שִׁילֹה, ״נַחֲלָה״ – זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אִי נַמִי אִיפְּכָא – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וְזוֹ שִׁילֹה, אוֹ זוֹ וְזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, ״מְנוּחָה נַחֲלָה״ מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

a reference to Shiloh, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, or the reverse, i.e., that “rest” is a reference to Jerusalem and “inheritance” is a reference to Shiloh, this is as it is written: “To the rest and to the inheritance [ el hamenuḥa ve’el hanaḥala ],” utilizing two different phrases. But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that this and that are both references to Shiloh, or according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai that both this and that are references to Jerusalem, the verse should have stated: For you have not as yet come to the rest and inheritance [ menuḥa naḥala ]. The Gemara concedes that this is difficult.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וְזוֹ שִׁילֹה, ״מְנוּחָה״ – דְּנָחוּ מִכִּיבּוּשׁ, ״נַחֲלָה״ (זוֹ) – דִּפְלַגוּ הָתָם נְחָלוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְחַלֵּק לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיַּפֵּל לָהֶם גּוֹרָל בְּשִׁילֹה עַל פִּי ה׳״.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says this and that are references to Shiloh, each of the designations may be explained: It is called “rest” because during the period of Shiloh they rested from the conquest in the time of Joshua, and it is called “inheritance” because they divided the portions of land among the tribes there, as it is written: “And Joshua divided the land for them, and he cast a lot for them in Shiloh according to the Lord” (Joshua 18:10).

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וְזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״נַחֲלָה״ – נַחֲלַת עוֹלָמִים, אֶלָּא ״מְנוּחָה״, מַאי מְנוּחָה? מְנוּחַת אָרוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּנוֹחַ הָאָרוֹן״.

But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says this and that are references to Jerusalem, granted that “inheritance” is a reference to Jerusalem, since it is an eternal inheritance. But with regard to “rest,” what rest was there in the Temple in Jerusalem? The Gemara answers: The rest of the Ark, as it is written: And when the ark rested. In other words, verses occasionally refer to the Temple in Jerusalem as the resting place of the Ark.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וְזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֲבָל שִׁילֹה הֲוָה שַׁרְיָא בָּמוֹת – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח מָנוֹחַ אֶת גְּדִי הָעִזִּים וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיַּעַל עַל הַצּוּר לַה׳״.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that this and that are references to Jerusalem, and consequently private altars were forbidden only following the establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem, but during the period of the Tabernacle in Shiloh private altars were permitted, this is as it is written: “So Manoah took the kid with the meal offering, and offered them upon the rock to the Lord” (Judges 13:19),

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וְזוֹ שִׁילֹה, וּבָמוֹת הֲוָה אֲסִירָן, מַאי ״וַיִקַּח מָנוֹחַ״? הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.

But according to the one, i.e., the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that 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? The Gemara answers: Permitting this sacrifice was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances.

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, דְּאָמַר: זוֹ וְזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וְסִימָנֵיךְ: מָשְׁכִי גַּבְרָא לְגַבְרֵי.

The Gemara notes that with regard to the disagreement between the tanna’im over the interpretation of the words “rest” and “inheritance,” there is another version of that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, which is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that this and that are references to Jerusalem. And your mnemonic to remember this is: The man pulled the men, meaning: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who is an individual, pulled, i.e., convinced, the members of the school of Rabbi Yishmael to adopt his opinion.

״כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ [וכו׳]. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל בְּהַעֲלָאָה – כָּרֵת נַמִי מִיחַיַּיב.

§ The mishna teaches that with regard to all offerings that one consecrated during a period of the permitting of private altars and sacrificed outside their designated area during a period of prohibition of private altars, one is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but he is not liable to receive karet for sacrificing them. With regard to this, 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 .

מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַאֲלֵהֶם תֹּאמַר״ – עַל הַסְּמוּכִין תֹּאמַר.

