within, and then took it out again, what is the law? (1) do we say, Since it has entered, the barriers [of the public Bamah] have received it; or perhaps, since it has returned, it has returned? (2) — Is this not the controversy of Rabbah and R. Joseph? For we learnt: If sacrifices of higher sanctity were slaughtered in the south,3 they are subject to trespass. (4) Now the [scholars] asked: If they ascended [the altar], must they be taken down? Rabbah maintained: They must be taken down; R. Joseph maintained: They must not be taken down! (5) — The question arises on both Rabbah's and R. Joseph's views. The question arises on Rabbah's view, [for you can argue:] Rabbah rules thus only in respect of the altar, [for] what is eligible for it, it sanctifies, (6) and what is not eligible for it, it does not sanctify; (7) but the barrier may receive it even when it is not eligible for it. Or perhaps, there is no difference? The question arises on R. Joseph's view, [for you may argue:] R. Joseph rules thus only there, since it is one place; (8) but here, that they are two places, (9) it is not so. Or perhaps, there is no difference? The question stands over. That which is certain to Rabbah in one direction and to R. Joseph in the opposite direction, was a question to R. Jannai. For R. Jannai asked: If the limbs of the burntoffering of a private Bamah ascended the altar (10) and were taken down, what is the law? If the fire has not taken hold of them, there is no question; (11) the question arises where the fire had taken hold of them: what then? The question stands over. It was stated: As for night slaughtering at a private Bamah, Rab and Samuel [disagree]. One maintains: It is valid; the other maintains: It is invalid. (12) Now, they disagree on R. Eleazar's [difficulty]. For R. Eleazar pointed out a contradiction between texts. It is written, And he said.’ ‘Ye have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone unto me this day’, (13) But it is written: And Saul said.’ ‘Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them: Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood’. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there. (14) One master answered: one [text] applies to hullin, the other to sacrifices. (15) The other master answered: One refers to the sacrifices of a great bamah, (16) the other refers to the sacrifices of a minor Bamah. It was stated: As for the burntoffering of a private Bamah, Rab maintained: It does not require flaying and dismembering; while R. Johanan said: It does require flaying and dismembering. Now, they disagree on R. Jose the Galilean[‘s dictum]. For it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: The burnt-offering[s] which the Israelites sacrificed in the wilderness (17) did not require flaying and dismembering, because flaying and dismembering were required only from [the erection of] the Tent of Meeting and onward. One master holds: From [the erection of] the Tent of Meeting and onward, there was no difference [in this respect] between the great Bamah and the minor Bamah; while the other master holds: At the great Bamah, yes; at the lesser Bamah, no. It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan: In the [following] matters the great Bamah differed from the minor Bamah: Horn, ascent, base, and squareness [were required at] the great Bamah; but there were no horn, ascent, base and squareness at a minor bamah. (18) There were a laver and its base at the great Bamah, but there were no laver and base at a minor Bamah. The breast and the thigh were [waved] at the great Bamah, but there were no breast and thigh at a minor Bamah. In the [following] matters the great Bamah and a minor Bamah were alike: shechitah was required at the great Bamah and at a minor Bamah; flaying and dismembering were required at the great and at the minor [Bamoth]. Blood permitted, and rendered piggul (19) at the great and at a minor [Bamoth]. [The laws of] blemishes and time (20) [operated] at the great and at a minor [Bamah]. BUT TIME, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT WERE ALIKE IN BOTH. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that time operates at a minor Bamah as at a great Bamah? For [you might argue:] the Torah ordered [flesh] that was kept overnight (21) to be burnt, and [flesh] that went out [of its permitted boundaries] to be burnt: (22) just as flesh which went out is fit at a [minor] bamah, (23) so [flesh] which was kept overnight is fit at a [minor] Bamah. But does not [the reverse] follow from birds, a minori:

---

(1). ↑ Does the law of a public Bamah apply to it, so that it must be taken back and have its breast and thigh waved before the altar, or not? Here too Rashi explains that it was taken within after it was slaughtered.
(2). ↑ And is subject to the laws of a private Bamah only.
(3). ↑ Instead of the north.
(4). ↑ V. p. 176, n. 10. We do not say that since they were slaughtered in the wrong place, it is as though they were simply killed unritually, when they cease to be subject to trespass.
(5). ↑ Emended text (Rashi and Sh.M.). Now, Rabbah who says that they must be taken down holds that these are not the same as other sacrifices which were disqualified in the Sanctuary, but as though they were killed unritually. Thus he holds that the barriers have not received them. Whereas R. Joseph, who rules that they must be taken down, holds that the barriers have received them.
(6). ↑ So that it must not be removed thence, once it is placed thereon.
(7). ↑ And since it is as though it were not ritually slaughtered (in his view), it is not eligible for it.
(8). ↑ It was slaughtered in the Temple court, after all.
(9). ↑ The public and the private Bamoth.
(10). ↑ Of the public Bamah. Rashi apparently explains that the question refers to a burnt-offering consecrated for sacrifices at a public Bamah, which was slaughtered at a private Bamah.
(11). ↑ They certainly must descend.
(12). ↑ Rashi reads: Rab says it is valid; Samuel says: It is invalid.
(13). ↑ I Sam. XIV, 33, q.v. As they were engaged in pursuit of the enemy, this could only have been in the nature of a private Bamah, and his emphasis on ‘this day’ proves that the night was not valid for slaughtering.
(14). ↑ I Sam. XIV, 34. R. Eleazar leaves the difficulty unanswered.
(15). ↑ The text specifying ‘day’ applies to sacrifices, which must be slaughtered by day even at a private Bamah.
(16). ↑ These must be sacrificed by day. — He would explain then that when Saul specified day, he referred to those who would wait until they could sacrifice at the public Bamah.
(17). ↑ Before the Tabernacle was erected.
(18). ↑ V. supra 62a.
(19). ↑ The sprinkling of the blood permitted the flesh, while a Piggul intention at the sprinkling rendered the sacrifice Piggul.
(20). ↑ That a blemish disqualified an animal, and that there was a time limit for the eating of the flesh.
(21). ↑ I.e., Nothar, flesh kept after its prescribed period.
(22). ↑ This is deduced in Pes. 82a q.v.
(23). ↑ Since it had no walls to define its boundaries.