Zevachim Daf 116 (זבחים דף קט״ז)
Daf: 116 | Amudim: 116a – 116b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (116a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Concluding discussion on whether Yitro arrived before or after the Torah was given
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה בָּא יִתְרוֹ, הַיְינוּ שְׁמוּעָה שֶׁשָּׁמַע וּבָא – קְרִיעַת יַם סוּף; דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ״ – מָה שֶּׁשָּׁמַע? מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק.
English Translation:
The Gemara resumes: Rather, according to the one who says Yitro came before the giving of the Torah, the report that he heard and came was the parting of the Red Sea, as it is written “And Yitro heard” – what did he hear? The war of Amalek.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara is resolving a chronological difficulty. According to the view that Yitro came before Matan Torah, he could not have heard about “the Torah” yet, so what motivated him? The Gemara proposes two things: (1) the parting of the Red Sea, and (2) the war against Amalek.
Key Terms:
- קודם מתן תורה = Before the giving of the Torah
- קריעת ים סוף = The parting of the Red Sea
- מלחמת עמלק = The war with Amalek
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
What Bilaam and the kings inquired about
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד מָה הָיוּ בִּלְעָם וּמַלְכֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם עוֹשִׂין שָׁם? וְכִי בִּמְסִיבָּה שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין?! אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּאוּ יִסּוּרִין שֶׁל מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם, נִתְקַבְּצוּ כׇּל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֵצֶל בִּלְעָם וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה קּוֹל הֶהָמוֹן אֲשֶׁר שָׁמָעְנוּ? שֶׁמָּא מַבּוּל בָּא לָעוֹלָם?
English Translation:
And furthermore, what were Balaam and the kings of the nations of the world doing there? And were they sitting in a gathering of wicked people? Rather, at the time when the suffering of the flood came to the world, all the nations of the world gathered to Balaam and said to him: What is this tumultuous sound we have heard? Is a flood perhaps coming upon the world?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to an aggadic interpretation of Psalms 29, connecting “the voice of God upon the waters” to a gathering of Bilaam and the kings. They were worried that God was sending another global flood and went to Bilaam, known as a prophet, to seek an explanation.
Key Terms:
- מבול = The Flood (of Noah)
- יסורין = Sufferings/afflictions
- קול ההמון = The tumultuous sound
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – Aggadeta
Bilaam’s assurance that no new flood would come
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לָהֶם: חֶמְדָּה טוֹבָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּבֵית גְּנָזָיו, שֶׁהָיְתָה גְּנוּזָה אֶצְלוֹ תְּתַקַּע וְשֶׁבַע מֵאוֹת וְעֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דּוֹרוֹת קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, וּבִקֵּשׁ לִיתְּנָהּ לְבָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ עוֹז לְעַמּוֹ יִתֵּן״.
English Translation:
He said to them: There is a good treasure in His storehouse that was stored with Him for 974 generations before the world was created, and He seeks to give it to His children, as it is stated: “The Lord will give strength to His people” (Psalms 29:11).
קלאוד על הדף:
Bilaam reassures the nations that the sound they hear is not another flood, but rather God giving the Torah to Israel. The Torah, described as “strength” (עוז), was hidden for 974 generations – a calculation based on the tradition that the Torah preceded Creation.
Key Terms:
- חמדה טובה = A good treasure (i.e., the Torah)
- בית גנזיו = His storehouse
- 974 דורות = 974 generations (before Creation)
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – Aggadeta
The nations’ blessing after hearing about the Torah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיָּד פָּתְחוּ כוּלָּם וְאָמְרוּ: ״ה׳ יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם״.
English Translation:
Immediately they all began and said: “The Lord will bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11).
קלאוד על הדף:
Upon learning that God was not bringing destruction but giving the Torah to Israel, the nations responded with a blessing of peace. This concludes the aggadic interpretation of Psalm 29 as a dialogue about Sinai.
Key Terms:
- יברך את עמו בשלום = Will bless His people with peace
Segment 5
TYPE: מתני׳ (משנה)
The Mishna about offerings before the Tabernacle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיוּ הַבָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּבְּכוֹרוֹת. וּמִשֶּׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן נֶאֶסְרוּ הַבָּמוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Before the Tabernacle was erected, private altars [bamot] were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. Once the Tabernacle was erected, private altars were prohibited and the service was performed by the priests [Kohanim].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna establishes a fundamental historical framework for the development of the sacrificial service. Before the Tabernacle (Mishkan), there were no restrictions on where offerings could be brought, and firstborn sons (not Kohanim) served as the priests. The erection of the Mishkan centralized worship and transferred priestly duties to the tribe of Levi.
