skip to main |
skip to sidebar
According to Rabbi Yishmael, both “resting place” and “inheritance” refer to Shiloh, and no verse is needed to teach that private altars were permitted in between, because we find many righteous individual using them. According to Rabbi Shimon, both refer to Jerusalem, and private altars were always permitted before then.
Private altar does not require leaning on the sacrifice, or the northern side of the altar, or application of blood all around the altar, or waving the offering, or bringing the flour offering to the southern corner of the altar. Rabbi Yehudah says that there are no flour offerings on a private altar.
Art: John William Waterhouse - A Roman Offering
The days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were forty years minus one, that is, thirty-nine: in the first year following the Exodus from Egypt Moses built the Tabernacle, in the second year it was erected, and then Moses sent out the spies, which led to a 40-year stay in the desert.
The days of the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal numbered 14 years: 7 during the conquest of the Land of Israel, and 7 years while the land was divided. We know this from the life of Calev, who was 40 when the spies were sent out, 78 when they crossed the Jordan, and 85 when the land was conquered. Since the land was being conquered for 7 years, we can assume that it was also divided for 7 years.
The Tabernacle then stood in Shiloh for 369 years. In Nov and Giveon it stood for another 57 years, moving between these two places - and we know this from the lives of Eli the Priest and Samuel - until the Temple was built.
Art: Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight In The Wilderness
When the Jews lived in the desert, their encampment was divided into three areas: the Tabernacle, or the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Levite Camp, and the Israelite camp. Corresponding to these, in the times of the Temple there were the Temple, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem.
Each area had its laws. A Metzora (spiritual leper) may not enter the Israelite camp, that is, Jerusalem at the time of the Temple, and the encampment at the time of the desert. An accidental murder was exiled to the Levite Camp, and in the time of the Temple, to one of the cities where the Levites lived. If a Levi murdered by accident, he had to be exiled to another Levite city, but if we moved from one neighborhood to another, this was sufficient. One who was ritually impure because of contact with a dead body could enter the Levite Camp (Temple Mount), but not the Temple proper.
Art: Eugène-Alexis Girardet - Bedouins In The Desert
Could the sacrifices brought on private altar be eaten as peace-offerings, or did they have to be burned, as burnt-offerings? Those who say that they could be eaten point out that “Abel brought from the firstlings of his flock and from their fats...” - that is, he brought the fats but ate the rest. And those who say that Abel brought only burnt-offerings explain that he brought the fattest of the lambs and burned them completely.
But didn't Jethro bring peace-offerings? – Jethro came after the giving of the Torah, when eating sacrifices became allowed.
What did Jethro hear that he came? He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea. But why did Rahav say about it “No spirit remained erect in any man” (hint)? – She knew, because there was no leader or ruler who did not come to her. She started at 10, was a prostitute for 40 years, and converted at 50.
Art: Lovis (Franz Heinrich Louis) Corinth - The Painter Charlotte Berend With A Bull 1902
In five days we will finish Zevachim, dealing with animal sacrifices and start Menachot, the flour offerings! Great time to join Daf Yomi!! Good luck!!!
Art: Job Adriaensz. Berckheyde - The Baker 1681
One is not liable for burning outside those parts of the sacrifices that are eaten and do not go on the Altar. One is also not liable for actions that are not the last step in the service, thus, for example, one is not liable for separating a handful from the flour-offering, but is liable for burning it. Likewise, one is not liable for receiving the blood, but is liable for throwing it on the altar.
Initially sacrificial service was done by the firstborn, and everybody was allowed to build his private altar. This is mentioned in the Torah when it says, “And Moses sent the youths of the Children of Israel, and they brought up burnt offerings.” The firstborn lost this privilege after they worshipped the Golden Calf, and the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, began to serve in their stead.
Once the Tabernacle was erected, private altars became forbidden. When the Jews came Israel, crossed the Jordan, and erected the Tabernacle at Gilgal, near Jericho, private altars again became permitted. Finally, they became completely prohibited after the building of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Art: Johann Wilhelm Schirmer - The Departure Of The Man To Jericho Morning C.1856
If a sacrifice has a permanent blemish, then it cannot be brought “before God,” and therefore everybody agrees that one who sacrifices it outside the Temple is not liable. However, if one sacrifices an animal with a temporarily blemish, then Rabbi Shimon says that he violates a negative commandment and is liable to lashes, but the Sages consider him completely exempt.
The reason of the Sages is clear – a temporarily blemished animal cannot be currently brought “before God,” but what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? - He bases his opinion on the phrase, “You shall not do everything we do today, each man what is proper in his eyes.” The word “proper” means “proper in the eyes of the man who offers” now, and will become so in the eyes of God later - and it is this action that "you shall not do."
