Zevachim 119

Sugya Map

The sugya on Zevachim 119a meticulously reconstructs the historical progression of the Mishkan and Mikdash, focusing on the permissibility of Bamot (private altars) and the specific Halachot pertaining to sacrificial service during each epoch. The Gemara leverages scriptural exegesis and chronological calculations to delineate the evolving sanctity of sacred spaces.

• Issue: Establishing the chronological periods of the Mishkan and Mikdash, determining when Bamot were permitted or prohibited, and identifying which sacrificial Avodot (services) were restricted to the Mishkan or Mikdash proper.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The status of Ma'aser Sheni (second tithe) consumption during the Nov and Gibeon period.
  • The liability for Karet (excision) for bringing Korbanot (offerings) chutz (outside the designated area) under various circumstances.
  • The precise Halachot concerning specific Avodot such as Semicha (laying of hands), Tenufa (waving), Nesachim (libations), and the requirement for priestly garments and vessels, and their application to Bamot.
  • The interpretation of "מנוחה" (rest) and "נחלה" (inheritance) in Devarim 12:9 and their association with Shiloh and Jerusalem, which underpins the issur Bamot.
• Primary Sources:
  • Tanakh: Devarim 12:9, I Kings 2:11, II Chron 3:2, I Kings 6:1, I Kings 3:4, Joshua 18:10, Jeremiah 12:7-9, Psalms 132:13-14, Judges 13:19, Vayikra 1:3-4, 1:5, 1:11, 2:8, 14:12, 17:5-6, 17:8-9, Shemot 27:5, 28:43, 40:32, Bamidbar 4:12.
  • Mishnah/Baraita: The mishna on Zevachim 119a itself, and various baraitot cited within the Gemara.
  • Talmud: Discussions between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Kahana and Rabba, and the various interpretive schools.

Text Snapshot

The Gemara delves into the chronological sequence of the Mishkan's resting places and the associated Halachot of Bamot. A central theme is the exegetical debate over Devarim 12:9.

Chronological Calculation of Shiloh's Duration

The Gemara begins with a precise calculation, tying the Mikdash's construction to the Exodus:

"And with regard to the construction of the Temple in the time of Solomon, it is written: “And he began to build it in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (II Chronicles 3:2), which was the 480th year following the Exodus (see I Kings 6:1). When the forty years in the wilderness, the fourteen years that the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, and the fifty-seven years that the Tabernacle stood in Nov and Gibeon, which totals 111 years, are subtracted from the 480, there remain for Shiloh 370 less one years in which the Tabernacle stood there."^^1^

This establishes the historical timeline that underpins the permissibility of Bamot.

The "מנוחה" and "נחלה" Debate

The core of the sugya's exegetical discussion revolves around Devarim 12:9, "כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה" (For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance).

"The Gemara interprets the verse: “To the rest”; this is a reference to Shiloh. “The inheritance”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. One may ask: Why does the verse divide them into two terms, i.e., “rest” and “inheritance”? It is in order to give permission to sacrifice on private altars during the period between this one and that one. Therefore, it was permitted to sacrifice on private altars during the period of Nov and Gibeon."^^2^

This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon offers a reverse interpretation:

"By contrast, Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh."^^3^

This divergence leads to a significant kushya:

"But according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh, the verse should have stated: To the inheritance and to the rest."^^4^ The dikduk here is crucial – the order of terms. If "מנוחה" is Jerusalem and "נחלה" is Shiloh, and Shiloh chronologically precedes Jerusalem, why does the verse list "מנוחה" first? This challenges Rabbi Shimon's reading based on the plain sense of the verse's sequence.

Rav Kahana's Karet Distinction

Later in the sugya, a practical Halachic distinction regarding Karet is debated:

"Rav Kahana says: They taught that only with regard to slaughter of these animals outside the designated area is one not liable to receive karet. But with regard to offering up, one would also be liable to receive karet."^^5^ Rav Kahana interprets "ואליהם תאמר" (Leviticus 17:8) as "ועליהם תאמר" (about them you shall say), linking the karet to the preceding discussion of eimurim. Rabba vehemently objects to this drasha: "Rabba objects to this: Is it written: And about them you shall say? “To them” is written, and we read it as “to them.”"^^6^ Rabba rejects the phonetic drasha and asserts the plain reading (peshat) of the verse, ultimately supported by a baraita which offers a conclusive refutation to Rav Kahana's position. This highlights the tension between drash and peshat in Halachic derivation.

