Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai held that during the period of the Temple there were four distinct “camps,” since the Ezrat Nashim constituted its own camp. However, in the period of Shilo there were only two camps. The Gemara struggles to identify which camp, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, did not exist in Shilo, since the Torah clearly assigns separate zones for each category of impurity – one who is impure from contact with a corpse, a zav, and a leper – implying the need for three distinct camps. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Shimon’s statement refers to an entirely different issue: during the period of Shilo, the Levite area did not function as a place of refuge for someone who killed unintentionally. This implies that in the wilderness the Levite camp did serve as a refuge zone, a point further supported by derashot on Shemot 21:13.
A braita presents five different rabbinic opinions regarding which sacrifices were offered during the fourteen years after entering the Land, when the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal. Some maintain that only voluntary offerings brought by individuals were permitted. Rabbi Meir holds that meal offerings and Nazirite offerings were also brought. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even obligatory offerings could be brought in the Tabernacle (bama gedola), distinguishing between the central sanctuary and other locations. Rabbi Shimon limits which public offerings were brought.
The Gemara then cites the scriptural basis for Rabbi Meir’s position. Shmuel restricts the dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Meir specifically to the obligatory offerings of a Nazirite. However, after Rava introduces a contradictory braita, the Gemara revises Shmuel’s statement, concluding that the dispute concerns specifically the voluntary offerings of a Nazirite.
The Gemara brings a source from the Torah for the opinion of the rabbis (the second view) in the braita.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 117
נִמְצְאוּ זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״ –
it would consequently be found that both zavim and those who are ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of one camp, i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, and both are permitted in the Israelite camp. But the Torah said with regard to sending the ritually impure out of the camp: “Outside the camp you shall put them; that they will not defile their camps” (Numbers 5:3).
תֵּן מַחֲנֶה לָזֶה וּמַחֲנֶה לָזֶה.
The use of the plural “camps” indicates: Give a specific camp to this group, i.e., those who are ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, who may enter the Levite camp but are forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine Presence, and give a specific camp to this group, i.e., those who are zavim, who may enter the Israelite camp but are forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine presence or the Levite camp. If there were no Levite camp in Shiloh, it would follow that both a zav and one who is ritually impure from the impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of only one camp, and there is no distinction between them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מַאי, מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא הֲוַאי?! נִמְצְאוּ זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ – שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב טָמֵא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ!
Rava said to him: Rather, what would you say instead? Would you say that the Israelite camp was not present in Shiloh? If so, it would be found that zavim and lepers are both sent to one place, i.e., outside the Levite camp. But the Torah said with regard to the leper: “He shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his dwelling be” (Leviticus 13:46). The word “alone” teaches that another ritually impure person should not dwell with him.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כּוּלְּהוּ תְּלָתָא הָווּ; וּמַאי לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי מַחֲנוֹת – לִקְלִיטָה. מִכְּלָל דִּבְמִדְבָּר הֲוַאי קָלְטָה מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה?
Rather, it must be that actually, all three camps were present in Shiloh, and what is the meaning of that which was taught with regard to Shiloh: There were only two camps? It is with regard to the fact that the Levite camp did not provide refuge to one who unintentionally killed another. The Gemara asks: By inference, does this mean that in the wilderness the Levite camp did provide refuge to those who unintentionally killed others?
אִין; וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם״ – בְּחַיֶּיךָ מָקוֹם, מְקוֹמֶךָ; ״אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה״. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְלִין בַּמִּדְבָּר. לְהֵיכָן גּוֹלִין? לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
The Gemara replies: Yes, and so it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning the cities of refuge. The verse states: “And one who did not lie in wait…and I will appoint for you a place where he may flee” (Exodus 21:13). The phrase “I will appoint for you” teaches that God said to Moses: There will be a place that provides refuge for unintentional murderers even during your lifetime. The term “a place” means that it will be from your place, meaning the Levite camp served as the place that provided refuge in the wilderness. “Where he may flee” teaches that the Jews would exile unintentional murderers in the wilderness as well, before they entered the land. To where did they exile unintentional murderers when they were in the wilderness? They exiled them to the Levite camp, which provided refuge.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהָרַג – גּוֹלֶה מִפֶּלֶךְ לְפֶלֶךְ, וְאִם גָּלָה לְפִלְכּוֹ – פִּלְכּוֹ קוֹלְטוֹ.