Key Terms:
- במות = Private altars (plural of bamah)
- בכורות = Firstborn sons
- משכן = The Tabernacle
- כהנים = Priests (descendants of Aaron)
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Which offerings were brought and where they could be eaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים – בְּכׇל מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
Offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains [of the courtyard], while offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna continues to describe the practical differences in sanctity levels once the Tabernacle was established. Kodshei Kodashim (like chata’ot and ashamot) had to be consumed within the courtyard enclosure, while Kodashim Kalim (like shelamim) could be eaten anywhere within the Israelite camp.
Key Terms:
- קדשי קדשים = Offerings of the most sacred order
- קדשים קלים = Offerings of lesser sanctity
- קלעים = Curtains surrounding the courtyard
- מחנה ישראל = The camp of Israel
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
The period when Israel came to Gilgal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לַגִּלְגָּל – הוּתְּרוּ הַבָּמוֹת. קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים – בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
When they came to Gilgal, private altars became permitted again. Offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, while offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten anywhere.
קלאוד על הדף:
After crossing the Jordan, Israel encamped at Gilgal for 14 years (7 of conquest, 7 of division). During this period, bamot were temporarily permitted again. The eating restrictions for kodshei kodashim remained in place (within the enclosure), but kodashim kalim could be eaten anywhere.
Key Terms:
- גלגל = Gilgal (first encampment in the Land of Israel)
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
The period of Shiloh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לְשִׁילֹה – נֶאֶסְרוּ הַבָּמוֹת. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תִּקְרָה, אֶלָּא בַּיִת שֶׁל אֲבָנִים מִלְּמַטָּה וִירִיעוֹת מִלְמַעְלָה. וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״מְנוּחָה״.
English Translation:
When they came to Shiloh, private altars became prohibited. There was no ceiling there, but rather a house of stone below and curtains above. And it was the “resting place” [menucha].
קלאוד על הדף:
Shiloh represented a more permanent sanctuary than Gilgal. The Mishkan was housed in a stone structure with fabric covering (not a full roof). The term “menucha” (resting place) comes from Deuteronomy 12:9, identifying Shiloh as a partial fulfillment of the promise of a permanent dwelling for God’s presence.
Key Terms:
- שילה = Shiloh (location of Tabernacle for 369 years)
- תקרה = Ceiling/roof
- מנוחה = Resting place
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
Eating rules at Shiloh and what could be brought on bamot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – בְּכׇל הָרוֹאֶה. בָּאוּ לְנוֹב וּלְגִבְעוֹן – הוּתְּרוּ הַבָּמוֹת.
English Translation:
Offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, while offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of Shiloh]. When they came to Nob and Gibeon, private altars became permitted again.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna introduces a new concept: “kol ha-ro’eh” – anywhere from which Shiloh was visible. This expanded the permitted eating area for kodashim kalim beyond just the “camp.” After Shiloh’s destruction, during Nob and Gibeon periods, bamot were again permitted as there was no permanent sanctuary.
Key Terms:
- מעשר שני = Second tithe (eaten in a sacred place)
- כל הרואה = Anywhere within sight
- נוב וגבעון = Nob and Gibeon (temporary locations)
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
Eating rules at Nob and Gibeon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים – בְּכׇל עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
Offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, while offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten in all cities of Israel.
קלאוד על הדף:
At Nob and Gibeon (after Shiloh’s destruction, before the Temple), the rules were even more lenient for kodashim kalim – they could be eaten anywhere in Israel, not just within sight of the sanctuary or within a camp.
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
Jerusalem – the permanent “inheritance”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם – נֶאֶסְרוּ הַבָּמוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶם עוֹד הֶיתֵּר, וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״נַחֲלָה״. קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה.
English Translation:
When they came to Jerusalem, private altars became prohibited and never again became permitted. And it [Jerusalem] was the “inheritance” [nachala]. Offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, while offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten within the walls [of Jerusalem].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna concludes with Jerusalem as the final, permanent sanctuary. Unlike all previous locations, once the Temple was built, bamot were permanently forbidden – there would be no further cycling. Jerusalem is called “nachala” (inheritance) from Deuteronomy 12:9, indicating the ultimate fulfillment of divine promise.
