Zevachim 119 -
1) "NOV" AND "GIV'ON"
(a) (Mishnah): When the Mishkan was set up in Nov and (later in) Giv'on (Bamos were permitted...(Rashi's text - Ma'aser Sheni was permitted in all Arei Yisrael.)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa): "Ki Lo Vasem Ad Ata El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" - "Menuchah" refers to Shilo, "Nachalah" refers to Yerushalayim;
1. Question: (The verse teaches that Bamos will be permitted until Shilo -) why does the verse also allude to Yerushalayim?
2. Answer: This teaches that Bamos were permitted in the period between Shilo and Yerushalayim.
(d) Question (Reish Lakish): This implies that the Kedushah of Shilo lapsed when it was destroyed - if so, Ma'aser Sheni should have to be brought to Nov and Giv'on! (Rashi - but the Mishnah permits it in all Arei Yisrael; Tosfos - why did the Tana omit this law?)
(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): We learn Ma'aser Sheni from a Gezerah Shavah "Sham-Sham" from the Aron;
1. Since the Aron was not in Nov and Giv'on, Ma'aser Sheni need not be brought there (or, it could not be eaten anywhere - Tosfos.)
(f) Question: If so, you should say the same regarding Pesach and Kodshim, they are also learned from "Sham-Sham"!
(g) Answer: Our Tana is R. Shimon, who says that even the Tzibur only offered Pesach and Chovos that have a fixed time, but Chovos without a fixed time were not offered at all;
1. Ma'aser Behemah is a Chovah without a fixed time (so it was not offered), and Ma'aser Sheni is equated to Ma'aser Behemah.
(h) Inference: According to R. Yehudah, Ma'aser Behemah was offered in Nov and Giv'on, Ma'aser Sheni had to be eaten there!
(i) Confirmation: This is correct!
1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): According to R. Yehudah, Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser Behemah were eaten in Nov and Giv'on.
(j) Question: They must be eaten in a Birah (city)!
(k) Answer: Indeed, Rav Yosef taught that there were three Biros - Shilo, Nov and Giv'on and the Beis ha'Mikdash.
1. (Rav Yosef): The Birah in Nov and Giv'on was for the sake of eating Ma'aser Sheni.
2) "HA'MENUCHAH VEHA'NACHALAH"
(a) (Mishnah): When the Beis ha'Mikdash was built in Yerushalayim, Bamos were forbidden forever...
(b) (Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): "Ki Lo Vasem Ad Ata El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" - "Menuchah" refers to Shilo, "Nachalah" refers to Yerushalayim;
1. It says "Haysah Li Nachalasi k'Aryeh va'Ya'ar", it also says "Ha'Ayit Tzavu'a Nachalasi Li ha'Ayit Saviv Aleha" (its enemies gather around it);
(c) R. Shimon says, "Menuchah" is Yerushalayim, "Nachalah" is Shilo;
1. It says "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad Po Eshev Ki Ivisiha", and it says "Vachar Hash-m b'Tziyon Ivah l'Moshav Lo".
(d) Question: We understand according to R. Yehudah why the verse mentions Menuchah before Nachalah - but according to R. Shimon, the order should be reversed!
(e) Answer: The verse teaches, Bamos are permitted, for not only have you not reached Yerushalayim, you have not even reached Shilo (but then, they will be forbidden).
(f) (Beraisa #2 - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Both of them refer to Shilo.
(g) (R. Shimon ben Yochai): Both of them refer to Yerushalayim. (Apparently, Tana'im argue about R. Shimon's opinion, or R. Shimon retracted.)
(h) Question: We understand according to (both opinions in) Beraisa #1, Menuchah and Nachalah refer to different places;
1. But according to (both opinions in) Beraisa #2, Menuchah and Nachalah refer to the same place - it should say 'ha'Menuchah veha'Nachalah', why does it say "*V'El* ha'Nachalah"?
(i) This is left difficult.
(j) Question: We understand according to Tana d'vei R. Yishmael - Shilo is called Menuchah for they rested from conquest,
1. It is called Nachalah for that is where inheritances were apportioned - "Va'Yashlech Lehem Yehoshua Goral b'Shilo".
2. According to R. Shimon ben Yochai (i.e. his opinion in Beraisa #2), we understand why Yerushalayim is called Nachalah, for it is the eternal inheritance (dwelling of Shechinah);
3. But why it is called Menuchah?
(k) Answer: It is where the Aron rested - "...L'Nuchecha Ata va'Aron Uzecha" (perhaps this is the verse alluded to.)
(l) Question: We understand according to R. Shimon ben Yochai, Bamos were permitted until Yerushalayim, "Va'Yikach Mano'ach...va'Ya'al Al ha'Tzur la'Sh-m";
1. But according to Tana d'vei R. Yishmael (and the Tana'im in Beraisa #1), Bamos were forbidden at this time (Shilo was standing!)
(m) Answer: This was Hora'as Sha'ah (Hash-m permitted it, just like he permitted Eliyahu to offer on Har ha'Karmel.)
(n) (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Both of these refer to Yerushalayim.
