Talmud - Zevahim 118a זבחים קי״ח א׳

And Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an individual may also sacrifice compulsory offerings on a great public altar, could have said to you that when the phrase “whatsoever is fitting” is written, indicating that individuals may sacrifice only vow offerings and gift offerings, it is with regard to “in his own eyes” that it is written. In other words, it is referring to a location that is fitting in his eyes for sacrifice, i.e., a private altar. But on a great public altar, even compulsory offerings may be sacrificed.

The Gemara asks: But even if that derivation is correct, isn’t “man” written in that verse? Isn’t that to say that with regard to “a man,” i.e., an individual, only offerings that one deems fitting to sacrifice may be sacrificed, but compulsory offerings may not be sacrificed? The Gemara replies: When “man” is written in this verse, it is to qualify a non-priest to perform the sacrificial service on a private altar.

The Gemara challenges: But the fact that a non-priest is qualified to perform the sacrificial service on a private altar is derived from the verse: “And the priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:6). The verse indicates that service at a great public altar may be performed only by a priest, from which it is inferred that the service on a private altar may be performed by a non-priest as well.

The Gemara replies: Lest you say that whereas that verse indicates it is not required that the service on a private altar be performed by a priest, nevertheless consecration of the firstborn is required for this purpose, as was the case initially, i.e., before the Tabernacle was constructed. Perhaps the only non-priests who may perform the service on private altars are the firstborn sons. Therefore, the verse states: “Every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes,” which teaches us that with regard to private altars, each person may sacrifice his own offerings.

§ The Gemara clarifies the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, by questioning: But the statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis cited at the beginning of the baraita, who say that on a private altar an individual sacrificed only burnt offerings and peace offerings. What is the difference between the first tanna and the Rabbis?

Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is whether libations were offered in the wilderness along with burnt offerings and peace offerings. According to the opinion of the first tanna, libations were not offered in the wilderness, nor were they offered in Eretz Yisrael during the period of Gilgal. According to the Rabbis in the latter section of the baraita, libations were offered in the wilderness and in Gilgal.

§ The Master said in the baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that even the public did not sacrifice all offerings in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal; they sacrificed only Paschal offerings and compulsory public offerings that have a set time. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written: “And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal; and they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho” (Joshua 5:10).

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that they brought the Paschal offering? The Paschal offering is compulsory. Rather, this verse teaches us that in Gilgal, only compulsory offerings similar to the Paschal offering, i.e., that have a set time, were sacrificed, but offerings that are not similar to the Paschal offering were not sacrificed. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that during the period of Gilgal other offerings were sacrificed by the public, interpret the verse?

The Gemara responds: It is necessary for the halakha that was taught by Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: If an uncircumcised Jew contracted ritual impurity from a corpse, he may receive sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh days of his purification, despite the fact that he is uncircumcised. In the time of Joshua, the Jewish people became circumcised after they were purified from impurity imparted by a corpse.

§ With regard to the Paschal offering and compulsory public offerings that have a set time mentioned by Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The difference between a great public altar, e.g., the altar in Gilgal, and a small private altar is only that the Paschal offering and compulsory offerings that have a set time may be sacrificed upon a great public altar, but not upon a private altar. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: From where would an individual sacrifice compulsory offerings that have a set time? There is no such offering brought by an individual. It was therefore unnecessary for the tanna to state that this type of offering is not sacrificed on a private altar.

The tanna said to him: If so, shall I remove it from the text of the mishna, and teach only: Paschal offerings? Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: That is not necessary; interpret your mishna as referring to a compulsory burnt offering, i.e., the burnt offering of appearance brought on the pilgrimage Festivals by every individual, which is not sacrificed on a private altar, as there is, conversely, a voluntary burnt offering that may be sacrificed on a private altar. This baraita must be discussing a burnt offering brought by an individual, as if it is referring to a sin offering brought by an individual, are there compulsory sin offerings that have a set time?

The Gemara asks: And let him establish the baraita as referring to the compulsory meal offering of an individual, which has a set time, as there is the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest was obligated to sacrifice every day and that may be sacrificed only upon a great public altar, not upon a private altar. The Gemara replies: Rav Adda bar Ahava holds that there is no meal offering sacrificed upon an altar outside the Temple, even a great public altar.

§ The mishna teaches that when they arrived at Shiloh, private altars were prohibited. There was no roof of wood or stone in the Tabernacle in Shiloh; there was only a building of stone below, and the curtains of the roof of the Tabernacle were spread above it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One verse states, with regard to Hannah bringing Samuel to the Tabernacle: “And she brought him to the house of the Lord in Shiloh” (I Samuel 1:24), and one verse states: “And He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent that He had made to dwell among men” (Psalms 78:60). And in addition, it is written: “Moreover he abhorred the tent of Joseph and chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78:67).

One verse describes the Tabernacle in Shiloh as a house, while the other describes it as a tent. How can these texts be reconciled? As the mishna states: There was no roof of wood or stone there; rather, there was stone below, and it was therefore described as a house, and the curtains of the Tabernacle were spread above it, and it was therefore described as a tent. And the period that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh was characterized in the Torah as “rest” in the verse: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 12:9).

§ The mishna teaches that during the period of Shiloh, offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Oshaya said: As in the context of the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Tabernacle, the verse states: “Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13), from which it may be inferred: You may not offer up in every place that you see, but you may eat the offerings in every place that you see.

The Gemara challenges: Say instead the following inference: You may not offer up offerings upon an altar in every place that you see, but you may slaughter offerings in every place that you see. It would therefore be permitted to slaughter offerings in any place that overlooks Shiloh.

Rabbi Yannai said that the subsequent verse states: “But in the place that the Lord shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:14). This verse teaches that all of the sacrificial service is performed in the place that the offering is burned, and only the consumption of offerings of lesser sanctity is permitted in any place that overlooks Shiloh.

Rabbi Avdimi bar Ḥasa said that when describing the boundaries of the portions of Eretz Yisrael of the children of Joseph, wherein Shiloh was located, the verse states:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Zevachim 118a examines whether private altars permit non-priests to offer sacrifices, contrasting compulsory and voluntary offerings through scriptural interpretation.