Key Terms:
- נחלה = Inheritance (permanent dwelling)
- לפנים מן החומה = Within the walls (of Jerusalem)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Who performed the sacrificial service before the Tabernacle?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן, הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּבְּכוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עוֹלוֹת וְגוֹ׳״. נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – אֵלּוּ הַבְּכוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Before the Tabernacle was erected, private altars were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn, as it is stated: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings” (Exodus 24:5). “The young men of the children of Israel” – these are the firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a baraita that provides scriptural support for the Mishna’s statement. The verse from Exodus describes the covenant ceremony at Sinai, where “young men” brought offerings. The identification of these young men as firstborn establishes that before the Mishkan, priestly service was performed by bechorot.
Key Terms:
- נערי בני ישראל = The young men of the children of Israel
- בכורות = Firstborn sons
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative view – who were the young men?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: זְקֵנִים. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yishmael says: [They were] elders. Rabbi Tarfon says: [They were] Nadav and Avihu.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents two alternative interpretations of who the “young men” were at Sinai. Rabbi Yishmael identifies them as elders (perhaps meaning distinguished leaders), while Rabbi Tarfon identifies them specifically as Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu, who would later die for bringing unauthorized fire.
Key Terms:
- זקנים = Elders
- נדב ואביהוא = Nadav and Avihu (Aaron’s two elder sons)
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural basis for the views
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – ״נַעֲרֵי״ ״נַעֲרֵי״ מַמָּשׁ. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר זְקֵנִים – אַמַּאי קָרֵי לְהוּ ״נְעָרִים״?
English Translation:
Granted, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, “young men” means literally young men. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who said they were elders – why does the verse call them “young men”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yishmael’s view. If “ne’arei” (young men) refers to elders, why use that term? This sets up an explanation for why “young men” might be used figuratively.
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yishmael’s explanation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁנִּתְנַעֲרוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶם.
English Translation:
[It means] that they divested themselves of their property [to serve].
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yishmael offers a homiletical interpretation: the root נער can also mean “to shake off.” These elders “shook off” their wealth, dedicating themselves entirely to divine service. This explains the unusual term while maintaining his identification.
Key Terms:
- נתנערו מנכסיהם = They divested/shook off their property
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Challenging Rabbi Tarfon’s view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״נַעֲרֵי״ תְּרֵי מַשְׁמַע, וְנָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא תְּרֵי הָווֹ, אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר מַאי? אֶלָּא רְבִיעַ, וְהָכָא נָמֵי רְבִיעַ.
English Translation:
“Young men” implies two, and Nadav and Avihu were two. But what about the tithe? Rather, it means a quarter [of the tribe], and here too it means a quarter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the grammatical implications of “ne’arei” in plural form. If it specifically means two people, that fits Nadav and Avihu. But this creates a problem with other uses of similar terms (regarding tithes), leading to the suggestion that the term can mean a portion of a larger group.
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
What sacrifices did Noah offer?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן, הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּבְּכוֹרוֹת. וּמַה הָיוּ מַקְרִיבִין? עוֹלָה. אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים – אֵימָא לֹא?!
English Translation:
The Sages taught: Before the Tabernacle was erected, private altars were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. And what did they offer? Burnt offerings. But peace offerings – say perhaps not?!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions whether only olot (burnt offerings) were permitted before the Mishkan, or whether shelamim (peace offerings) were also allowed. This has practical implications for understanding pre-Sinaitic worship.
Key Terms:
- עולה = Burnt offering (entirely consumed on altar)
- שלמים = Peace offerings (shared between altar, priests, and owner)
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Proof from Noah that shelamim were offered
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי בְּנֵי נֹחַ לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא.
English Translation:
Apparently, they hold that the descendants of Noah did not offer peace offerings. Who is the Tanna [that holds this]? Rav Chisda said: It is Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the tannaitic opinion that Noahides (pre-Sinaitic humanity) only offered olot, not shelamim. This view is attributed to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, setting up a dispute about the nature of primordial worship.
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The dispute about pre-Sinaitic offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״מֵהֶם לָעוֹלָה״ – לִמֵּד עַל בְּנֵי נֹחַ שֶׁלֹּא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף עוֹפוֹת וּמְנָחוֹת.
English Translation:
As it is taught: “From them for a burnt offering” (Genesis 8:20) – this teaches that the descendants of Noah offered only burnt offerings, these are the words of Rabbi Elazar. And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the Sages say: Even bird offerings and meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
A full baraita presents the dispute. Rabbi Elazar limits Noah’s offerings to olot only, based on the verse’s wording. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expands to include shelamim. The Sages go further, allowing even birds and meal offerings – essentially the full range of voluntary offerings.