Readings

Rashi: Precision in Chronology

Rashi, ever the master of peshat and clarity, elucidates the Gemara's opening chronological calculation, which sets the stage for the entire sugya on Bamot. The Gemara begins by establishing the 480-year span from the Exodus to the building of the First Temple in Solomon's fourth year of reign, as stated in I Kings 6:1. From this total, the years in the wilderness (40), Gilgal (14), and Nov and Gibeon (57) are subtracted to determine the duration of Shiloh.

Rashi comments on the Gemara's initial line:

"דכתיב והימים אשר מלך וגו' - ל"ג שנה הרי נ"ג וארבע שמלך שלמה לפני בנין הבית ואותה שנה שלמו ארבע מאות ושמונים ליציאת מצרים נשתיירו לשילה שס"ט:"^^7^ (As it is written: “And the days that David reigned…” [I Kings 2:11] – thirty-three years [in Jerusalem], which makes fifty-three [with the Ark in Kiryat Ye'arim], plus four years that Solomon reigned before building the Temple. In that year, 480 years from the Exodus were completed. There remained for Shiloh 369 years.)

Chiddush: The Arc of Kedusha

Rashi's brief comment, while seemingly a mere arithmetic clarification, is crucial for understanding the sugya's foundational premise. The chiddush here lies in underscoring the Gemara's meticulous approach to establishing the precise historical timeline for the Mishkan's various resting places. This chronological precision is not an academic exercise but a Halachic necessity. The permissibility of Bamot—the central theme of the sugya—is entirely contingent upon the specific period in Jewish history. By clearly delineating the years for each stage (Wilderness, Gilgal, Shiloh, Nov/Gibeon, Jerusalem), Rashi helps us grasp how the Halacha of Bamot transitions.

Specifically, the calculation that Shiloh stood for 369 years (the Gemara says 370 less one) is paramount. This long period of stability meant a prohibition of Bamot. The destruction of Shiloh then ushered in a period of heter Bamot (Nov and Gibeon), which was again superseded by the Mikdash in Jerusalem. Rashi's intervention highlights that the sugya is not just about interpreting verses but rooting these interpretations in a precise historical framework derived from Tanakh. This numerical exactitude underpins the entire conceptual arc of kedusha and its Halachic ramifications, demonstrating that Halacha is intrinsically linked to time and place, as revealed through careful scriptural analysis. Without this clear timeline, the debates over "מנוחה" and "נחלה" and the conditions for karet would lack their historical context and Halachic force.

Ben Yehoyada: Kabbalistic Dimensions of "Rest" and "Inheritance"

Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, the Ben Ish Chai, in his Ben Yehoyada, often delves into the mystical and Kabbalistic layers of the Gemara. On our sugya, he offers a profound interpretation of "מנוחה" and "נחלה," moving beyond the simple chronological or geographical readings to reveal deeper, esoteric meanings connected to sefirot and gematriot.

He comments on the Gemara's initial interpretation:

"'מְנוּחָה' זוֹ שִׁילֹה 'נַחֲלָה' זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (דברים יב, ט). נראה לי בס"ד כי ידוע יוסף הצדיק ע"ה בבית שיש לו בחושן נוסף לו שם ב' אותיות ו"ן של ישורון וגם בשמו הטוב הוסיף לו השם יתברך אות ה"א כשמלך במצרים דכתיב עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ בְּצֵאתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם (תהלים פא, ו) הרי אותיות הו"ן וכנזכר במפרשים ולכן ' מְנוּנוּחָה ' זוֹ שִׁילֹה כי 'מְנוּחָה' הוא 'חם הון' והיינו חם רצונו לומר ראה כי תרגום ראה חמא ושורש חמא חם. ' וְנַחֲלָה ' זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם כי ירידת האש מן השמים בראשנה היתה במדבר ובשניה היתה בירושלים בבית המקדש שבנה שלמה המלך ע"ה וירידת האש מן השמים נקראת כבוד ה' [58] שהוא מספר חן [58] כמו שנאמר זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה הֳ' תַּעֲשׂוּ וְיֵרָא אֲלֵיכֶם כְּבוֹד הֳ' (ויקרא ט, ו) דקאי זה על ירידת האש ולכן ירושלים נקראת 'נַחֲלָה' חלק התיבה לשתים וקרי בה 'נח לה' כי ירידת האש היא כבוד ה' שהוא מספר נח."^^8^ (‘‘Rest’ – this is Shiloh; ‘Inheritance’ – this is Jerusalem” (Deuteronomy 12:9). It appears to me, with Divine assistance, that it is known regarding Yosef HaTzaddik, may he rest in peace, that in the house where he has his breastplate, two letters ‘ו”ן’ of ‘Yeshurun’ were added to him, and also to his good name, the Holy One, Blessed be He, added the letter ‘ה’ when he reigned in Egypt, as it is written: “He appointed it in Yehosef as a testimony when He went out over the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6) – these are the letters ‘הו”ן’ as mentioned by the commentators. Therefore, ‘מנוחה’ (rest) is Shiloh, because ‘מנוחה’ is ‘חם הון’ (warm wealth), meaning ‘warm’ – that is, he saw, for the Aramaic translation of ‘saw’ is ‘חמא’ (chama), and the root of ‘חמא’ is ‘חם’ (warm). And ‘נחלה’ (inheritance) is Jerusalem, because the descent of fire from heaven first occurred in the wilderness, and second, in Jerusalem in the Beit HaMikdash built by King Solomon, may he rest in peace. And the descent of fire from heaven is called the glory of Hashem [58], which is the numerical value of ‘חן’ (grace) [58], as it is stated: “This is the thing which the Lord commanded that you should do; and the glory of the Lord shall appear unto you” (Leviticus 9:6), which refers to the descent of fire. Therefore, Jerusalem is called ‘נחלה’ (inheritance); divide the word into two and read it as ‘נח לה’ (rest for her), because the descent of fire is the glory of Hashem, which is the numerical value of ‘נח’ (rest/Noah).)

He then extends this to Rabbi Shimon's reverse interpretation:

"ולמאן דאמר ' נַחֲלָה ' זוֹ שִׁילֹה נראה לי בס"ד 'נַחֲלָה' היא 'חן לה' כי יוסף הצדיק ע"ה הוא בעל החן דכתיב וַיִּמְצָא יוֹסֵף חֵן (בראשית לט, ד) ולכן כתיב בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף (בראשית מט, כב) שהו רצונו לומר חן. ומה שאמר ' מְנוּחָה ' זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם נראה לי בס"ד כי ירושלים היא סוד לאה כמו שאמר רבינו האר"י ז"ל וידוע מה שאמר רבינו האר"י ז"ל במאמר כל המהלך ארבע אמות בארץ ישראל דקאי על ארבע פעמים מ"ו שהם מלוי שם ע"ב להמשיכם בלאה והיינו אמה גימטריא מ"ו עיין שם. ובזה פרשתי בס"ד רמז הכתוב תְּבִאֵמוֹ וְתִטָּעֵמוֹ בְּהַר נַחֲלָתְךָ (שמות טו, יז) כלומר תָּבִיא מ"ו וְתִטַּע מ"ו בְּהַר נַחֲלָתְךָ זו לאה. ובזה פרשתי בס"ד וּבִירוּשָׁלַ‍ִם תְּנֻחָמוּ (ישעיה סו, יג) חלק התיבה לשתים וקרי בה 'תָּנוּחַ מ"ו'. ולזה אמר ' מְנוּחָה ' זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם והיינו מנוחה 'נחה מ"ו' שימשך לה הארת מ"ו הנזכר וגם יש לרמוז א־ל י־ה [46] עולה מ"ו ונאמר דַּבְּרוּ עַל לֵב יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם וְקִרְאוּ 'אֵלֶיהָ' שהוא 'א־ל י־ה' ובעבור הארה זו של 'א־ל י־ה' ישלח לנו המבשר טוב שהוא אליה לבשרנו על הגאולה בבנין ירושלם עיר בחר לו י־ה ארץ החיים. סליק מסכת זבחים."^^9^ (And for the one who says ‘נחלה’ (inheritance) is Shiloh, it appears to me, with Divine assistance, that ‘נחלה’ is ‘חן לה’ (grace to her), because Yosef HaTzaddik, may he rest in peace, is the master of grace, as it is written: “And Yosef found grace” (Genesis 39:4). And therefore, it is written: “Ben Porat Yosef” (Genesis 49:22), which means grace. And regarding what he said, ‘מנוחה’ (rest) is Jerusalem, it appears to me, with Divine assistance, that Jerusalem is the secret of Leah, as our master the Arizal said. And it is known what our master the Arizal said in the discourse “Anyone who walks four cubits in Eretz Yisrael” refers to four times 46, which are the fillings of the name ‘ע”ב’ (Ab) to draw them into Leah, and ‘אמה’ (cubit) has the numerical value of 46, see there. And with this, I explained, with Divine assistance, the hint in the verse: “You shall bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance” (Exodus 15:17), meaning “bring 46” and “plant 46” in “the mountain of Your inheritance,” this is Leah. And with this, I explained, with Divine assistance, “And in Jerusalem you shall be comforted” (Isaiah 66:13); divide the word into two and read it as ‘תָּנוּחַ מ”ו’ (you shall rest 46). And for this, he said ‘מנוחה’ (rest) is Jerusalem, meaning ‘מנוחה’ is ‘נחה מ”ו’ (rested 46), that the illumination of the aforementioned 46 should be drawn to her. And also, one can hint that ‘א־ל י־ה’ (El Yah) [46] has a numerical value of 46, and it is said: “Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and call ‘אֵלֶיהָ’” (to her), which is ‘א־ל י־ה’. And for this illumination of ‘א־ל י־ה’, may the good messenger, who is Eliyahu, be sent to us to announce the redemption with the building of Jerusalem, the city chosen by Yah, the land of life. End of Tractate Zevachim.)