From here the Sages said: A Levite who killed unintentionally is exiled from one Levite city to another Levite city. And if he was exiled to another area within his city, he is admitted to his city, i.e., it provides him with refuge.
מַאי קְרָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: ״כִּי בְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ יֵשֵׁב״ – עִיר שֶׁקְּלָטַתּוּ כְּבָר.
The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which the principle is derived that one who was already exiled to a city of refuge and who then killed another person is exiled to another area in that same city? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says that the verse: “For in his city of refuge he shall dwell” (Numbers 35:28), indicates that he can be exiled to a city in which he was already admitted, as the verse is referring to it as his city, and he shall continue to reside there.
בָּאוּ לַגִּלְגָּל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל נִידָּר וְנִידָּב – הָיָה קָרֵב בְּבָמָה, שֶׁאֵין נִידָּר וְנִידָּב – אֵין קָרֵב בְּבָמָה. מִנְחָה וּנְזִירוּת – קְרֵיבִין בְּבָמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא קֵרְבוּ יָחִיד אֶלָּא עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים בִּלְבָד.
§ The mishna teaches that when the Jewish people arrived at Gilgal private altars were permitted. The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: Any offering that was brought due to a vow, or contributed voluntarily, was sacrificed on a private altar; and any offering that is neither brought due to a vow nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, was not sacrificed on a private altar. Therefore, a meal offering, which is generally brought voluntarily, and offerings of a nazirite, which have the status of vow offerings as no one is compelled to become a nazirite, were sacrificed upon a private altar. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Only burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed upon a private altar, not meal offerings or offerings of a nazirite.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל. וּמַה בֵּין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר לְבֵין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל? אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל הָיוּ הַבָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. וּבָמָתוֹ שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ לֹא הָיָה מַקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Any offering that the public or an individual could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. What, then, is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness and the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal? During the period of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness private altars were not permitted and offerings could be sacrificed only in the Tabernacle, while during the period of the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal private altars were permitted. But even if one desired to sacrifice an offering upon his private altar on his roof, he could still sacrifice upon it only burnt offerings and peace offerings.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל; וְכָאן וְכָאן לֹא קָרְבוּ יָחִיד אֶלָּא עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף צִבּוּר לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא פְּסָחִים
And the Rabbis say: Any offering that the public could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal, and here, in the Tabernacle in Gilgal, and there, upon private altars, only burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed for an individual. Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public did not sacrifice every type of offering in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal; they sacrificed only Paschal offerings
וְחוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן.
and compulsory public offerings that have a set time to be sacrificed, e.g., daily offerings and additional offerings. Public offerings that do not have a set time were not sacrificed upon the great public altar in Gilgal.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים פֹּה הַיּוֹם״ –
§ The Gemara explains the various opinions cited in the baraita: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that only vow offerings and gift offerings, such as nazirite offerings and meal offerings, were sacrificed upon a private altar during the period of Gilgal? It is as the verse states: “You shall not do all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes. For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:8–9).
אָמַר לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי עָיְילִיתוּ לָאָרֶץ ישראל – יְשָׁרוֹת תַּקְרִיבוּ, חוֹבוֹת לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ. מְנָחוֹת וּנְזִירוֹת – יְשָׁרוֹת נִינְהוּ.
Moses said the following to the Jewish people: When you enter Eretz Yisrael but have not yet arrived at Shiloh or Jerusalem and are therefore permitted to sacrifice upon private altars, you may not sacrifice whatever has been sacrificed in the wilderness, i.e., both obligatory offerings and gift offerings. Rather, the phrase “every man whatsoever is fitting [hayashar] in his own eyes,” means that fitting offerings [yesharot], i.e., offerings that are fitting in one’s eyes and are brought due to one’s own benevolence, you may sacrifice, but you may not sacrifice obligatory offerings. Meal offerings and offerings of a nazirite are included in the category of fitting offerings: Meal offerings are sacrificed as vow offerings or gift offerings while offerings of a nazirite are considered a vow offering, as becoming a nazirite is not compulsory.
וְרַבָּנַן – אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה; נְזִירוֹת חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ.