Key Terms:
- עופות = Bird offerings
- מנחות = Meal offerings
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
What type of animals did Noah offer?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: טְרֵפָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. רַבָּה אֲמַר: מְחוּסַּר אֵיבָר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
What is the practical difference between them? Rav Yosef said: A tereifa [mortally wounded animal] is the difference between them. Rabba said: An animal missing a limb is the difference between them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks practical differences between the tannaitic views. Rav Yosef suggests tereifa status matters – perhaps Noahides could sacrifice mortally wounded animals. Rabba suggests the issue is missing limbs. Both relate to blemishes that would disqualify Temple offerings.
Key Terms:
- טרפה = Tereifa (mortally wounded/diseased animal)
- מחוסר איבר = Missing a limb
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
What animals Noah took into the ark
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר מְחוּסַּר אֵיבָר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – הַיְינוּ דְּאַכְשַׁר רַחֲמָנָא בְּנֹחַ ״תָּמִים״. אֶלָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, לְרַבָּנַן לֵית לְהוּ טְרֵפָה דְּלָא חָיְיָא?
English Translation:
Granted according to Rabba who said the difference is about missing a limb – that is why the Torah required of Noah “perfect” [tamim]. But according to Rav Yosef who said the difference is about tereifa – do the Rabbis not hold that a tereifa cannot live [twelve months]?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests both views against the Torah’s description of Noah’s animals as “tamim” (whole/perfect). Rabba’s view fits well – “tamim” excludes animals missing limbs. But Rav Yosef’s tereifa theory faces a challenge: tereifot typically die within 12 months, so how could any have survived the year-long flood?
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution of the tereifa question
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לָךְ רַב יוֹסֵף: הָנֵי מִילֵּי שֶׁחוֹלֶה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁעָשְׂתָה טְרֵפָה בְּיַד אָדָם יְכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef could say to you: This applies when the animal became ill on its own, but an animal made tereifa by human hand can live.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef distinguishes between naturally occurring tereifa conditions (which are terminal) and injuries inflicted by humans (which might heal). This allows for surviving tereifot on the ark while maintaining that their sacrificial status was still at issue.
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
From which animals could Noah offer?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנֹחַ מֵהֵיכָן הִקְרִיב? אִילֵימָא מִדָּבָר טָמֵא – ״מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה״ כְּתִיב! אֶלָּא מִדָּבָר טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
And from which [animals] did Noah offer? If you say from impure species – but it is written “from every pure animal” (Genesis 8:20)! Rather, from pure [species].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies that Noah could only sacrifice from “pure” (tahor) animals – those later classified as kosher. This is explicit in the verse describing his post-flood offerings.
Key Terms:
- טמא = Impure (non-kosher species)
- טהור = Pure (kosher species)
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
Why were seven pairs of pure animals taken?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא הָוֵי אֶלָּא שִׁבְעָה? אֶלָּא הָוֵי שִׁבְעָה זְכָרִים וְשִׁבְעָה נְקֵבוֹת.
English Translation:
And were there not only seven [of each pure species]? Rather, there were seven males and seven females.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses how Noah could sacrifice from a limited population. Seven “pairs” actually means fourteen animals (seven male, seven female), providing enough for both repopulating the species and offering sacrifices.
Segment 25
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Eliezer’s view on pure vs. impure animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִכׇּל הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִקְרִיב נֹחַ מִן הַטְּהוֹרָה וְלֹא מִן הַטְּמֵאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף מִן הָעוֹף.
English Translation:
The Sages taught: “From every pure animal and from every pure bird” (Genesis 8:20) – this teaches that Noah offered from the pure [species] and not from the impure. Rabbi Yehuda says: Also from the bird [offerings].
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita confirms that Noah’s offerings were exclusively from pure species. Rabbi Yehuda emphasizes that this applied equally to bird offerings – Noah offered pure birds as well.
Segment 26
TYPE: גמרא
How did Noah know which animals were pure before Sinai?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא יָדַע נֹחַ טְהוֹרָה מִטְּמֵאָה? אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מֵאוֹתָן שֶׁהַתֵּבָה קוֹלְטָתָן.
English Translation:
And how did Noah know [the difference between] pure and impure? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From those that the ark accepted.
