זבחים 117 — Soncino English Talmud

¹this would result in zabin and the unclean through the dead being sent out from one camp [only], whereas the Torah said, That they defile not their camps: [this intimates,] assign a camp for this one and a camp for that one. Said Raba to him: What then? there was no camp of the Israelites! If so, zabin and lepers would be sent to the same place, whereas the Torah said, He [the leper] shall dwell alone, [intimating] that no other unclean person may dwell with him? — Rather, there were all three camps after all; and what is meant by ‘there were only two camps’? In respect of reception. Hence it follows that in the wilderness the Levitical camp received [an involuntary homicide]? — Yes: and it was taught even so: Then I will appoint thee a place [whither he may flee]: ‘thee’ [implies] in thy lifetime; ‘thee a place’ [implies] in thy place; ‘whither he may flee’: this teaches that they banished [a homicide] in the wilderness; whither did they banish him? To the Levitical camp. From this they deduced that if a Levite committed homicide, he was banished from one district to another; and if he fled to his own [juridical] district, his district receives him. Which text [teaches this]? — Said R. Aha the son of R. Ika: Because he must remain in his city of refuge: [this implies,] in the city which has already provided him with refuge. WHEN THEY CAME TO GILGAL [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: Whatever could be vowed or offered as a freewill-offering could be offered at a bamah; what could not be vowed or offered as a freewill-offering could not be offered at a bamah. A meal-offering and [a sacrifice of] naziriteship were offered at a bamah: these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: Only peace-offerings and burnt-offerings were sacrificed on behalf of a private individual. R. Judah said: whatever the community and an individual offered in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were offered in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal. What was the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness and the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal? [When] the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness [existed], bamoth were not permitted; [when] the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal [existed], bamoth were permitted, and one could offer on his bamah on the top of his roof only burnt-offering[s] and peace-offerings. But the Sages maintain: whatever the community offered in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness they offered in the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal. In both places only burnt-offering[s] and peace-offerings were offered on behalf of a private individual. R. Simeon said: Even the community offered only Passover-offerings^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Viz., the camp of the Shechinah, since both are permitted in the camp of the Israelites (Pes. 67a).
^ᵇnote:Num. V, 3 q.v.; camps, plural.
^ᶜnote:Each is sent into a different camp: he who is unclean through the dead is expelled from the camp of the Shechinah but permitted in the Levitical camp, whereas zabin are expelled from the Levitical camp too.
^ᵈnote:So that every place outside the Levitical camp had no status at all, and was simply like a field, whither a leper too might repair.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XIII, 46.
^ᶠnote:An involuntary homicide took refuge in a city specially designated for that purpose (Ex. XXI, 13; Num. XXXV, 9 seq.). In the wilderness this function was served by the Levitical camp; when they came to Shiloh, the Levitical camp lost that function.
^ᵍnote:Ex. XXI, 13.
^ʰnote:Sc. in Moses’ lifetime; hence, in the wilderness.
^ⁱnote:‘Thy’ sc. Moses’ — hence, the Levitical camp.
^ʲnote:All the forty-eight Levitical cities were cities of refuge. Hence, a Levite who committed involuntary homicide fled from his own city to another Levitical city.
^ᵏnote:Having committed homicide elsewhere. Rashi however reads (and Sh. M. emends): and if he fled within his own district; and explains: if he fled from one quarter to another in his own city.
^ˡnote:Num. XXXV, 28.
^ᵐnote:E.g., in the case of a homicide who fled to a city of refuge, and then again committed homicide in that city, he must remain in this same city. The same therefore applies to a Levite living in that city.
^ⁿnote:V. supra 2b, p. 2, n. 6.
^ᵒnote:I.e., at a private bamah, for statutory offerings were offered at the public bamah.
^ᵖnote:Statutory offerings.
^ᵠnote:These were both votive, since naziriteship itself was the result of a vow.
^ʳnote:I.e., all sacrifices.
^ˢnote:Which was a public bamah.
^ᵗnote:I.e., at a private bamah.
^ᵘnote:Sc. both at public and at private bamoth.

²and statutory offerings for which there is a fixed time. What is R. Meir's reason? — Because Scripture saith, Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, [every man whatsoever is right in his eyes]: Moses spoke thus to Israel: When ye enter the [Promised] Land,’ ye shall offer votive sacrifices, but ye shall not offer obligatory offerings; [and] meal-offerings and [sacrifices of] naziriteship were votive sacrifices. And the Rabbis? — There were no meal-offering[s] at the bamah [at all]; [and the sacrifices of] naziriteship were obligatory. Samuel said: They disagree about the sin-offering and the guilt-offering; but all agree that the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings [of a nazirite] are votive sacrifices. Rabbah raised an objection: [The law of] the breast and thigh and the separation of the loaves of the thank-offering operated at the great [public] bamah, but did not operate at a minor [private] bamah; but he [the Tanna] omits the sodden shoulder. If you say that they disagree about the burnt-offering and the peace-offering, it is well: this agrees with the Rabbis. But if you maintain that they disagree [only] about the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, who is the author of this? Rather, if stated, it was thus stated: Samuel said: They disagree about the burnt-offering and the peace-offering; but all agree that the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are obligatory, and [so] they were not offered. The master said: ‘But the Sages maintain: Whatever the community offered in the Tent etc.’ What is the reason of the Rabbis? — Scripture saith, Every man whatsoever is right in his eyes: only a man may offer voluntary sacrifices and not obligatory ones; but a community can offer obligatory [sacrifices] too.^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵛnote:Deut. XII, 8.
^ʷnote:V. supra 114a.
^ˣnote:How do they refute this argument?
^ʸnote:For only animal sacrifices were permitted there.
^ᶻnote:Since the vow of naziriteship merely meant abstention from wine, grapes, defilement, and cutting the hair. The sacrifices were then imposed upon the vower.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which a nazirite brought on the completion of his naziriteship.
^ᵃᵇnote:The breast and thigh of peace-offerings, and four loaves out of the forty which accompanied a thanksoffering, belonged to the priest.
^ᵃᶜnote:Of the nazirite's peace-offering ram, which likewise was a priestly due, Num. VI, 14, 19. This implies that this was not offered at a private bamah at all.
^ᵃᵈnote:Deut. XII, 8. This is the marginal emendation. The text quotes Judg. XVII, 6.