זבחים קיז

זבחים קיז

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.