And what is the reason that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and state that meal offerings and offerings of a nazirite were not sacrificed on a private altar? They hold that a meal offering is not ever sacrificed upon a private altar and that offerings of a nazirite are considered compulsory. While one assumes the status of a nazirite voluntarily, once he has become a nazirite he is required to bring the offering.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל בְּעוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יְשָׁרוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְקָרְבִי.
With regard to this, Shmuel says that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis pertains only to the sin offering and the guilt offering brought by the nazirite. But with regard to the burnt offering and the peace offering that the nazirite brings, all agree that they are considered offerings that one deems fitting to sacrifice and are therefore sacrificed on a private altar.
מוֹתֵיב רַבָּה: חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק וּתְרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. וְאִילּוּ הַזְּרוֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה – שַׁיְּירַהּ;
Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: The halakha of the breast and thigh portions of peace offerings, which are given to the priests (see Leviticus 7:34), and the halakha of the teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., the bread that was given to the priests from each of the four types of loaves that were brought with the thanks offering (see Leviticus 7:14), apply only with regard to a great public altar, and do not apply with regard to a small private altar. Rabba comments: By contrast, another of the priestly gifts, the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram (see Numbers 6:19–20) was omitted by the tanna.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים פְּלִיגִי, הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם פְּלִיגִי, הָא מַנִּי?
Rabba notes: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree even with regard to whether a burnt offering and peace offering of a nazirite may be sacrificed upon a private altar, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that omits the nazirite’s ram? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the peace offering of the nazirite was not sacrificed upon a private altar. But if you say that they disagree only with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering, while the Rabbis agree that the peace offering and burnt offering of a nazirite were sacrificed on a private altar, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר – אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּעוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אֲבָל בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְלָא קָרְבִי.
Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Shmuel said that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis pertains only to the burnt offering and peace offering that were brought by the nazirite. But with regard to the sin offering and guilt offering, all agree that they are compulsory, and even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir they are not sacrificed upon a private altar.
אָמַר מָר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל וְכוּ׳.
§ The Gemara continues to clarify the opinions in the baraita: The Master, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, said that any offering that the public or an individual could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, including vow offerings, gift offerings, and compulsory offerings, could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. It was only on a private altar that the individual was limited to sacrificing burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the Rabbis say: Any offering that the public could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. An individual could sacrifice only burnt offerings and peace offerings, whether on a great public altar or on a private altar.
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״; אִישׁ – יְשָׁרוֹת הוּא דְּלִיקְרוּב, חוֹבוֹת לָא לִיקְרוּב; וְצִבּוּר – אֲפִילּוּ חוֹבוֹת לִיקְרוּב.
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that only the public could sacrifice compulsory offerings on a great public altar? The verse states with regard to the period in which private altars were permitted: “You shall not do all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8). This indicates that it is “a man,” i.e., an individual, who may sacrifice only offerings that he deems “fitting,” i.e., voluntary offerings, but may not sacrifice compulsory offerings. But the public may sacrifice even compulsory offerings.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: A Breakaway Mikdash in Egypt? Chazal’s take the Temple of Onias
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
New York, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Zevachim 117
נִמְצְאוּ זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״ –
it would consequently be found that both zavim and those who are ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of one camp, i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, and both are permitted in the Israelite camp. But the Torah said with regard to sending the ritually impure out of the camp: “Outside the camp you shall put them; that they will not defile their camps” (Numbers 5:3).
תֵּן מַחֲנֶה לָזֶה וּמַחֲנֶה לָזֶה.
The use of the plural “camps” indicates: Give a specific camp to this group, i.e., those who are ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, who may enter the Levite camp but are forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine Presence, and give a specific camp to this group, i.e., those who are zavim, who may enter the Israelite camp but are forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine presence or the Levite camp. If there were no Levite camp in Shiloh, it would follow that both a zav and one who is ritually impure from the impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of only one camp, and there is no distinction between them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מַאי, מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא הֲוַאי?! נִמְצְאוּ זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ – שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב טָמֵא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ!
Rava said to him: Rather, what would you say instead? Would you say that the Israelite camp was not present in Shiloh? If so, it would be found that zavim and lepers are both sent to one place, i.e., outside the Levite camp. But the Torah said with regard to the leper: “He shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his dwelling be” (Leviticus 13:46). The word “alone” teaches that another ritually impure person should not dwell with him.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כּוּלְּהוּ תְּלָתָא הָווּ; וּמַאי לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי מַחֲנוֹת – לִקְלִיטָה. מִכְּלָל דִּבְמִדְבָּר הֲוַאי קָלְטָה מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה?
