna'im disagreed! This meta-discussion exemplifies the Talmud's profound analytical depth, where even the interpretation of a disagreement is itself a subject of debate. For our purposes, it underscores that the timing of Jethro's arrival is a rich source of differing interpretations, each with significant implications for understanding early Jewish history and Noahide law.

Gentile Altars Today: A Path Apart

The discussion returns to the present (Talmudic era) and the future: "The Master said in the baraita that discussed the sacrifice of offerings before the construction of the Tabernacle: And today gentiles are permitted to do so, i.e., to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, despite the fact that this is forbidden for the Jews." This is a monumental statement.

"From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verses that prohibit the slaughter of offerings outside the Temple: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:2). This indicates that only Jews are commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple, but gentiles are not commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple." The specific address to "children of Israel" implies exclusivity of the prohibition.

"Therefore, each and every gentile may, if he desires, construct a private altar for himself, and sacrifice upon it whatever he desires." This is a profound recognition of a universal path to God for non-Jews.

However, a Jew's role is limited: "Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa says that Rav Asi says: Although it is permitted for gentiles to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, it is prohibited for a Jew to assist them or to fulfill their agency in this matter, as sacrificing in this manner is forbidden for a Jew." A Jew cannot directly facilitate a gentile's sacrifice outside the Temple, as that would constitute violating a Jewish prohibition. But Rabba said: But to instruct them how to sacrifice outside the Temple is permitted." This allows for sharing knowledge without direct involvement.

This distinction is illustrated by an incident: "This is similar to that incident in which Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur of Persia, sent an offering to Rava, with which she sent this message to him: Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven. Rava said to Rav Safra and to Rav Aḥa bar Huna: Go, take two gentile youths of the same age, i.e., similar to one another, so that the sacrifice will be performed with maximal beauty, and see where the sea currently raises silt [sirton], which is a place that no one has used before. And take new wood and bring out fire from new vessels, and the two youths will sacrifice the offering for her, for the sake of Heaven." Rava instructed gentile youths on how to perform the sacrifice, emphasizing purity and beauty, but did not perform it himself.

The Gemara then delves into the detail of "new wood": "Abaye said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion was the instruction to sacrifice exclusively with new wood? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar is a place that is not used by an ordinary person, so too, the wood that will be used must not be used by an ordinary person." The Gemara asks: "But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua concede that in the case of a private altar the wood need not be new?"

This leads to a discussion about David's purchase of the Temple site, where two verses seem to contradict regarding the price. "One verse states: “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.…And it is written elsewhere: “So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." The Gemara reconciles this by stating David would "collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels."

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai that there is another explanation: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and he purchased the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says likewise. The question of "new wood" is resolved by Rava saying that even David's "threshing instruments" were considered new in the context of their use for the altar.

The Gemara briefly defines "threshing instruments [morigim]" as a "heavy, serrated board" for threshing, citing Isaiah 41:15. Finally, the Gemara returns to Rava's reconciliation of the gold vs. silver shekels for David's purchase, explaining that the fifty silver shekels from each tribe collectively amounted to the value of six hundred gold shekels.

Defining Sacred Space: The Camps

The final section of our text shifts to the concept of sacred space, specifically the "camps" in the wilderness and their parallel in Jerusalem. The mishna teaches that once the Tabernacle was established, "offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel."

Rav Huna says: This means "in any of the places that an Israelite would be found. But there was no actual camp, outside of which it was prohibited to eat the offerings."

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna: And were there not camps when the Jews were in the wilderness? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as there was a camp in the wilderness that was divided into different sections... so too, there is a corresponding camp in Jerusalem: The area from the walls of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount has the status of the Israelite camp. The area from the Temple Mount to Nicanor’s Gate at the entrance to the Temple courtyard has the status of the Levite camp. From that point onward, i.e., from the entrance to the Temple courtyard, the area has the status of the camp of the Divine Presence; and the Temple courtyard has the same status as the area within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness." This clearly defines three distinct camps.

The Gemara replies: "Rather, say that Rav Huna meant that when the Tabernacle was in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity could be consumed wherever the Israelite camp was located." The Gemara asks: "Isn’t that obvious?" The Gemara responds: "Lest you say that during the periods of travel between encampments the offerings were taken outside the Israelite camp, and were thereby disqualified due to the meat’s leaving the area within the partitions, Rav Huna teaches us that the meat is not disqualified." Even in transit, the camp retains its status. This is derived from: "the verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting, with the camp of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they travel” (Numbers 2:17), which indicates that although it traveled from its place it is still the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, the Israelite camp retains its status even while traveling."

Finally, regarding the division of Jerusalem into three camps, "it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: There was an additional camp in Jerusalem, within the area of the Temple Mount, and it was the rampart of the women’s courtyard. The Sages rendered it prohibited for certain ritually impure individuals to enter that area, but they would not punish them for entering it, as by Torah law it does not constitute a distinct section of the Temple Mount but has the status of the Levite camp." This shows a Rabbinic extension of holiness. The baraita adds: "And when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh there were only two camps." The Gemara asks: "Which of the three camps that were present in the wilderness was not present in Shiloh? Rabba said: It stands to reason that the Levite camp was present, but the Israelite camp was not. As, if it enters your mind to say that the Levite camp was not present in Shiloh,..." The text ends here, leaving us to ponder the implications of Shiloh's unique status.