קלאוד על הדף:
A profound question: the Torah’s dietary laws came much later at Sinai, so how did Noah distinguish pure from impure? The answer suggests the ark itself had miraculous discernment – it “accepted” the pure animals in sevens and impure in pairs, revealing their status to Noah.
Segment 27
TYPE: גמרא
Another answer – animals that had not crossbred
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: מֵאוֹתָן שֶׁנִּזְדַּוְּגוּ לְמִינָן.
English Translation:
Rav Chisda said: From those that mated with their own kind.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda offers an alternative: Noah identified pure species by their behavior. Animals that naturally mated only within their species demonstrated a kind of “purity” – they maintained proper boundaries. This behavioral criterion revealed which species were fit for sacrifice.
Key Terms:
- נזדווגו למינן = Mated with their own kind
Amud Bet (116b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – Aggadeta
How Rachav knew about the fear that gripped the nations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּאֲפִילּוּ אִקַּשּׁוֹיֵי נָמֵי לָא אִקַּשּׁוּ. וּמְנָא יָדְעָה? דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין לָךְ כׇּל שַׂר וְנָגִיד שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עַל רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara replies that Rahab used this phrase euphemistically, to say that their fear was so great that their male organs were not even able to become erect, as “kama” also means rise. The Gemara asks: And how did Rahab know this? The Gemara replies: As the Master said: You do not have any prince or ruler at that time who did not engage in intercourse with Rahab the prostitute.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the aggadah from the previous amud, the Gemara explains how Rachav could testify about the psychological state of Canaan’s leaders. Her profession gave her intimate knowledge of the ruling class, and she witnessed firsthand their fear-induced impotence when they heard about Israel’s miracles.
Key Terms:
- רחב הזונה = Rahab the prostitute
- שר ונגיד = Prince and ruler
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – Aggadeta
Rachav’s age and conversion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרוּ: בַּת עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים הָיְתָה כְּשֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְזִנְּתָה [כׇּל] אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר. אַחַר חֲמִישִּׁים שָׁנָה נִתְגַּיְּירָה, אָמְרָה: ״יְהֵא מָחוּל לִי בִּשְׂכַר חֶבֶל חַלּוֹן וּפִשְׁתִּים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds that the Sages said with regard to Rahab: She was ten years old when the Jewish people left Egypt, and she engaged in prostitution all forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness. After that, when she was fifty years old, she converted when the two spies visited her. She said: May all of my sins of prostitution be forgiven me as a reward for having endangered myself with the rope, window, and flax, by means of which I saved Joshua’s two spies.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides biographical details about Rachav. She converted at age 50 after a life of prostitution, and requested that her merit in saving the spies (using rope, window, and flax – see Joshua 2) atone for her past. This demonstrates the power of teshuva and righteous action.
Key Terms:
- נתגיירה = She converted
- חבל חלון ופשתים = Rope, window, and flax (instruments of her rescue of the spies)
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Gentiles are permitted to offer sacrifices today
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: וְגוֹיִם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּוִין עַל שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְצוּוִין עַל שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ.
English Translation:
The Master said in the baraita that discussed the sacrifice of offerings before the construction of the Tabernacle: And today gentiles are permitted to do so, i.e., to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, despite the fact that this is forbidden for the Jews. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verses that prohibit the slaughter of offerings outside the Temple: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:2). This indicates that only Jews are commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple, but gentiles are not commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara derives an important halacha: the prohibition of “shechutei chutz” (slaughtering offerings outside the Temple) applies only to Jews. The verse specifically addresses “Bnei Yisrael,” excluding gentiles from this prohibition. Therefore, non-Jews may build private altars and sacrifice.
Key Terms:
- גוים = Gentiles/non-Jews
- שחוטי חוץ = Offerings slaughtered outside [the Temple]
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Gentiles building private altars – restrictions on Jewish assistance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בּוֹנֶה לוֹ בָּמָה לְעַצְמוֹ, וּמַקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ כׇּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אָסוּר לְסַיְּיעָן וְלַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָן. אָמַר רַבָּה: וּלְאוֹרֹיִנְהוּ שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
Therefore, each and every gentile may, if he desires, construct a private altar for himself, and sacrifice upon it whatever he desires. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa says that Rav Asi says: Although it is permitted for gentiles to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, it is prohibited for a Jew to assist them or to fulfill their agency in this matter, as sacrificing in this manner is forbidden for a Jew. Rabba said: But to instruct them how to sacrifice outside the Temple is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara establishes practical boundaries: while gentiles may sacrifice on private altars, Jews may not actively assist or serve as their agents. However, teaching them the proper procedures is permitted. This distinguishes between passive instruction and active participation.