Rather, it must be that actually, all three camps were present in Shiloh, and what is the meaning of that which was taught with regard to Shiloh: There were only two camps? It is with regard to the fact that the Levite camp did not provide refuge to one who unintentionally killed another. The Gemara asks: By inference, does this mean that in the wilderness the Levite camp did provide refuge to those who unintentionally killed others?
אִין; וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם״ – בְּחַיֶּיךָ מָקוֹם, מְקוֹמֶךָ; ״אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה״. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְלִין בַּמִּדְבָּר. לְהֵיכָן גּוֹלִין? לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
The Gemara replies: Yes, and so it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning the cities of refuge. The verse states: “And one who did not lie in wait…and I will appoint for you a place where he may flee” (Exodus 21:13). The phrase “I will appoint for you” teaches that God said to Moses: There will be a place that provides refuge for unintentional murderers even during your lifetime. The term “a place” means that it will be from your place, meaning the Levite camp served as the place that provided refuge in the wilderness. “Where he may flee” teaches that the Jews would exile unintentional murderers in the wilderness as well, before they entered the land. To where did they exile unintentional murderers when they were in the wilderness? They exiled them to the Levite camp, which provided refuge.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהָרַג – גּוֹלֶה מִפֶּלֶךְ לְפֶלֶךְ, וְאִם גָּלָה לְפִלְכּוֹ – פִּלְכּוֹ קוֹלְטוֹ.
From here the Sages said: A Levite who killed unintentionally is exiled from one Levite city to another Levite city. And if he was exiled to another area within his city, he is admitted to his city, i.e., it provides him with refuge.
מַאי קְרָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: ״כִּי בְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ יֵשֵׁב״ – עִיר שֶׁקְּלָטַתּוּ כְּבָר.
The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which the principle is derived that one who was already exiled to a city of refuge and who then killed another person is exiled to another area in that same city? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says that the verse: “For in his city of refuge he shall dwell” (Numbers 35:28), indicates that he can be exiled to a city in which he was already admitted, as the verse is referring to it as his city, and he shall continue to reside there.
בָּאוּ לַגִּלְגָּל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל נִידָּר וְנִידָּב – הָיָה קָרֵב בְּבָמָה, שֶׁאֵין נִידָּר וְנִידָּב – אֵין קָרֵב בְּבָמָה. מִנְחָה וּנְזִירוּת – קְרֵיבִין בְּבָמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא קֵרְבוּ יָחִיד אֶלָּא עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים בִּלְבָד.
§ The mishna teaches that when the Jewish people arrived at Gilgal private altars were permitted. The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: Any offering that was brought due to a vow, or contributed voluntarily, was sacrificed on a private altar; and any offering that is neither brought due to a vow nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, was not sacrificed on a private altar. Therefore, a meal offering, which is generally brought voluntarily, and offerings of a nazirite, which have the status of vow offerings as no one is compelled to become a nazirite, were sacrificed upon a private altar. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Only burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed upon a private altar, not meal offerings or offerings of a nazirite.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל. וּמַה בֵּין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר לְבֵין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל? אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל הָיוּ הַבָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. וּבָמָתוֹ שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ לֹא הָיָה מַקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Any offering that the public or an individual could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. What, then, is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness and the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal? During the period of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness private altars were not permitted and offerings could be sacrificed only in the Tabernacle, while during the period of the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal private altars were permitted. But even if one desired to sacrifice an offering upon his private altar on his roof, he could still sacrifice upon it only burnt offerings and peace offerings.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל; וְכָאן וְכָאן לֹא קָרְבוּ יָחִיד אֶלָּא עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף צִבּוּר לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא פְּסָחִים
And the Rabbis say: Any offering that the public could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal, and here, in the Tabernacle in Gilgal, and there, upon private altars, only burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed for an individual. Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public did not sacrifice every type of offering in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal; they sacrificed only Paschal offerings
וְחוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן.
and compulsory public offerings that have a set time to be sacrificed, e.g., daily offerings and additional offerings. Public offerings that do not have a set time were not sacrificed upon the great public altar in Gilgal.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים פֹּה הַיּוֹם״ –
§ The Gemara explains the various opinions cited in the baraita: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that only vow offerings and gift offerings, such as nazirite offerings and meal offerings, were sacrificed upon a private altar during the period of Gilgal? It is as the verse states: “You shall not do all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes. For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:8–9).