How We Live This

Our deep dive into Zevachim 116, despite its focus on ancient sacrificial rites, offers profound and enduring lessons for our spiritual lives today. These aren't just historical footnotes; they are insights into God's relationship with humanity, the nature of worship, and the diverse paths to holiness.

Universal Spirituality and the Noahide Laws

Perhaps one of the most striking and inclusive messages from this text is the recognition of a legitimate spiritual path for non-Jews. The discussions about Noah's sacrifices, the permissibility for gentiles to build their own altars, and Rava's instruction to Ifera Hurmiz, all underscore a fundamental Jewish principle: the Divine is accessible to all of humanity, not just to the Jewish people.

The "children of Israel" have a unique covenant and specific commandments (Mitzvot). But the descendants of Noah, meaning all humanity, are also bound by a set of universal ethical and moral laws, known as the Seven Noahide Laws. These include prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and eating flesh torn from a living animal, and the positive commandment to establish courts of justice. Our text reinforces that even beyond these ethical laws, non-Jews are encouraged to connect with God through worship, including sacrifice if they choose, in a way that is fitting for them. The idea that "each and every gentile may... construct a private altar for himself, and sacrifice upon it whatever he desires" is a powerful testament to the inclusiveness of God's embrace. It teaches us that holiness isn't exclusive; there are many valid ways to approach the Divine.

This also has implications for how Jews relate to non-Jews. While a Jew cannot directly facilitate a gentile's sacrifice in a way that would violate Jewish law, the permission to "instruct them" demonstrates a spirit of guidance and encouragement for universal spiritual growth. It implies a responsibility to share wisdom and help others on their path to God, without imposing Jewish specific practices.

The Evolution of Worship

The text beautifully illustrates the evolution of worship. We start with Noah's seemingly simple offerings, where "males and females, unblemished and blemished" animals were fit (with specific exceptions for missing limbs or tereifa). This represents an early, more spontaneous form of devotion. Then, with the giving of the Torah and the establishment of the Tabernacle, we see a shift towards more specific, detailed, and centralized rituals. The debate about whether Noahides offered "peace offerings" is part of this: peace offerings, with their communal meal aspect, suggest a deeper, more intimate relationship with God, characterized by sharing and joy, which perhaps became fully available to Israel with their unique covenant.

This evolution teaches us that our spiritual practices can and often do change over time, both individually and communally. What was appropriate in one era or for one group might be different for another. Yet, the underlying desire to connect with the Divine remains constant. Even today, when animal sacrifices are no longer practiced, their spiritual lessons endure. Prayer, charity, and acts of kindness are seen as modern equivalents, "sacrifices of the heart." We learn that the form of worship may change, but the spirit of devotion is timeless.

The Importance of Intention (Lishma)

The story of Ifera Hurmiz sending an offering to Rava with the message "Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven" is particularly poignant. It highlights the critical role of intention (Lishma) in any act of worship. It wasn't enough to simply offer an animal; the offering had to be "for the sake of Heaven," with pure, sincere devotion.

This concept of Lishma is central to Jewish ethics and spirituality. Whether we are praying, performing a Mitzvah, or engaging in acts of kindness, the inner intention transforms the external act. Doing something Lishma elevates it from a mere ritual or chore to a profound spiritual experience. Even when the specific rituals of Zevachim are no longer practiced, the lesson of sincere intention remains paramount in all our interactions with God and with others. It teaches us to examine our motives and to strive for purity of heart in all our endeavors.

Learning from Disagreement (Machloket L'Shem Shamayim)

Our text is replete with disagreements: the timing of Jethro's visit, whether Noahides offered peace offerings, the interpretation of biblical verses, and even the definition of "camps." These aren't signs of confusion or weakness in the tradition; rather, they are the very engine of Talmudic learning. The concept of Machloket L'Shem Shamayim – "disagreement for the sake of Heaven" – teaches us that differing perspectives, when sincerely pursued for truth, enrich understanding.

Each sage brings a unique insight, a different way of interpreting a verse or a historical event. The Gemara doesn't seek to erase these differences but to present them, explore their reasoning, and often to show how different opinions can be reconciled or apply to different circumstances. This models intellectual humility and a profound respect for diverse viewpoints. It teaches us the value of engaging deeply with differing ideas, knowing that through respectful debate, a more nuanced and comprehensive truth often emerges. In our own lives, this approach encourages us to listen, to understand, and to appreciate the complexity of truth, rather than seeking simplistic answers.

The Enduring Power of Torah

Finally, the incredible Midrash surrounding the giving of the Torah and Balaam's explanation to the trembling kings underscores the enduring power and centrality of Torah. Described as a "good and precious item... hidden away for 974 generations before the world was created," the Torah is depicted not merely as a set of laws, but as the very "strength" of the Jewish people. This highlights a profound understanding of Torah as a divine blueprint for existence, a source of wisdom, meaning, and resilience.

Even in our modern world, far removed from altars and Tabernacles, the study of Torah and its timeless wisdom continues to be a vibrant wellspring of Jewish life. This text reminds us that even when external forms of worship change, the core spiritual principles and the divine wisdom embedded in our tradition remain constant, guiding us, strengthening us, and connecting us to our heritage and to God.

One Thing to Remember

The core takeaway from Zevachim 116 is that the path to God is diverse and dynamic, revealing itself in different forms for different peoples and across different eras. Whether through ancient sacrifices, the universal ethical framework for all humanity, or the profound study of Torah, the human yearning for connection with the Divine is honored and guided. The Talmud, in its intricate debates, teaches us that this quest is deeply personal, universally accessible, and always enriched by sincere intention and open-minded inquiry.