Chiddush: Unveiling Esoteric Connections

The Ben Yehoyada's chiddush is a multi-layered Kabbalistic interpretation that enriches the sugya by revealing a hidden, spiritual rationale behind the Tannaitic dispute. He transcends the literal meaning to connect the terms "מנוחה" and "נחלה" to deeper concepts of Divine emanation, gematria, and the sefirot.

1. For R' Yehuda's View (Shiloh = Menucha, Jerusalem = Nachala):

   • Shiloh as "Menucha": He links "מנוחה" to "חם הון" (warm wealth/abundance). The word "חם" (warm) is derived from "חמא" (saw), reminiscent of Yosef's "הו"ן" (wealth/addition of letters to his name). Shiloh, being in Yosef's portion, thus embodies this "warmth of abundance" or "rest from conquest."
   • Jerusalem as "Nachala": He breaks "נחלה" into "נח לה" (rest for her). This "rest" refers to the Shechinah's presence, specifically the descent of fire (כבוד ה') in the Mikdash. He notes that "כבוד ה'" has a gematria of 58, which is also the gematria of "חן" (grace). This ties Jerusalem's "inheritance" to the manifestation of Divine grace and presence.

2. For R' Shimon's View (Jerusalem = Menucha, Shiloh = Nachala):

   • Shiloh as "Nachala": Again, he parses "נחלה" as "חן לה" (grace to her), linking it back to Yosef HaTzaddik, who is "בעל החן" (master of grace), as seen in "וימצא יוסף חן" (Genesis 39:4) and "בן פורת יוסף" (Genesis 49:22). This suggests that Shiloh, being in Yosef's tribal territory, embodies this aspect of "grace."
   • Jerusalem as "Menucha": This is the most intricate part. He connects "מנוחה" in Jerusalem to the sod (secret) of Leah, as taught by the Arizal. The Arizal explains that "walking four cubits in Eretz Yisrael" relates to drawing down the Ohr (light) of the Shem Ha'Av (the 72-letter name of God) into Leah, with "אמה" (cubit) having a gematria of 46. Thus, "מנוחה" (rest) in Jerusalem implies "נחה מ"ו" (rested 46), drawing this specific Divine illumination. He further links this to "א-ל י-ה" (El Yah), which also has a gematria of 46, and to the verse "דברו על לב ירושלים וקראו אליה" (Isaiah 40:2), where "אליה" hints at "א-ל י-ה."

The Ben Yehoyada's chiddush transforms a seemingly simple exegetical debate into a profound exploration of Divine attributes and their manifestation in sacred spaces. He demonstrates that the Halachic distinctions between Shiloh and Jerusalem are not arbitrary but are rooted in deeper spiritual realities, providing a mystical framework that enriches our understanding of Kedushah and its historical progression. His interpretations, replete with gematria and Kabbalistic allusions, offer a unique lens through which to appreciate the richness and multi-dimensionality of the Talmudic text.

Rashash: Textual Criticism and Scholarly Humility

Rabbi Shmuel Strashun, known as the Rashash, is renowned for his incisive textual criticism and deep engagement with Rishonim. In his notes on Zevachim 119a, he brings a critical eye to both Rashi and Rambam, highlighting potential textual issues and challenging widely accepted interpretations.