Art: Giovanni Segantini - Il reddito del pastore
The root of their argument is the question whether the Flood extended to the Land of Israel. According to Resh Lakish, it did, and therefore there were remains of people embedded in the earth. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the Flood did not visit Israel, and people's remains were not a concern.
But did not Nebuchadnezzar also kill Jews? - Their remains were cleared away, says Rabbi Yochanan. And Resh Lakish? He says that they were cleared away from Jerusalem, but not outside.
But if the Flood did cover Israel, how did the gigantic sheep called Re'em survive? According to Rabbi Yochanan, all is well, and the Re'em stood in Israel. Says Resh Lakish, Re'em was then a young cub! But Rabbah bar bar Chanah saw a cub of a Re'em, and it was like a mount Tabor! Says Resh Lakish – his nostril fit inside the Arc.
Art: Bonaventura, the Elder Peeters - The Great Flood
A Red Heifer is a cow that is slaughtered east of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives and is burned in a special pit excavated for this purpose. Its ashes, mixed with spring water, are used to purify people from ritual contamination caused by a corpse. If one sacrifices this cow as an offering outside the Temple, he is not liable, because the phrase “and to the entrance of the Tent of the Meeting he did not bring it” does not apply to it. In the same way the scapegoat that is sent away on Yom Kippur does not entail liability if sacrificed outside.
Other animals do not entail liability for sacrificing outside because they are cannot be brought “as an offering before God.” This list includes an animal that has sodomized a person or was sodomized by a man, one designated as idolatrous sacrifice or one that was worshipped, one that was used as dog's exchange or a harlot's payment, torn by a wild beast, or born by Caesarean section.
Art: Van Gogh - Cows after Jordaens
If one performed proper killing (melikah, when its head is severed from the nape) of the bird, and he did it in the Temple, and then offered that bird outside, he is liable, because with melikah the bird becomes fit for the Altar. However, if he performed melikah outside, he is not liable either for that, or for bringing it up. Melikah way of killing outside the Temple is not proper, and it makes the bird unfit for consumption and invalid as a sacrifice.
If he performed regular kosher slaughter of the bird with a knife and offered it up – he is, contrary to the expectations, liable, because of an additional phrase “or who will slaughter.”
We thus find that what makes the bird a valid sacrifice (melikah) inside makes one not liable if done outside, and what makes one liable (shechitah, or kosher slaughter) outside makes one not liable if done inside.
Art: Perrault Leon Jean Basile - The Bird Charmer 1873
A flour offering includes flour, oil, and frankincense. A handful of flour is separated first and burned on the Altar, and then the remainder is eaten by the Kohanim. If one burned this remainder as an offering outside the Temple, he is not liable, because the remainder was not destined for the Altar. If, however, he mixed the handful back in and burned the mixture outside – he is liable, because after all the handful has been burned.
If one throws a part of the sacrificial blood upon an altar outside the Temple, he is liable. On Sukkot, they poured pure water on the Altar, in addition to wine, and Rabbi Elazar says that for puring this water outside one is also liable. Rabbi Nechemia makes one liable even for pouring the remnants of the blood of the offering, since the remnants are supposed to go to the base of the Altar.
Art: Gerrit Dou - Woman Pouring Water Into A Jar
What is Rabbi Yose's reason? - It is written, “and Noah built an altar to God” - which proves that an altar is required. And what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? - It is written, “And Manoach took the goat-kid and the flour offering and he offered them up on the rock to God.”
How does Rabbi Shimon explain Noah's altar? - He says it was built only to provide comfortable height upon which to perform the sacrifice. And how does Rabbi Yose explain the rock of Manoach? - An angel told Manoach to act thus.
For what sacrifices is one liable when offering them outside? - Any valid sacrifice, or even an invalid one if it would be accepted on the Altar after the fact. One is liable for offering an olive's volume of the meat, flour, and incense. For non-blood offerings, Rabbi Elazar makes him liable only for a complete amount.
Art: Adam Colonia - Noah Leaving the Ark
If one takes an animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice and slaughters it for someone's consumption, he is liable to slaughtering outside. If, however, he offers it up for someone, he is not liable for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple, because he did not dedicate it to God. In truth, he is liable for idol worship for worshiping that human, but that is a different liability.
Offering up is more stringent in this way: if two people held a knife together and slaughtered a sacrifice outside the Temple, they are not liable, but if they took a sacrificial limb and offered it up, they are liable.
If one offered a limb of a sacrifice, then became aware that it was prohibited, then forgot it, then offered another limb, again became aware and again forgot it, and so on, he is liable for each limb – so says Rabbi Shimon, but Rabbi Yose makes him liable just once.
Art: William Lucas - Sharpening The Knife 1868
The verse states, “And any man from the House of Israel who will slaughter an ox, a sheep or goat in the camp... and he did not bring it to the Tent of the Meeting... ” We might think that even if he takes a sacrifice that is normally brought in the northern part of the Courtyard and slaughters it in the southern part of the Courtyard – he would already be liable. To dispel this notion, the Torah added, “outside the camp.”
