1) THE "KEDUSHAH" OF SHILO
QUESTION: The Gemara presents four different interpretations of the verse, "El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" -- "to the resting place and the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). One opinion says that "Menuchah" refers to the Mishkan in Shilo, while "Nachalah" refers to the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. A second opinion says that "Menuchah" refers to the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim, while "Nachalah" refers to Shilo. Another opinion says that both words refer to Yerushalayim, while a fourth opinion maintains that they both refer to Shilo.
The Gemara in a number of places (see Zevachim 60b, Megilah 10a) records a dispute about whether the Kedushah of Yerushalayim remains in place after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. This dispute has many practical ramifications (for example, whether or not one may offer Korbanos nowadays; see Insights to Zevachim 61a). Is the dispute about the Kedushah of Yerushalayim also relevant to the Kedushah of Shilo? Is there an opinion which maintains that the Kedushah of Shilo is permanent and still remains?
(a) RASHI (DH Zo v'Zo Shilo) implies that the Kedushah of Shilo is also the subject of dispute. Rashi comments that although both words, "Menuchah" and "Nachalah," refer to Shilo according to this opinion, Bamos still may be used afterwards, since this opinion maintains that Shilo's Kedushah was present only when the Mishkan was standing, but not afterwards. Rashi adds that even this opinion maintains that one is permitted to bring Korbanos after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, as the Gemara in Megilah states, "I heard that they offer Korbanos in Beis Chonyo in our times."
The KEREN ORAH is in doubt about Rashi's intention. The verse explicitly says, "va'Yitosh Mishkan Shilo" -- "and he forsake the Mishkan in Shilo" (Tehilim 78:60). What basis is there to assume that any of the Kedushah remains?
The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Rashi does not mean that Shilo could possibly have Kedushah after its destruction. Rather, Rashi means simply that according to Rebbi Yishmael, who learns that the verse of "Menuchah" and "Nachalah" teaches that Bamos are forbidden once the Mishkan in Shilo is built, one should not think that this means that Bamos are also forbidden after the Mishkan in Shilo is no longer standing. Rebbi Yishmael maintains (Megilah 10a) that even in Yerushalayim itself one is permitted to offer Korbanos after the Churban. Shilo certainly has no lasting Kedushah.
(b) The KEREN ORAH gives his own insights into how the different opinions in the Gemara here about the meaning of "El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah" have a bearing on whether the Kedushah of Yerushalayim was lasting after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara in Megilah (10a) says that those who maintain that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim was not lasting derive their opinion from the verse of "El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah." The Gemara explains that "Menuchah" refers to Shilo and "Nachalah" refers to the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. Just as one was permitted to offer Korbanos on a Bamah after Shilo, one is permitted to offer Korbanos on a Bamah after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
The Keren Orah explains that the opinion that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim was lasting understands that the fact that the Torah calls Yerushalayim a "Nachalah" implies that it is the "inheritance" of the Jewish people with regard to Korbanos, and thus Korbanos may not be brought after the Churban in any other place. The argument seems to depend on the meaning of the reference to Yerushalayim as "Nachalah."
TOSFOS in Megilah (10a, DH u'Mai) writes that everyone agrees that a Bamah remains prohibited even after Yerushalayim loses its Kedushah. The only argument is whether or not Korbanos may be offered in the place of the Mizbe'ach after the Beis ha'Mikdash is destroyed. According to Tosfos, from where does the opinion that maintains that both "Menuchah" and "Nachalah" refer to Shilo learn that one is forbidden to offer Korbanos on a Bamah outside the area of the Mizbe'ach?
The Keren Orah answers there may be a logical argument, independent of the verse, which says that the Beis ha'Mikdash is the only place where Korbanos may be brought. Halachah states that no one may build another Beis ha'Mikdash and offer Korbanos there (see RAMBAM, Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:3). This law teaches that Korbanos may not be brought outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, even without the reference to Yerushalayim in the verse of "Nachalah." (Y. MONTROSE)
2) MUST THE KOHEN WEAR THE "BIGDEI KEHUNAH" WHEN HE OFFERS A KORBAN ON A "BAMAH"?
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that certain laws which apply in the Mishkan and the Beis ha'Mikdash do not apply when one offers a Korban on a Bamas Yachid, a private Bamah. One of those laws is that a Kohen who offers a Korban on a Bamas Yachid does not need to wear the Bigdei Kehunah. The Gemara derives this exemption from the verse, "l'Shares ba'Kodesh" -- "to serve in the Kodesh" (Shemos 28:43).
This teaching, however, seems unnecessary. The reason why a Kohen may not perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash without the Bigdei Kehunah is that a Kohen without the Bigdei Kehunah is considered like a Zar (non-Kohen). The Gemara earlier (17b) teaches that "when they wear their Begadim, they have their status of Kehunah, but when they do not wear their Begadim, they do not have their status of Kehunah." The Gemara earlier teaches that a Zar may offer a Korban on a Bamah. Accordingly, there is no need for another source to teach that a Kohen may offer a Korban on a Bamah without the Bigdei Kehunah! (TAHARAS HA'KODESH)
(a) The TAHARAS HA'KODESH answers that the Gemara does not derive from the verse that the Bigdei Kehunah are not necessary. Rather, the Gemara derives from the verse that there is not even a Mitzvah to wear the Bigdei Kehunah.
However, this answer needs further explanation. Why would one have thought that there is a Mitzvah to wear the Bigdei Kehunah when anyone, even a non-Kohen, may offer the Korban on a Bamas Yachid?
The EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests an answer based on the opinion of the MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG (SHA'AREI TESHUVOS 2:218). The Maharam mi'Rotenburg maintains that although a Zar may offer Korbanos on a Bamah, a Levi may not offer Korbanos on a Bamah. This is because a Levi is forbidden from doing the Avodah of Kohanim. The KANFEI YONAH explains that the Maharam does not refer to the Shechitah of a Korban at a Bamah, since the Shechitah is an Avodah which may be done by both a Kohen and a Zar, even in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rather, a Levi may not perform the parts of the Avodah which are called "Avodas Kohanim," which may be done in the Beis ha'Mikdash only by a Kohen, even though they may be done at a Bamah even by a Zar.
Since the Avodah at a Bamah retains the title of "Avodas Kohanim," there is reason to assume that a Kohen is required to wear the Bigdei Kehunah when he offers a Korban on a Bamah. The verse teaches that although the Avodah of the Korban at a Bamah is still considered "Avodas Kohanim," the Kohen does not wear the Bigdei Kehunah when he offers a Korban on a Bamah.
(b) The TORAS HA'KODESH (I:53:5) answers that one might have thought that since the Avodah of a Bamah is similar to that of the Beis ha'Mikdash, even though the Avodah may be done by a Zar, the Avodah itself requires the Bigdei Kehunah, and thus anyone who performs the Avodah -- even a Zar -- must wear the Bigdei Kehunah. Therefore, the verse of "l'Shares ba'Kodesh" is needed to teach that the Bigdei Kehunah are not worn at a Bamah. (Y. MONTROSE)