Zevachim 117a (קיז.) — the Talmud in English

If so,

it follows that zavin and those impure with corpse impurity were sent out

in Shiloh

outside only one camp,

the Camp of the Divine Presence, in which both of them were forbidden; and outside it they were both subject to the same rule. For this is the law: one impure with corpse impurity is forbidden in the Camp of the Divine Presence but permitted in the Levite Camp, whereas a zav is forbidden in the Levite Camp but permitted in the Israelite Camp. Since there was only the Israelite Camp there [apart from the Camp of the Divine Presence], it follows that both of them were permitted to be in one camp,

and

this cannot be, since

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

and we derive from the plural “their camps,” which indicates two camps:

Assign one camp

to the zav,

and one camp

to the one impure with corpse impurity, so that both of them should not be in the same camp.

Rather, certainly there was a Levite Camp there, and there was no Israelite Camp in Shiloh. It follows that both were not sent out of the same camp, since one impure with corpse impurity is sent out of the Camp of the Divine Presence but permitted in the Levite Camp, whereas a zav is sent out even from the Levite Camp.

Rava said to

Abaye:

But what then

did you

say: There was no Israelite Camp

in Shiloh?

If so, it follows that zavin and lepers were sent out to the same place!

For in Shiloh even a leper—whose law is that he is sent out of the Israelite Camp as well—was permitted everywhere except the Levite Camp, since there was no Israelite Camp. It follows that he would dwell in the same place as the zav,

and

this cannot be, since

the Torah said

concerning a leper,

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

Rather,

Rava said:

Actually, all three

camps

existed

in Shiloh.

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

which we learned in the baraita:

For purposes of absorbing! That is,

the law of the Levite Camp did not apply there with regard to its absorbing an unintentional murderer.

And we infer:

By implication, in the wilderness the Levite Camp did absorb?

And we conclude:

No! For it was taught

[as an affirmative statement]: It is stated concerning one who killed a person unintentionally,

“And I will assign you

a place to which he shall flee.” We derive from the word “you”:

In your lifetime!

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

And from the words

“a place for you,”

we derive:

In your place!

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

And from the words

“to which he shall flee,”

we derive:

This teaches that the Israelites were exiled in the wilderness!

And

where

were they

exiled?

For there were no cities of refuge in the wilderness,

to the Levite Camp,

as stated, for it too absorbed. 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 the word “you”—that is, the Levites—applies even though they were already 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:

What is the verse

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

And we explain:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

It is stated,

“For in his city of refuge he shall dwell,”

and we derive this from the apparently superfluous word “his refuge,” since the verse could have said, “For there he shall dwell.” Necessarily, the verse comes to teach that

a city that had already absorbed him

—that is, one in which he had been living 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.

The baraita before us will explain the laws of offerings at a time when private altars were permitted. The law is divided according to two types of private altars: (a) the communal private altar, called the “great private altar”; and (b) the individual private altar, which each person built for himself wherever he wished, called the “small private altar.” The tannaim disagree as to which offerings were sacrificed on the communal private altar, which on an individual private altar, and which were not sacrificed at all.

The Sages taught: Any

offering

that was vowed or freely donated,

that was brought as a vow or a freewill offering,

was sacrificed on a private altar

—a small one [and all the more so on a great one]. But an offering

that cannot be vowed or freely donated,

but is instead an obligatory offering, whether a communal offering or an individual offering,

is not sacrificed on a private altar

—a small one, for an individual does not sacrifice any of his obligatory offerings at all when private altars are permitted, even on a great private altar, whereas the community does not sacrifice its offerings at all on a small private altar. It follows that obligatory offerings are not sacrificed on a small private altar, but the community’s obligatory offerings were sacrificed on a great private altar.

An offering

of a meal-offering

and offerings

of a nazirite

were also

sacrificed on a

small private altar, because they are considered matters that can be vowed or freely donated,

according to the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: An individual sacrificed only burnt offerings and peace offerings

alone.

But a meal-offering and nazirite offerings an individual did not offer at all, even on a great private altar. In this, the Sages disagree with Rabbi Meir. Although the wording of the Sages does not clearly demonstrate that they disagree concerning the burnt offerings and peace offerings of a nazirite, rather than only concerning the meal-offering, see on the next side, where it is obvious to the Gemara that they disagree concerning nazirite offerings. And Keren Ora inferred from the sugya in Pesaḥim [38b] and from the Jerusalem Talmud, Megilla, that Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis did not disagree about this; only amoraim disagreed.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any

offerings

that the community and the individual

would

sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness,

when private altars were forbidden and all offerings, both freewill and obligatory, were sacrificed there, they would

also sacrifice

on the great private altar

in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal,

when private altars were permitted. Rabbi Yehuda holds that an individual sacrifices his obligatory offerings on a great private altar, although he does not sacrifice them on a small private altar. It is implied by his words that on this matter he disagrees with Rabbi Meir and the Sages, and it follows that according to them an individual did not sacrifice his obligatory offerings at all, even on a great private 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 were identical with regard to the offerings sacrificed in them.

And he answers:

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

at that time for any individual;

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

for an individual.

And

even at the time of Gilgal, when everyone sacrificed on

his private altar at the top of his roof,

that is, an individual private altar,

he sacrificed on it only a burnt offering and peace offerings

and not a meal-offering or nazirite offerings. In this, he followed the view of the Sages stated above, [and an individual likewise did not sacrifice his obligatory offerings there].

And the Sages say: Any

offerings

that the community

would

sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness,

they would

also sacrifice

on the great private altar

in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal.

With regard to the community, there is indeed no difference between them.

In both places,

whether on a great private altar or on a small private altar,

an individual sacrificed only a burnt offering and peace offerings.

An individual did not sacrifice his obligatory offerings even on a great private altar. It follows that with regard to an individual, the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness was not equivalent to the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal; nor did the Sages permit an individual to sacrifice a meal-offering or nazirite offerings there. [The view of these Sages accords with that of the Sages stated above; below it will be explained concerning what they disagree.]