What is the reason for this? It is that immediately following the Torah’s description of an offering that was consecrated during a period of the permitting of private altars the verse states the penalty for sacrificing outside the designated area: “And to them [ va’alehem ] you shall say” (Leviticus 17:8). The term “ alehem ,” to them, the first letter of which is the letter aleph , is phonetically similar to the term: Alehem , about them, the first letter of which is the letter ayin . Therefore, the verse can be understood to mean: About that which is written in the adjacent passage you shall say. The preceding passage discusses offerings that were slaughtered outside the Temple, so although there is no penalty of karet for their slaughter, one is liable for karet for sacrificing them upon a private altar.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַבָּה: מִי כְּתִיב ״וַעֲלֵיהֶם תֹּאמַר״? ״אֲלֵהֶם״ כְּתִיב, וַ״אֲלֵיהֶם״ קָרֵינַן!

Rava objects to this: Is it written: And about them you shall say? “To them” is written, and we read it as “to them.” The verse means that the command should be relayed to Aaron, his sons, and the Jewish people, who are mentioned in the beginning of the passage.

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה כְּלָלוֹת הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר בָּקֳדָשִׁים: הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת בַּחוּץ – הֲרֵי הֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כָּרֵת. הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת.

And additionally, it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Shimon would say four principles with regard to sacrificial animals: With regard to offerings that one consecrated during a period of prohibition of private altars, and slaughtered and offered up outside their designated area during a period of prohibition of private altars, for these one is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, and they carry the punishment of karet . With regard to one who consecrated them during a period of the permitting of private altars, and slaughtered and offered them up during a period of prohibition of private altars, for these one is in violation of a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but they do not carry the punishment of karet .

הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה, וְאֵין בָּהֶן בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה.

With regard to one who consecrated them during a period of prohibition of private altars, and slaughtered and offered them up outside their designated area during a period of the permitting of private altars, for these one is in violation of a positive mitzva, but one has not violated a prohibition with regard to them.

הִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת וְשָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת – פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

With regard to one who consecrated them during a period of the permitting of private altars, and slaughtered and offered them up during a period of the permitting of private altars, he is exempt from all violations. The baraita states explicitly that there is no distinction between slaughtering and offering up on a private altar: In both cases, one who consecrated the offering during a period of the permitting of private altars and slaughtered or offered it up during a period of prohibition of private altars is exempt from the punishment of karet . The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Kahana, who distinguished between slaughter and offering up, is a conclusive refutation.

״וְאֵלּוּ קֳדָשִׁים״ [וכו׳]. סְמִיכָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְסָמַךְ״.

§ The mishna teaches: And these are the consecrated items, and lists components of the sacrificial service that were performed only on a great public altar, i.e., in the Tabernacle, and not on a private altar. The Gemara clarifies the source of each ritual on the list: The source for the halakha concerning placing hands on the head of an offering is as it is written: “If his offering be a burnt offering…he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. And he shall lay his hand

שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן – דִּכְתִיב: ״צָפוֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה׳״. מַתָּנוֹת סָבִיב – דִּכְתִיב ״וְזָרַק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב (סָבִיב)״.

The source for the halakha concerning slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order in the north is as it is written: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:11). The source for the halakha concerning placement of the blood of a burnt offering around, i.e., on all four sides of, the altar, is as it is written: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall…sprinkle the blood roundabout against the altar that is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 1:5).

תְּנוּפָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳״. הַגָּשָׁה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.

The source for the halakha concerning waving of those offerings that require waving is as it is written: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs, and offer it for a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12). The source for the halakha concerning bringing meal offerings to the corner of the altar before the removal of the handful is as it is written: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). The definite article before the word “altar” indicates that this applies only to the altar in the Tabernacle, and not on a private altar.

״רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה״. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – יֵשׁ עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – אֵין עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה;

§ With regard to the question of whether a meal offering was sacrificed upon an altar outside the Temple, the mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, even a great public altar, e.g., the Tabernacle in Gilgal, Nov, and Gibeon. Rav Sheshet says: According to the statement of the one who says there is a meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, there are also bird offerings sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple. According to the statement of the one who says there is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple, there are also no bird offerings sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple.

״זְבָחִים״ – וְלֹא מְנָחוֹת, ״זְבָחִים״ – וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת.