Key Terms:
- לסייען = To assist them
- לעשות שליחותן = To fulfill their agency
- לאורינהו = To instruct them
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The story of Ifera Hurmiz and Rava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי הָא דְּאִיפְרָא הוֹרְמִיז אִימֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא שַׁדַּרָה קוּרְבָּנָא לְרָבָא, שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: ״אַסְּקוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם״. אֲמַר לְהוּ לְרַב סָפְרָא וּלְרַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא: זִילוּ וּדְבַרוּ תְּרֵי עוּלֵמֵי גּוּלָאֵי, וַחֲזוֹ הֵיכָא דְּמַסְּקָא יַמָּא שִׂירְטוֹן; וּשְׁקֻלוּ צִיבֵי חַדְתֵי, וְאַפִּיקוּ נוּרָא מִמָּרָא חַדְתָּא, וְאַסְּקוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם.
English Translation:
This is similar to that incident in which Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur of Persia, sent an offering to Rava, with which she sent this message to him: Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven. Rava said to Rav Safra and to Rav Aḥa bar Huna: Go, take two gentile youths of the same age, i.e., similar to one another, so that the sacrifice will be performed with maximal beauty, and see where the sea currently raises silt [sirton], which is a place that no one has used before. And take new wood and bring out fire from new vessels, and the two youths will sacrifice the offering for her, for the sake of Heaven.
קלאוד על הדף:
A remarkable narrative: the Persian queen mother, Ifera Hurmiz, sent an offering to Rava requesting it be sacrificed to the God of Israel. Rava instructed how to perform it properly without Jews directly participating – using gentile assistants, a virgin location, new wood, and fresh fire. This illustrates the halacha in practice.
Key Terms:
- איפרא הורמיז = Ifera Hurmiz (Persian queen mother)
- שבור מלכא = King Shapur (of Persia)
- שירטון = Silt (indicating an unused location)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s challenge – the requirement for new wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מָה מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט, אַף עֵצִים – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ בְּבָמָה!
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion was the instruction to sacrifice exclusively with new wood? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar is a place that is not used by an ordinary person, so too, the wood that will be used must not be used by an ordinary person. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua concede that in the case of a private altar the wood need not be new?
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye questions Rava’s insistence on new wood. This stringency follows Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, who requires that altar wood be unused by ordinary people. But this requirement applies to the Temple – for a bamah (private altar), even Rabbi Elazar agrees the standards are lower.
Key Terms:
- רבי אלעזר בן שמוע = Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua
- הדיוט = An ordinary person
- במה = Private altar
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
The contradictory verses about David’s payment for the Temple site
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לְאׇרְנָן בַּמָּקוֹם שִׁקְלֵי זָהָב מִשְׁקָל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקֶן דָּוִד אֶת הַגֹּרֶן וְאֶת הַבָּקָר בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים חֲמִשִּׁים״; הָא כֵּיצַד?
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to David’s purchase of the site of the Temple, when he wished to build an altar there at God’s instruction, one verse states: “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (I Chronicles 21:25–26). And it is written elsewhere: “So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (II Samuel 24:24–25). How can these texts be reconciled?
קלאוד על הדף:
A famous contradiction between Samuel and Chronicles about what David paid for the Temple Mount location. One says 50 silver shekels, the other says 600 gold shekels. The Gemara will offer solutions to harmonize these verses.
Key Terms:
- ארנן / ארונה = Ornan/Araunah (the Jebusite who owned the threshing floor)
- גורן = Threshing floor
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution – collection from each tribe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוֹבֶה מִכׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי: בָּקָר [וְעֵצִים] וּמְקוֹם מִזְבֵּחַ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים, וְכׇל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.
