1) THE QUESTION OF REBBI ZEIRA
OPINIONS: Rebbi Zeira asks what the law is in the case of an Olah that was supposed to be offered on a Bamas Yachid (at a time when it is permitted to bring Korbanos on private Bamos), but was brought inside the partitions of a Bamah Gedolah and then brought back outside the partitions. Does the fact that it went within the partitions require that it be treated with the laws of a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah (see Mishnah 112b-113a), or since it exited the partitions afterwards, it is treated like a Korban of a Bamas Yachid?
Rebbi Zeira's question seems unclear. What stage in the process of the Avodah of this Korban does Rebbi Zeira's question address? Was the Korban slaughtered before it was brought into the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah, or was it alive at that time?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Ba'i Rav Ada) understands that the question involves an animal that remained alive during its transfer from the Bamas Yachid to the Bamah Gedolah and back. The question is whether all of the laws of a Bamah Gedolah apply to this animal.
(b) RASHI (DH she'Hichnisah Lifnim) explains that the question involves an animal that was already slaughtered at the site of a Bamas Yachid. After it was slaughtered, it was brought inside the partitions of a Bamah Gedolah, and then taken out again.
The CHOK NASAN has difficulty with the view of Rashi. How can Rebbi Zeira consider the possibility that this animal has all of the laws of a Korban offered on a Bamah Gedolah as a result of having entered the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah? If it belongs to the Bamah Gedolah, then it becomes Pasul with Yotzei immediately upon its exit from the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah! According to Tosfos, this is not a difficulty, because the Korban has not yet been slaughtered and there is no Pesul of Yotzei for a live animal. How does Rashi understand Rebbi Zeira's question?
1. The Chok Nasan suggests that there is no Pesul of exiting the partitions of a Bamah Gedolah when the Korban has the Kedushah of a Bamas Yachid and was slaughtered at a Bamas Yachid. The Pesul of Yotzei applies only when the Korban was intended solely for a Bamah Gedolah.
The YAD BINYAMIN challenges this explanation. Rashi in Me'ilah (3b, DH Kaltuhah) explains the statement of Rebbi Eliezer (cited by the Gemara here, 119b) that the walls of a Bamah Gedolah "secure for everything" an animal that was supposed to be offered on a Bamas Yachid. Rashi in Me'ilah mentions many of the laws that this includes, such as the potential for the animal to become Pasul with Yotzei if it leaves the confines of the Bamah Gedolah. This is the clearly the opposite of what the Chok Nasan writes in his first explanation of Rashi.
2. The Chok Nasan suggests a second explanation for Rashi, with which the Yad Binyamin agrees. When Rebbi Zeira asks about an "Olas Bamas Yachid," his question is not about a Korban Olah, but rather about a Korban Shelamim. A Korban Shelamim does not become Pasul as a result of leaving the walls of a Bamah Gedolah, since it may be eaten in all of the cities of Yisrael.
According to this explanation, how does Rashi explain Rebbi Zeira's usage of the word "Olah"? It appears that Rashi's text of the Gemara did not include this word. This is also apparent from the fact that Rashi (DH Mahu) explains that the Rebbi Zeira is asking about whether the animal requires Terumas Chazeh v'Shok, which is relevant only for a Korban Shelamim, and not for an Olah. Indeed, the SHINUY NUSCHA'OS quotes the OLAS SHLOMO who says that Rashi's text reads, "Korban Bamas Yachid" and not "Olas Bamas Yachid." (Y. MONTROSE)
2) THE QUESTION OF REBBI YANAI
QUESTION: Rebbi Yanai asks what the law is in the case of the limbs of an Olah designated for a Bamas Yachid which were placed on the Mizbe'ach of a Bamah Gedolah. Does the law of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu" apply to these limbs, such that once they have been placed on the Mizbe'ach they may not be removed?
Rebbi Yanai's question is difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (119b) quotes Rebbi Eliezer who states that the walls of a Bamah Gedolah "secure for everything" an animal that was supposed to be offered on a Bamas Yachid. The words "for everything" apparently refer to all of the laws relevant to this Korban which would apply if it was brought on a Bamah Gedolah. One of these laws is that its limbs are placed on the Mizbe'ach. Why, then, does Rebbi Yanai ask about whether or not its limbs should be removed from the Mizbe'ach? The law is that its limbs must be placed on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah*!
It is unreasonable to suggest that Rebbi Yanai disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer, because RASHI (DH d'Ba'i) mentions that in Me'ilah (3b), Rebbi Yanai's question is asked in the name of Rebbi Eliezer! The statement of Rebbi Eliezer here (119b), however, is clearly not in agreement with the question. What is the logic behind Rebbi Yanai's question?
ANSWERS:
(a) The YAD BINYAMIN explains that according to TOSFOS (DH Ba'i Rav Ada), this case differs from the case of Rebbi Eliezer's statement in the following way. Rebbi Eliezer is discussing a case in which the animal was alive the entire time. If it was brought into the confines of the Bamah Gedolah and then slaughtered there, Rebbi Eliezer's ruling that it is treated with all of the laws of a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah applies. Rebbi Yanai, in contrast, refers to a case in which the animal was slaughtered before it entered the confines of the Bamah Gedolah. In such a case, does the Korban also attain the status of a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah, even though it was slaughtered at a Bamas Yachid?
This explanation is valid only according to Tosfos. According to Rashi (DH she'Hichnisah), Rebbi Eliezer is discussing a case in which the animal was slaughtered at a Bamas Yachid before it was brought to the Bamah Gedolah. According to Rashi, what is Rebbi Yanai's doubt about whether the limbs of this animal may be placed on the Mizbe'ach?
(b) The KEREN ORAH and CHOK NASAN explain that according to Rashi, Rebbi Yanai's question refers to a case in which not only the Shechitah was done at a Bamas Yachid, but the Zerikah was done there as well. Since the Avodah of the Korban was basically finished at a Bamas Yachid, its limbs certainly are not supposed to be placed on a Bamah Gedolah. This is unlike Rebbi Eliezer's case, in which only the Shechitah was done before the Korban arrived at the Bamah Gedolah, and thus the Korban may be considered a Korban of a Bamah Gedolah after the Avodos have taken place there. The only question is whether the limbs have the status of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu." Are the limbs no longer associated with the Bamah Gedolah at all, or since it is a Korban that could have been brought on a Bamas Yachid or on a Bamah Gedolah, the partitions of the Bamah Gedolah "secure" the Korban in a minimal way, giving it the status of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu"? That is the question of Rebbi Yanai. (Y. MONTROSE)