But now that the Torah has said, “outside the camp,” you might think this to mean outside of all three special camps, that is, outside the Temple, outside the Temple Mount, and even outside Jerusalem – that only then one would be liable. For that, the Torah said, “in the camp.” Thus, if he slaughters a sacrifices in the south, even if it is not its place, it is not called “outside,” because some other sacrifices can be brought there. However, if he slaughters it outside the Courtyard, then he is liable for “slaughter outside.”
Art: Cornelis van Leemputten - Shepherdess with Sheep in a Landscape
If one slaughtered and burned a sacrifice outside the Temple, he is liable for slaughtering it, and he is liable for burning it as well. Rabbi Yose HaGlili says: “If he slaughtered the sacrifices inside the Temple, so that it was indeed valid, and then burned it outside, then he is liable for burning. But if he slaughtered it outside, then it became invalid right away, and he is not liable if he then burns it.”
But the Sages told him, “Even in your case, when he slaughtered the sacrifice inside the Temple, it becomes invalid as soon as he takes it out. Then he should not be liable for burning it outside! According to your logic, Rabbi Yose, one should never be liable for burning an offering outside. This proves that you are wrong, and that when one slaughtered and burned an offering outside the Temple, he is liable for both acts.
Challenge: what can Rabbi Yose answer in his defense?
Art: Abel Grimmer - A Wooded Winter Village Landscape With Peasants Slaughtering
Rabbi Elazar asked the following question, “If exactly half of the carcass of a bull or a goat that are burned has left the Courtyard, together with the majority of one of its limb, is the remaining part of that limb considered outside, together with the limb? Or perhaps, since the limb belongs to the body, and the body is only half-out, then the limb is considered inside?” To this there was no answer.
Some say that Rabbi Eliezer asked a different question: “If three of the five carriers have left the Courtyard, are the other two carriers considered already out and impure?” To this there was also no answer.
Rabbi Elazar asked another question, “Do the bulls that are burned already contaminate foods and liquids while they are still inside the Courtyard?” Since they will have a very strong impurity when they are out of the Courtyard, perhaps it is enough to make food and liquids impure, since these are easily rendered impure. Afterwards he himself resolved it: prior to their exiting from the Courtyard they are not fully considered bulls that are burned, and thus they do not contaminate the food yet.”
Art: Henri De Toulouse-Lautrec - Two Bulls Wearing a Yoke
There are special sin-offerings, such as the goat brought for communal idol worship, that are not eaten but are burned in a designated place outside Jerusalem, called the place of ashes. These offerings contaminate the people who are carrying them, and they contaminate even the people's clothing. The offerings were carried out on poles. The first group of carriers becomes impure when it leaves the Courtyard, while the second group remains pure until they in their turn leave the Courtard. Rabbi Shimon says that none of them become impure until the fire catches onto the larger part of the sacrifice.
Art: Giovacchino Toma - The Rain Of Ashes, 1880
Therefore, the rule is that whenever the Altar does not get the right to the meat, the kohanim do not get the right to the hide. However, if an offering was valid even for some time, so that the Altar got the right to the meat, the kohanim acquired the right to the hide. This rule is derived from a phrase “the burnt offering of a man.” Since the rule would be also true for a woman, the extra word “man” teaches us that it was valid for men to eat.
Hides of regular offerings, such as a peace offering, belong to their owners. Hides of all most holy offerings other than the burnt offering also belong to the kohanim, and this is derived through logic: if in the case of a burnt offering, where the kohanim do not eat the meat, the hide nevertheless goes to them, then for a sin offering, where the kohanim do eat the meat, certainly the hide goes to them.
Art: Pieter Gysels - Still Life with Vegetables Meat Fruit and Game
Rav made the following statement: “Our teacher Moses was a High Priest and shared in the offerings – as the Torah says, 'from the ram of inauguration was a portion of Moses'”. Now he had to face the challenges.
In the previous argument with Aaron about eating the sin-offering, why didn't Moses eat it himself, for he, unlike them, was not precluded by mourning? Rav answered – he was busy talking to God from morning till evening.
When Miriam contracted leprosy, it was not Moses, who was not a kohen, who pronounced her status, and not Aaron, who was a relative, but it was God himself, who also was a kohen, Who confined her and later released her. We see from this that Moses was not a kohen! - No, maybe leprosy is specifically given to the sons of Aaron to decide.
In truth this is an argument found between earlier authorities of the Mishna, for when God became angry with Moses for refusing to go Egypt, this, unlike all other angers, left no mark – so says Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha. However, Rabbi Shimon says that this anger too left a mark, and Aaron became a kohen instead of Moses, who thus remained a Levi.
Art: Jules Charles Boquet - Mourning