English Translation:
David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai that there is another explanation: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and he purchased the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two resolutions are offered: (1) David collected 50 shekels from each of the 12 tribes, totaling 600. (2) The 50 shekels covered just the altar area with the cattle and wood; the full 600 was for the entire Temple complex.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s explanation and the wood from Araunah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: בָּקָר וְעֵצִים וּמְקוֹם מִזְבֵּחַ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים, וְכׇל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת; דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד: יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ [הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו], רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמֹּרִגִּים [וּכְלֵי הַבָּקָר] לָעֵצִים״. וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם נָמֵי בְּחַדְתֵי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says likewise: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels, as it is written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer that which is good in his eyes; see the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing tools, and the implements of the cattle for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22), to which David replied: “No, but I will buy it from you at a price” (II Samuel 24:24). Consequently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, David purchased the threshing instruments and the furniture of the oxen for use as wood. And Rava could have said to you in response: There too, in the case of David, the verse is dealing with new vessels that had not yet been used.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua uses the verse to prove that David used the threshing equipment for altar wood – seemingly contradicting his own requirement for new, unused wood. Rava resolves this: even those items were “new” – never used for mundane purposes – hence acceptable.
Key Terms:
- מוריגים = Threshing tools/instruments
- כלי הבקר = Implements of the cattle
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
What are “morigim” (threshing tools)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי מוֹרִיגִּים? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִטָּה שֶׁל טוּרְבֵּל. מַאי מִטָּה שֶׁל טוּרְבֵּל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עִיזָּא דְּקֻרְקְסָא דְּדָיְישָׁן דִּישָׁאֵי. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קְרָא? ״הִנֵּה שַׂמְתִּיךְ לְמוֹרַג חָרוּץ חָדָשׁ בַּעַל פִּיפִיּוֹת״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What are “the threshing instruments [morigim]” mentioned in the verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. The Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Abaye said: It is a heavy, serrated board [dekurkesa], used for threshing. Abaye said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? “Behold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff” (Isaiah 41:15). This verse indicates that a morag has grooves and teeth, and is used for threshing.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defines the biblical term “morigim” through Aramaic translation and scriptural cross-reference. Isaiah 41:15 describes a “morag” with sharp teeth – a threshing sledge with serrated edges used to separate grain.
Key Terms:
- מוריגים/מורג = Threshing sledge/board
- טורבל = A type of threshing implement
- פיפיות = Sharp edges/teeth
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rava teaching his son about the contradictory verses
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַקְרֵי לֵיהּ רָבָא לִבְרֵיהּ, וְרָמֵי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי; כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לְאׇרְנָן וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקֶן דָּוִד וְגוֹ׳״; הָא כֵּיצַד? גּוֹבֶה מִכׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.
English Translation:
With regard to the contradiction between the verses that relate the sum of shekels paid by David, the Gemara says that Rava was teaching these verses to his son, and raised a contradiction between verses: It is written: “So David gave to Ornan…six hundred shekels of gold by weight” (I Chronicles 21:25), and it is written: “So David bought…fifty shekels of silver” (II Samuel 24:24). How can these texts be reconciled? David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels.
קלאוד על הדף:
A pedagogical vignette: Rava used this contradiction as a teaching exercise with his son, demonstrating how to harmonize apparently conflicting biblical texts. The resolution involves understanding that the total was collected through tribal contributions.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Resolving the silver vs. gold discrepancy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַכַּתִּי קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי – הָתָם כֶּסֶף, הָכָא זָהָב! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: גּוֹבֶה כֶּסֶף בְּמִשְׁקַל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת זָהָב.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But these verses are still difficult, as they contradict one another, since there in the book of Samuel it is stated that David paid silver shekels, while here in Chronicles it is stated that he paid gold shekels. The Gemara replies: Rather, this is what the verses are saying: David would collect from each tribe silver shekels that had the value of fifty gold shekels in weight, so that the value of the final sum was equal to six hundred gold shekels.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further difficulty remains: one verse says silver, the other gold. The resolution: David collected silver coins but in a quantity whose total weight equaled 600 gold shekels in value. The currency type and value metric were different but ultimately equivalent.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Return to the Mishna – what does “camp of Israel” mean?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים נֶאֱכָלִים [בְּכׇל מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּכׇל מְקוֹמוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַחֲנֶה לָא הָוֵי.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that once the Tabernacle was established in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel. Rav Huna says: This means that offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten in any of the places that an Israelite would be found. But there was no actual camp, outside of which it was prohibited to eat the offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara interprets the Mishna’s phrase “machaneh Yisrael.” Rav Huna suggests it doesn’t mean a formally defined camp with boundaries, but rather anywhere Israelites happened to be – a functional rather than geographic definition.