He comments on the Gemara's discussion of Rabbi Shimon's view:

"שם רש"א מנוחה זו ירושלים כו'. הט"א במגילה (ט ב) כ' דע"כ ט"ס הוא כאן דאל"כ קשה דר"ש אדרשב"י לקמן בסמוך:"^^10^ (Rashi there says: “Menucha” is Jerusalem etc. The Tosafot in Megillah (9b) writes that it must be a scribal error here, for otherwise, Rabbi Shimon's opinion would contradict Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai's opinion nearby later.)

And later, he critiques the Rambam's sourcing:

"עי' בפי' הרמב"ם הביאו התוי"ט בקוצר. יראתי וזחלתי לומר על אדונינו עטרת ראשנו הרמב"ם זלה"ה דלפי ששגור היה בפיו סדור הג' כתובים בנוסח יהי כבוד זאח"ז כי בחר ה' בציון וגו'. כי יעקב בחר לו וגו'. כי לא יטוש וגו'. סבר שכן המה סדורים בכתוב. ובאמת לא קרב זא"ז כי הראשון הוא בתהלים קל"ב. הב' בקל"ה. והג' בצ"ד:"^^11^ (See Rambam’s commentary, which the Tosefot Yom Tov brought briefly. I am afraid and tremble to say about our master, the crown of our head, the Rambam, may his memory be a blessing, that because the order of the three verses in the Yehi Chevod prayer was common in his mouth – “For the Lord has chosen Zion…” [Psalms 132:13], “For Jacob has chosen for himself…” [Psalms 135:4], “For the Lord will not forsake…” [Psalms 94:14] – he thought that they were arranged as such in the verse. But in truth, they are not close to each other, for the first is in Psalms 132, the second in 135, and the third in 94.)

Chiddush: Scrutiny and Textual Integrity

The Rashash's chiddush lies in his rigorous commitment to textual accuracy and his willingness to challenge even the most authoritative Rishonim.

1. Rashi's Apparent Contradiction: The Rashash points out a difficulty in Rashi's commentary regarding Rabbi Shimon's view on "מנוחה" and "נחלה." If Rashi indeed stated that R' Shimon views "מנוחה" as Jerusalem and "נחלה" as Shiloh, this would contradict the Gemara's later discussion where R' Shimon ben Yoḥai (or R' Shimon according to a different version) says both terms refer to Jerusalem. The Rashash, citing Tosafot in Megillah 9b, suggests that Rashi's text here might contain a ta'ut sofer (scribal error). This highlights the critical approach to Talmudic texts, recognizing that even the most sacred commentaries can suffer from transmission errors. This kind of textual work is essential for preserving the integrity of the sugya's logical flow and the consistency of the Tannaim's opinions. The Rashash's note forces the student to consider textual variants and the possibility of corruption, a vital skill in serious Talmud study.

2. Rambam's Memory Lapse: Even more strikingly, the Rashash humbly but firmly points out a potential error in the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah. When the Gemara cites Psalms 132:13-14 ("כי בחר ה' בציון... זאת מנוחתי עדי עד") as a prooftext for Jerusalem being "מנוחה," the Rambam (as quoted by Tosafot Yom Tov) appears to group this verse with two other verses ("כי יעקב בחר לו יה" and "כי לא יטוש ה' עמו") as if they appear consecutively in Tanakh. The Rashash, with admirable deference ("יראתי וזחלתי לומר על אדונינו עטרת ראשנו הרמב"ם"), suggests that the Rambam might have been influenced by the common liturgical arrangement of these verses in the Yehi Chevod prayer, leading him to mistakenly assume their proximity in Tanakh. In reality, these verses are found in different chapters of Psalms (132, 135, 94).

This critique from the Rashash is a powerful lesson in intellectual honesty and scholarly rigor. It demonstrates that even the greatest authorities can err, particularly when relying on memory or common liturgical associations rather than direct textual verification. It reinforces the importance of meticulous sourcing and checking original texts. The Rashash's approach encourages independent critical thinking, urging students to always consult the primary sources and not merely accept inherited interpretations without careful scrutiny. This is a profound chiddush not just about the specific sugya but about the methodology of Talmud study itself – a constant striving for truth and accuracy, even when it means respectfully challenging giants.

Friction

The Chronological Conundrum: Rabbi Shimon's "Menucha" and "Nachala"

One of the most potent kushyot in the sugya arises from Rabbi Shimon's interpretation of Devarim 12:9, "כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה" (For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance).