אָמַר לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי עָיְילִיתוּ לָאָרֶץ ישראל – יְשָׁרוֹת תַּקְרִיבוּ, חוֹבוֹת לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ. מְנָחוֹת וּנְזִירוֹת – יְשָׁרוֹת נִינְהוּ.
Moses said the following to the Jewish people: When you enter Eretz Yisrael but have not yet arrived at Shiloh or Jerusalem and are therefore permitted to sacrifice upon private altars, you may not sacrifice whatever has been sacrificed in the wilderness, i.e., both obligatory offerings and gift offerings. Rather, the phrase “every man whatsoever is fitting [hayashar] in his own eyes,” means that fitting offerings [yesharot], i.e., offerings that are fitting in one’s eyes and are brought due to one’s own benevolence, you may sacrifice, but you may not sacrifice obligatory offerings. Meal offerings and offerings of a nazirite are included in the category of fitting offerings: Meal offerings are sacrificed as vow offerings or gift offerings while offerings of a nazirite are considered a vow offering, as becoming a nazirite is not compulsory.
וְרַבָּנַן – אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה; נְזִירוֹת חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ.
And what is the reason that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and state that meal offerings and offerings of a nazirite were not sacrificed on a private altar? They hold that a meal offering is not ever sacrificed upon a private altar and that offerings of a nazirite are considered compulsory. While one assumes the status of a nazirite voluntarily, once he has become a nazirite he is required to bring the offering.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל בְּעוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יְשָׁרוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְקָרְבִי.
With regard to this, Shmuel says that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis pertains only to the sin offering and the guilt offering brought by the nazirite. But with regard to the burnt offering and the peace offering that the nazirite brings, all agree that they are considered offerings that one deems fitting to sacrifice and are therefore sacrificed on a private altar.
מוֹתֵיב רַבָּה: חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק וּתְרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. וְאִילּוּ הַזְּרוֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה – שַׁיְּירַהּ;
Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: The halakha of the breast and thigh portions of peace offerings, which are given to the priests (see Leviticus 7:34), and the halakha of the teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., the bread that was given to the priests from each of the four types of loaves that were brought with the thanks offering (see Leviticus 7:14), apply only with regard to a great public altar, and do not apply with regard to a small private altar. Rabba comments: By contrast, another of the priestly gifts, the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram (see Numbers 6:19–20) was omitted by the tanna.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים פְּלִיגִי, הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם פְּלִיגִי, הָא מַנִּי?
Rabba notes: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree even with regard to whether a burnt offering and peace offering of a nazirite may be sacrificed upon a private altar, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that omits the nazirite’s ram? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the peace offering of the nazirite was not sacrificed upon a private altar. But if you say that they disagree only with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering, while the Rabbis agree that the peace offering and burnt offering of a nazirite were sacrificed on a private altar, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר – אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּעוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אֲבָל בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְלָא קָרְבִי.
Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Shmuel said that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis pertains only to the burnt offering and peace offering that were brought by the nazirite. But with regard to the sin offering and guilt offering, all agree that they are compulsory, and even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir they are not sacrificed upon a private altar.
אָמַר מָר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל וְכוּ׳.
§ The Gemara continues to clarify the opinions in the baraita: The Master, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, said that any offering that the public or an individual could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, including vow offerings, gift offerings, and compulsory offerings, could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. It was only on a private altar that the individual was limited to sacrificing burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the Rabbis say: Any offering that the public could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. An individual could sacrifice only burnt offerings and peace offerings, whether on a great public altar or on a private altar.
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״; אִישׁ – יְשָׁרוֹת הוּא דְּלִיקְרוּב, חוֹבוֹת לָא לִיקְרוּב; וְצִבּוּר – אֲפִילּוּ חוֹבוֹת לִיקְרוּב.
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that only the public could sacrifice compulsory offerings on a great public altar? The verse states with regard to the period in which private altars were permitted: “You shall not do all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8). This indicates that it is “a man,” i.e., an individual, who may sacrifice only offerings that he deems “fitting,” i.e., voluntary offerings, but may not sacrifice compulsory offerings. But the public may sacrifice even compulsory offerings.