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Nachman challenges Rav Huna – there were camps in the desert
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: וּמַחֲנוֹת בְּמִדְבָּר לָא הֲוַאי?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּחֲנֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר, כָּךְ מַחֲנֶה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם; מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת – מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר – מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה,
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna: And were there not camps when the Jews were in the wilderness? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (see Tosefta, Kelim Bava Kamma 1:12): Just as there was a camp in the wilderness that was divided into different sections, with each section having particular halakhot pertaining to the consumption of offerings and to the ritually impure individuals who were prohibited from entering there, so too, there is a corresponding camp in Jerusalem: The area from the walls of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount has the status of the Israelite camp. The area from the Temple Mount to Nicanor’s Gate at the entrance to the Temple courtyard has the status of the Levite camp.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman challenges Rav Huna with a baraita that explicitly describes three camps in the wilderness, which were later mapped onto Jerusalem’s geography. This proves there were formal camp boundaries with legal significance.
Key Terms:
- מחנה ישראל = Camp of Israel
- מחנה לויה = Levite camp
- שער נקנור = Nicanor’s Gate
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
The camp of the Divine Presence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – מַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה, וְהֵן הֵן קְלָעִים שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר.
English Translation:
From that point onward, i.e., from the entrance to the Temple courtyard, the area has the status of the camp of the Divine Presence; and the Temple courtyard has the same status as the area within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the three-camp structure: (1) Israelite camp = Jerusalem to Temple Mount, (2) Levite camp = Temple Mount to courtyard entrance, (3) Divine Presence camp = the courtyard itself. This tripartite division governed purity laws and offering consumption.
Key Terms:
- מחנה שכינה = Camp of the Divine Presence
- קלעים = Curtains (of the courtyard)
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Huna’s corrected statement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּכׇל מְקוֹם מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיפְּסִלוּ בְּיוֹצֵא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara replies: Rather, say that Rav Huna meant that when the Tabernacle was in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity could be consumed wherever the Israelite camp was located. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Wherever the Jews were located in the wilderness was where the Israelite camp was. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that during the periods of travel between encampments the offerings were taken outside the Israelite camp, and were thereby disqualified due to the meat’s leaving the area within the partitions, Rav Huna teaches us that the meat is not disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reinterprets Rav Huna’s statement to address travel periods. During journeys between encampments, one might think the offerings become pasul (disqualified) for “leaving” the camp. Rav Huna teaches that the camp status moves with the people.
Key Terms:
- יוצא = Leaving/going out (a disqualification for sacrificial meat)
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural proof that the camp status travels
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is indeed so, i.e., that the meat is disqualified because it left the camp? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting, with the camp of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they travel” (Numbers 2:17), which indicates that although it traveled from its place it is still the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, the Israelite camp retains its status even while traveling.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse “the Tent of Meeting shall travel” proves that sanctity is portable. The Ohel Moed retains its sacred status even in transit, and by extension, the Israelite camp retains its boundaries relative to the moving Tabernacle.
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai on additional camps
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: עוֹד אַחֶרֶת הָיְתָה, וְחֵיל עֶזְרַת נָשִׁים הִיא, וְלֹא הָיוּ עוֹנְשִׁין עָלֶיהָ. וּבְשִׁילֹה לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת בִּלְבַד.
English Translation:
With regard to the division of Jerusalem into three camps, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: There was an additional camp in Jerusalem, within the area of the Temple Mount, and it was the rampart of the women’s courtyard. The Sages rendered it prohibited for certain ritually impure individuals to enter that area, but they would not punish them for entering it, as by Torah law it does not constitute a distinct section of the Temple Mount but has the status of the Levite camp. The baraita adds: And when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh there were only two camps.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai adds nuance: there was a fourth area (ezrat nashim – women’s courtyard) with rabbinic restrictions but no Torah-level punishment. He also notes that Shiloh had only two camps, not three, raising the question of which one was missing.
Key Terms:
- חיל = Rampart (an area between the Temple Mount and the courtyard)
- עזרת נשים = Women’s courtyard
- שילה = Shiloh
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Which camp was missing at Shiloh?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ לָא הֲוָה? אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה הֲוַאי; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה לָא הֲוַאי –
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Which of the three camps that were present in the wilderness was not present in Shiloh? Rabba said: It stands to reason that the Levite camp was present, but the Israelite camp was not. As, if it enters your mind to say that the Levite camp was not present in Shiloh,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara investigates which camp was absent at Shiloh. Rabba reasons that the Levite camp must have existed (being essential to Temple service), so the missing camp was the Israelite camp. The daf ends mid-argument, to be continued on the next page.