Zevachim 117a — the Talmud in English

If so, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

zavim and those impure through contact with the dead were found being sent out

in Shiloh

beyond only one camp,

and that is the Camp of the Divine Presence, in which both of them are forbidden; but outside it they are equal, for this is the law: one impure through contact with the dead is forbidden in the Camp of the Divine Presence and permitted in the Camp of the Levites, while a zav is forbidden in the Camp of the Levites and permitted in the Camp of Israel. And since there was there only the Camp of Israel [apart from the Camp of the Divine Presence], it follows that both of them were permitted to be in one camp,

and

this is impossible, for

the Torah said, “And they shall not defile their camps,”

and we expound from “their camps,” which implies two camps:

Assign a camp to this one,

to the zav,

and a camp to this one,

to the one impure through contact with the dead, so that both of them should not be in the same camp.

Rather, certainly there was there a Camp of the Levites, and there was no Camp of Israel in Shiloh, and it follows that both of them were not sent out to the same camp, for the one impure through contact with the dead is sent out from the Camp of the Divine Presence and is permitted in the Camp of the Levites, whereas a zav is also sent out from the Camp of the Levites.

Rava said to

Abaye:

But what, then,

did you

say: “There was no Camp of Israel”

in Shiloh?

If so, zavim and lepers were found being sent to one place!

For in Shiloh even the leper—whose law is that he is sent out also from the Camp of Israel—was permitted everywhere except the Camp of the Levites, since there was no Camp of Israel, and it follows that he sat in the same place in which the zav sat,

and

this is impossible, for

the Torah said

concerning a leper, “

He shall sit alone,” so that another impure person should not sit with him?!

Rather,

Rava said:

In fact, all three

camps

were

in Shiloh.

And what is the meaning of “there were only two camps,”

which we learned in the beraita?

For absorption! —

For the law of the Camp of the Levites did not operate there with regard to its absorbing one who killed a person unintentionally.

And we infer:

By implication, in the wilderness the Camp of the Levites did absorb?

And we conclude:

Yes! And it was taught:

[agreeably:] It is said concerning one who killed a person unintentionally, “

And I shall appoint for you

a place to which he shall flee,” and we expound from “for you”:

During your lifetime!

Here the Holy One, blessed be He, promised Moses that in his lifetime he would merit separating three cities of refuge.

And from the words “

for you a place”

we expound:

In your place!

That is, your place, which is the Camp of the Levites, would also absorb the murderer.

And from the words “

to which he shall flee”

we expound:

This teaches that Israelites were exiled in the wilderness!

And

where

were they

exiled?

For there were no cities of refuge in the wilderness,

to the Camp of the Levites,

as stated, for it too absorbs! —

From here they said:

A son of Levi

who lived in a city of refuge [for all forty-eight cities of the Levites were cities of refuge]

who killed

unintentionally, he

is exiled from district to district,

from his city to another city of refuge, for also “for you”—that is, the Levites—even though they are already present there—

And if he was exiled within his district

within his city, from one neighborhood to another,

his district absorbs him

after the fact.

And we inquire about it:

What is the verse

that teaches that even his district absorbs him although he was not exiled outside his city?

And we explain:

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said:

It is said, “

For in the city of his refuge he shall dwell.”

And we expound from the superfluous word “his refuge,” for it could have written, “For there he shall dwell”; necessarily, the verse intends to teach that

even a city that had already absorbed him

that is, he had lived there before he killed, also absorbs him now when he is exiled from one neighborhood to another.

We learned in the Mishna:

They came to Gilgal;

the private altars became permitted.

In the beraita before us, the laws of sacrifices during the time when private altars were permitted will be explained. The law is divided according to two types of private altars: a. the communal altar, called the “great altar”; b. an individual altar, which each person built for himself wherever he wished, and which is called the “small altar.” The tannaim disagree which sacrifices were offered on the communal altar, which on an individual altar, and which were not offered at all.

The Sages taught: Every

sacrifice

that is vowed or volunteered,

which he brought as a vow or a voluntary offering, was

offered on an altar

a small one [and certainly on a great altar]. But a sacrifice

that is not vowed or volunteered,

but is a compulsory sacrifice, whether it is a communal sacrifice or an individual sacrifice,

is not offered on an altar

a small one, for an individual does not offer his compulsory sacrifices at all during the time when private altars are permitted even on a great altar, whereas the community does not offer its sacrifices at all on a small altar. It follows that compulsory sacrifices are not offered on a small altar, but on a great altar the compulsory sacrifices of the community were offered.

A

meal-offering

and sacrifices of

Nazirite status are offered

also

on an altar,

a small one, because they are regarded as something that is vowed or volunteered,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Only burnt offerings and peace-offerings were offered by an individual

alone;

but a meal-offering and Nazirite offerings the individual did not offer at all, even on a great altar; and in this the Sages disagree with Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Every

sacrifice

that the community and the individual

would

offer in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness,

when it was a time of prohibition of private altars and they offered there all the sacrifices, both voluntary and compulsory, they would

offer

also on the great altar that was

in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal,

when it was a time of permission for private altars. Rabbi Yehuda holds that an individual offers his compulsory sacrifices on a great altar even though he does not offer them on a small altar , and his words imply that in this law he disagrees with Rabbi Meir and the Sages. It follows that according to them an individual did not offer his compulsory sacrifices at all, even on a great altar.

Rabbi Yehuda asks:

What is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness and the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal?

Since we have said that they are equal with regard to the sacrifices offered in them.

And he answers:

In the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, private altars were not permitted

then for every individual;

in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal, private altars were permitted

for an individual.

And

also at the time of Gilgal, when every person offered upon

his altar at the head of his roof,

that is, an individual altar,

he offered upon it only a burnt offering and peace-offerings

and not a meal-offering or Nazirite offerings; in this he held like the view of the Sages above, [and likewise the individual did not offer his compulsory sacrifices there].

And the Sages say: Every

sacrifice

that the community

would

offer in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness

they would

offer

also on the great altar that was

in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal;

with regard to the community, indeed, there is no distinction between them.

Both here and there,

whether on a great altar or on a small altar,

only a burnt offering and peace-offerings were offered by an individual,

for the individual did not offer his compulsory sacrifices even on a great altar. It follows that with regard to the individual, the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness was not made equal to the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal; and likewise, according to the Sages, a meal-offering and Nazirite offerings were not offered for an individual. [And the view of these Sages is like the view of the Sages above; below it will be explained concerning what they disagree.]