The reason for this is that the Torah is referring to offerings that were sacrificed during the period of the permitting of private altars as: Slaughtered offerings [ zevaḥim ], in the verse: “And sacrifice them for sacrifices of [ vezaveḥu zivḥei ] peace offerings” (Leviticus 17:5), from which it may be inferred: Slaughtered offerings but not meal offerings; slaughtered offerings but not bird offerings,

וְכֹהֵן – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזָרַק הַכֹּהֵן״, בִּגְדֵי שָׁרֵת – ״לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״,

The Gemara continues detailing the distinctions between great public altars and small private altars: And a priest is required only at a public altar, as it is written: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:6). Priestly service vestments are required only at a public altar, as it is written: “And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons when they go into the Tent of Meeting or when they come near to the altar to minister in the sacred place” (Exodus 28:43).

וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – ״אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ בָם בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״. לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״.

And with regard to service vessels, it is written: “And they shall take all the service vessels wherewith they serve in the sacred place” (Numbers 4:12). With regard to a pleasing aroma, i.e., that limbs that had previously been roasted off the altar should not be placed upon the altar, it is required only on a public altar, as it is written: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and the priest shall make the fat smoke for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6).

מְחִיצָה בְּדָמִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה הָרֶשֶׁת עַד חֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. רִיחוּץ יָדַיִם – דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְקָרְבָתָם אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יִרְחָצוּ״.

A partition for the blood, i.e., the red line that divides the altar, as the blood of some offerings, e.g., a sin offering, was sprinkled above the line, and the blood of other offerings, e.g., a burnt offering, was sprinkled below the line, was required only on a public altar, as it is written: “And the net may reach halfway up the altar” (Exodus 27:5). The definite article before the word “altar” indicates that this applied only to the altar in the Tabernacle. With regard to the requirement for washing of hands and feet before the service, it is required only on a public altar, as it is written: “When they went into the Tent of Meeting and when they came near to the altar, they shall wash” (Exodus 40:32).

אֲמַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה וְהִקְרִיבוּם בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה, אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה דְקָרְבִינְהוּ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה – יֵשׁ חִיצּוּי.

§ Concerning the halakha requiring a partition for the blood, and other halakhot that did not apply to a private altar but did apply to a great public altar, Rami bar Ḥama said: The Sages taught that there is no requirement for a partition only with regard to consecrated sacrificial items to be used on a small private altar, and which one sacrificed upon a small private altar. But in the case of consecrated sacrificial items to be used on a small private altar that were sacrificed upon a great public altar, there is a partition.

מוֹתִיב רַבָּה: חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק, תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה! אֵימָא: נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה.

Rabba raised an objection from a baraita : The halakha of waving the breast and the thigh of a peace offering and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies with regard to sacrificial items of a great public altar and does not apply with regard to sacrificial items of a small private altar, even if they were sacrificed upon a great public altar. The Gemara responds: Say that the text of the baraita should be the following: The halakha of waving the breast and thigh and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies to a great public altar, even with regard to a sacrificial item of a small private altar, but does not apply to a small private altar.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְהִקְרִיבָן בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָרְבִינְהוּ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה – אֵין חִיצּוּי.

Some say that Rami bar Ḥama said: The Sages taught that there is a requirement for a partition only with regard to sacrificial items of a great public altar that were sacrificed upon a great public altar. But in the case of sacrificial items of a small private altar, even though they were sacrificed upon a great public altar, there is no partition.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק וּתְרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּקָדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rami bar Ḥama: Waving of the breast and thigh of a peace offering and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies to sacrificial items of a great public altar, and does not apply to sacrificial items of a small private altar.

אֵימָא: נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ בִּפְנִים – קְלָטוּהָ מְחִיצוֹת לְכָל דָּבָר.

The Gemara responds: No proof may be brought from here, as I will say that it means the halakha of waving the breast and thigh and the teruma of the loaves of a thanks offering applies to a great public altar, even with regard to the sacrificial items of a private altar, and does not apply to a small private altar. The Gemara notes: And this latter version of Rami bar Ḥama’s statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: A burnt offering of a private altar that one brought inside, i.e., into the area of a great public altar, is absorbed, i.e., sanctified, by the partitions for all matters.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד

With regard to the previous matter, Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to a burnt offering of a private altar