The Kushya

The Gemara presents Rabbi Shimon's view:

"By contrast, Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh."^^12^ The kushya immediately follows: "Granted, according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Shiloh; that is, as it is written: “To the rest and to the inheritance,” in chronological order, as the period of Shiloh preceded that of Jerusalem. But according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh, the verse should have stated: To the inheritance and to the rest."^^13^

The strength of this kushya lies in its direct appeal to the peshat and the logical flow of the verse. The Torah typically presents events or stages in chronological order. If "מנוחה" (rest) refers to Jerusalem and "נחלה" (inheritance) refers to Shiloh, then the verse, which discusses the process of entering the land and establishing sacred sites, should logically list Shiloh first, as it preceded Jerusalem. The order "מנוחה ואל הנחלה" (rest and inheritance) implies that "מנוחה" comes first in the sequence, or is otherwise the primary or more significant of the two. Rabbi Shimon's interpretation inverts this chronological order, making the verse's phrasing problematic. This is a significant challenge because it suggests that Rabbi Shimon is interpreting the verse against its plain, sequential meaning, which is a strong methodological critique in Talmudic discourse. How can a drasha contradict the explicit order of words in the Torah?

The Terutz

The Gemara offers a classic terutz (answer) to reconcile Rabbi Shimon's view with the verse's phrasing:

"The Gemara explains: This is what the verse is saying: When you enter Eretz Yisrael private altars will be permitted, and it is not necessary to say that you have not arrived at the “rest,” i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem, but you have not even arrived at the “inheritance,” i.e., the Tabernacle in Shiloh."^^14^

This terutz employs the rhetorical device of "לא מיבעיא קאמר" (it is not necessary to say, rather it means...). The verse is not necessarily presenting a chronological sequence but rather a kal va'chomer (a fortiori) or an emphasis. It means to convey: "You haven't even reached the lesser stage (Shiloh, the 'inheritance'), let alone the greater stage (Jerusalem, the 'rest')." By phrasing it this way, the Torah emphasizes the degree to which the Jewish people were still in a transitional phase, far from the ultimate, permanent sanctuary in Jerusalem. The "מנוחה" (Jerusalem) is presented first because it represents the ultimate, more significant goal and the final cessation of Bamot. The verse then adds, almost as an afterthought, that you haven't even reached the preceding, less ultimate stage of "נחלה" (Shiloh). This rhetorical structure allows Rabbi Shimon to maintain his identification of "מנוחה" with Jerusalem and "נחלה" with Shiloh, despite the apparent chronological inversion. The verse is not a simple historical narrative but a Halachic statement about the stages of Kedushah and the heter Bamot, framed in a way that highlights the unreached ultimate goal.

This terutz is effective because it resolves the textual difficulty without forcing Rabbi Shimon to abandon his drasha. It demonstrates that the Torah's language can serve rhetorical or emphatic purposes beyond strict chronology. It acknowledges the strength of the initial kushya but provides a sophisticated exegetical tool to overcome it, showing the depth and flexibility of Chazal's interpretive methods. The "לא מיבעיא" structure is a common and powerful technique used throughout the Talmud to resolve apparent contradictions or difficulties in scriptural phrasing, turning a perceived weakness into a didactic strength.

Intertext

The sugya on Zevachim 119a, with its intricate discussion of "מנוחה" and "נחלה" and the permissibility of Bamot, has deep roots in Tanakh and significant ramifications in Halachic literature, particularly in the Rambam.

The Stages of Kedushah and Issur Bamot: Devarim 12 and Rambam

The foundational text for the entire discussion is Devarim 12:9: "כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה" (For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance). This verse serves as the lynchpin for defining the periods during which Bamot (private altars) were permitted or prohibited. The Gemara's debate over whether "מנוחה" and "נחלה" refer to Shiloh or Jerusalem, and in what order, directly impacts the Halachic status of sacrificial offerings throughout generations.

This sugya is a critical source for understanding the Rambam's codification of the laws of Beit HaBechira (the chosen house) and Ma'aser Sheni. In Hilchot Beit HaBechira 1:2-3, the Rambam delineates the stages of Kedushah and the associated issur Bamot:

"קודם הקמת המשכן הותרו הבמות ואכלו קדשים בכל מקום. משנבנה המשכן נאסרו הבמות, שנאמר כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה, וכיון שבאתם הרי אתם אסורים לבנות במות. וכיון שנבנה משכן שילה נאסרו הבמות ונאכלו קדשים קלים ומעשר שני בכל מקום ברואה, שנאמר כי שם צוה ה' את הברכה חיים עד העולם."^^15^ (Before the erection of the Mishkan, bamot were permitted, and kodashim (sacred offerings) could be eaten anywhere. Once the Mishkan was built, bamot were forbidden, as it is stated, "For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance." Once you have come, you are forbidden to build bamot. Once the Mishkan of Shiloh was built, bamot were forbidden, and kodashim kalim (offerings of lesser sanctity) and ma'aser sheni (second tithe) could be eaten anywhere within sight [of Shiloh], as it is stated, "For there the Lord commanded the blessing, life forevermore.")