(o) R. Shimon ben Yochai persuaded Tana d'vei R. Yishmael to retract.
3) LIABILITY FOR "SHECHITAS CHUTZ" AND "HA'ALAS CHUTZ"
(a) (Mishnah): If a Korban (was Hukdash when Bamos were permitted and offered when Bamos were forbidden, he transgresses an Ase and a Lav, there is no Kares.)
(b) (Rav Kahana): There is no Kares for slaughter, there is Kares for Ha'alah (offering on a Bamah.)
(c) Question: What is the reason?
(d) Answer: (The Parshah of Ha'alah b'Chutz begins) "Va'Aleihem Tomar...", we read this like 'Va'Aleihem' (with an Ayin, i.e. it is a continuation of the previous Parshah, which discussed Shechutei Chutz of a Korban Hukdash when Bamos were permitted, there is no Kares for this.)
(e) Objection #1 (Rabah): "Va'Aleihem" is written (and read) with an Aleph (to them (Benei Yisrael) tell...), it is not an addendum to the previous verse!
(f) Objection #2 (Beraisa - R. Shimon): There are four general rules about Kodshim:
1. If a Korban was Hukdash, slaughtered and offered (b'Chutz) at a time of Isur (when Bamos were forbidden), he transgresses an Ase and a Lav, there is Kares;
2. If it was Hukdash at a time of Heter and slaughtered and offered at a time of Isur, he transgresses an Ase and a Lav, there is no Kares;
3. If it was Hukdash at a time of Isur and slaughtered and offered at a time of Heter, he transgresses an Ase, there is no Lav or Kares;
4. If it was Hukdash, slaughtered and offered at a time of Heter, he does not transgress anything.
(g) Rav Kahana is refuted.
4) "AVODOS" THAT DO NOT APPLY TO "BAMOS"
(a) (Mishnah): The following apply on a Bamas Tzibur, not on a Bamas Yachid - Semichah...
(b) We learn Semichah from "Lifnei Hash-m v'Somach";
(c) We learn slaughter (of Kodshei Kodoshim) in the north from "Tzafonah Lifnei Hash-m";
(d) We learn Zerikah Soviv (two Matanos that are like four) from "Al ha'Mizbe'ach Soviv (Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed)" (Vayikra 1:5);
(e) We learn Tenufah from "Lehanif Tenufah Lifnei Hash-m" (Vayikra 10:15);
(f) We learn Hagashah from "V'Higishah El ha'Mizbe'ach".
(g) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (Tenufah and Hagashah do not apply, for) a Minchah is not offered on a Bamah.
(h) (Rav Sheshes): According to the opinion that Menachos may be brought on a Bamah, also birds may be brought on a Bamah;
1. According to the opinion that Menachos are not brought on a Bamah, also birds are not brought.
2. This latter opinion (R. Yehudah) expounds "Zevachim" to exclude Menachos, and also to exclude birds.
(i) We learn Kehunah from "V'Zorak ha'Kohen (...Pesach Ohel Mo'ed)";
(j) We learn Bigdei Shares (Bigdei Kehunah) from "B'Vo'am El Ohel Mo'ed...Leshares ba'Kodesh" (Rashi - "Asher Yesharsu Vam ba'Kodesh" (Bamidbar 4:12));
(k) We learn Re'ach Nicho'ach from ("Pesach Ohel Mo'ed...l'Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Sh-m";
(l) We learn a separation of (upper and lower) blood from "V'Haysah ha'Reshes Ad Chetzi *ha*'Mizbe'ach (the special Mizbe'ach, i.e. in the Mishkan)";
(m) We learn washing hands and feet from "(B'Vo'am El Ohel Mo'ed) uv'Karvasam El ha'Mizbe'ach Yirchatzu..."
(n) Version #1 (Rami bar Chama): (We adopt the text of Shitah Mekubetzes.) A division of blood only applies to Kodshim of (i.e. that were Hukdeshu for) a Bamas Tzibur that were offered on a Bamas Tzibur, not to Kodshim of a Bamas Yachid offered on a Bamas Tzibur.
(o) Question (Rabah - Beraisa): Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah apply (are given to and eaten by Kohanim) on a Bamas Tzibur, not on a Bamas Yachid. (Similarly, for every difference between Bamos Tzibur and Yachid, the law depends on where they were offered, not what they were Hukdeshu for!)
(p) Answer: It means, Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah apply to Kodshei Bamas Tzibur, not to Kodshei Bamas Yachid.
(q) Version #2 (Rami bar Chama): A division of blood only applies to Kodshim offered on Bamas Tzibur at a time of Bamas Tzibur (i.e. Isur Bamas Yachid), not at a time of (Heter) Bamas Yachid, even if they were offered on a Bamas Tzibur.
(r) Question (Rabah - Beraisa): Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah apply to a Bamas Tzibur, not to a Bamas Yachid. (The laws depend on where they were offered, not whether or not Bamos are permitted!)
(s) Answer: It means, Chazeh v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah apply at a time of Bamas Tzibur, not at a time of Bamas Yachid.