The Rambam continues by describing the period of Nov and Gibeon, where Bamot were again permitted, and then Jerusalem, where issur Bamot became permanent.

"וכיון שחרב שילה הותרו הבמות... וכיון שנבנה בית העולמים בירושלים נאסרו הבמות ונאכלו קדשים קלים ומעשר שני בכל ירושלים."^^16^ (And when Shiloh was destroyed, bamot were permitted... And when the Eternal House was built in Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden, and kodashim kalim and ma'aser sheni were eaten throughout Jerusalem.)

This illustrates how the Rambam adopts the Halachic framework established in our sugya regarding the historical transitions of Kedushah and the permissibility of Bamot. His ruling on Ma'aser Sheni specifically aligns with the Gemara's conclusion that it required a Mikdash (or a structure like Shiloh that functioned as one for certain Halachot), and was not consumed in Nov and Gibeon according to the prevailing view. The Gemara's statement "מנוחה זו שילה, נחלה זו ירושלים... ליתן רשות בין זו לזו" is the direct source for the Rambam's understanding of the heter Bamot during Nov and Gibeon.

The Concept of Hora'at Sha'ah: Manoach's Offering

Another crucial intertextual connection from our sugya is the concept of hora'at sha'ah (a provisional edict for an exigent circumstance), exemplified by Manoach's offering outside Shiloh.

The Gemara discusses the opinion that "this and that" (both "מנוחה" and "נחלה") refer to Shiloh, implying that Bamot were forbidden during Shiloh's era. A kushya is raised:

"But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says this and that are references to Shiloh, and private altars were forbidden during this period, what is the meaning of: “So Manoah took,” as it was forbidden to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple?"^^17^ The verse in question is Judges 13:19: "So Manoah took the kid with the meal offering, and offered them upon the rock to the Lord." This clearly depicts Manoach sacrificing on a private altar, seemingly in contradiction to the prohibition of Bamot during the Shiloh period.

The Gemara resolves this by stating:

"The Gemara answers: Permitting this sacrifice was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances."^^18^

This concept of hora'at sha'ah is vital throughout Halacha. It acknowledges that under extraordinary circumstances, a Navi (prophet) or Beit Din (rabbinical court) may temporarily permit actions that are ordinarily forbidden, often to prevent a greater spiritual or physical harm, or to achieve a specific Divine purpose. Other famous examples include Eliyahu HaNavi's offering on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:30-38) outside Jerusalem and even outside the Mikdash era, which was critical to validate God's sovereignty over Baal. The sugya's use of hora'at sha'ah here provides a framework for understanding apparent deviations from established Halacha in Tanakh, demonstrating that such instances are not contradictions but rather divinely sanctioned exceptions, precisely defined and limited by their extraordinary context. This principle allows for the harmonious interpretation of seemingly conflicting narratives within the sacred texts.

Psak/Practice

The intricate discussions in Zevachim 119a, particularly concerning the chronology of the Mishkan and Mikdash and the permissibility of Bamot, have direct and significant ramifications in codified Halacha. The Rambam, as the preeminent codifier, synthesizes these Talmudic debates into definitive rulings.

Prohibition of Bamot and Stages of Kedushah

The primary practical outcome is the established Halacha regarding the issur Bamot (prohibition of private altars). The Gemara's various interpretations of Devarim 12:9, "כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה," ultimately lead to a clear understanding of when Bamot were permitted and when they were forbidden.

The Rambam, in Hilchot Beit HaBechira 1:1-3, unequivocally states the Halachic periods:

1. From Sinai until the Mishkan in Gilgal: Bamot were permitted.
2. From the Mishkan in Gilgal until Shiloh: Bamot were forbidden.
3. From Shiloh until Nov and Gibeon: Bamot were permitted. This is based on the Gemara's "ליתן רשות בין זו לזו" (to give permission between this one and that one), referring to the period between Shiloh (Menucha/Nachala) and Jerusalem (Nachala/Menucha).
4. From Nov and Gibeon until the building of the First Temple in Jerusalem: Bamot were forbidden. The Rambam rules that the Kedushah of Jerusalem and the Mikdash is permanent.

This detailed progression, directly derived from our sugya, forms the backbone of Halachic understanding regarding sacrificial locales. Today, with the Mikdash destroyed, Bamot are forbidden, and all korbanot (if they could be brought) would require the Mikdash area. The meta-psak heuristic here is that the Kedushah of the Mikdash in Jerusalem is Kedushat Olam (eternal sanctity), unlike the temporary Kedushah of the Mishkan in its various locations. This Kedushat Olam is explicitly stated by the Rambam in Hilchot Beit HaBechira 6:16: "וכן ירושלים וכל המגרשים שבה קדושתן קדושת עולם, ולפיכך אין קדושתן בטילה לעולם." (And so too Jerusalem and all its surrounding areas, their sanctity is eternal sanctity, and therefore their sanctity is never nullified.)

Consumption of Ma'aser Sheni

Another crucial nafka mina is the consumption of Ma'aser Sheni. The Gemara debates whether Ma'aser Sheni was eaten in Nov and Gibeon. Reish Lakish argues it was derived from the Ark, and since the Ark wasn't there, Ma'aser Sheni wasn't either. Rabbi Yochanan responds that this is Rabbi Shimon's view, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, Ma'aser Sheni was consumed there. The Gemara then challenges Rabbi Yehuda's view with the requirement for a "Temple" for Ma'aser Sheni, but Rav Yosef clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda considers Nov and Gibeon as "Temples" for this purpose.

However, the prevailing Halacha follows Reish Lakish's initial premise (Rabbi Shimon's view) that Ma'aser Sheni consumption is tied to the presence of the Ark. The Rambam, in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni V'Neta Reva'i 1:3-4, rules that Ma'aser Sheni could only be eaten in Jerusalem:

"אין מעשר שני נאכל אלא בירושלים בלבד, שנאמר 'ובאת שמה ואכלת שם לפני ה' אלקיך'... אבל המשכן שהיה בנוב ובגבעון לא היו קדשים קלים נאכלין שם ולא מעשר שני."^^19^ (Ma'aser Sheni is eaten only in Jerusalem, as it is stated, "And you shall come there and eat there before the Lord your God"... But in the Mishkan that was in Nov and Gibeon, kodashim kalim were not eaten there, nor ma'aser sheni.)

This ruling explicitly rejects Rabbi Yehuda's view that Ma'aser Sheni was eaten in Nov and Gibeon, aligning instead with the stricter opinion that its consumption requires the permanent Kedushah and the presence of the Ark in Jerusalem. This demonstrates how the sugya's debates, even those with internal challenges and varying opinions, culminate in a single, authoritative Halachic decision.

The sugya also details specific avodot (e.g., semicha, nesachim, priestly garments) that were restricted to the Mishkan or Mikdash and not performed on Bamot. These distinctions are likewise codified in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot and Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, ensuring that the sacrificial service, when performed, adheres to the precise requirements outlined in the Torah and elucidated by Chazal.

Takeaway

The sugya on Zevachim 119a masterfully navigates the nuanced historical evolution of Kedushah in Israel, demonstrating how scriptural exegesis, chronological precision, and rigorous debate collaboratively shape fundamental Halachot concerning sacred spaces and sacrificial service. It underscores the dynamic interplay between Divine command, historical context, and the enduring sanctity of Jerusalem.

---

Citations

[^1]: Zevachim 119a. [^2]: Zevachim 119a. [^3]: Zevachim 119a. [^4]: Zevachim 119a. [^5]: Zevachim 119a. [^6]: Zevachim 119a. [^7]: Rashi on Zevachim 119a:1:1. [^8]: Ben Yehoyada on Zevachim 119a:2. [^9]: Ben Yehoyada on Zevachim 119a:2. [^10]: Rashash on Zevachim 119a:2. [^11]: Rashash on Zevachim 119a:1. [^12]: Zevachim 119a. [^13]: Zevachim 119a. [^14]: Zevachim 119a. [^15]: Rambam, Hilchot Beit HaBechira 1:2. [^16]: Rambam, Hilchot Beit HaBechira 1:3. [^17]: Zevachim 119a. [^18]: Zevachim 119a. [^19]: Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni V'Neta Reva'i 1:3-4.