Zevachim Daf 117 (זבחים דף קי״ז)
Daf: 117 | Amudim: 117a – 117b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (117a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (המשך)
Continuation of the discussion about the three camps in Shiloh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִמְצְאוּ זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״ –
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues the discussion from the previous daf about the structure of the camps in Shiloh. If there were only two camps, both zavim (those with gonorrheal discharges) and those impure from corpse contact would be sent to the same place — outside the camp of the Divine Presence. But the Torah uses the plural “camps,” implying different zones for different impurities.
Key Terms:
- זָבִין (zavim) = Those with gonorrheal discharges — sent outside the Levite camp
- טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים (temei meitim) = Those impure from corpse contact — sent outside the camp of the Divine Presence
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
Deriving from “camps” (plural)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תֵּן מַחֲנֶה לָזֶה וּמַחֲנֶה לָזֶה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The plural “camps” (מַחֲנֵיהֶם) teaches that different impure groups have different boundaries. Those impure from corpses can enter the Levite camp but not the Divine Presence camp. Zavim can only enter the Israelite camp. This proves three distinct camps existed.
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rava’s challenge — what about lepers and zavim?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מַאי, מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא הֲוַאי?! נִמְצְאוּ זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ – שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב טָמֵא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises a counter-challenge: if you claim only two camps existed, then if there were no Israelite camp, zavim and lepers would both be outside the Levite camp together. But the Torah says lepers must dwell “alone” — separate from all other impure people! This proves the Israelite camp existed.
Key Terms:
- מְצוֹרָעִין (metzora’in) = Lepers — sent outside all three camps
- בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב (badad yeishev) = He shall dwell alone — lepers must be isolated from everyone
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: All three camps existed; “two camps” refers to refuge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כּוּלְּהוּ תְּלָתָא הָווּ; וּמַאי לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי מַחֲנוֹת – לִקְלִיטָה. מִכְּלָל דִּבְמִדְבָּר הֲוַאי קָלְטָה מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the issue: all three camps existed in Shiloh. The statement “only two camps” referred specifically to the law of refuge for unintentional killers. In Shiloh, only two camps provided refuge (not three as in the wilderness). This leads to a question: did the Levite camp provide refuge in the wilderness?
Key Terms:
- קְלִיטָה (kelitah) = Refuge — the cities of refuge (and by extension, the Levite camp) that protect unintentional killers from blood avengers
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Proof that the Levite camp provided refuge in the wilderness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִין; וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם״ – בְּחַיֶּיךָ מָקוֹם, מְקוֹמֶךָ; ״אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה״. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְלִין בַּמִּדְבָּר. לְהֵיכָן גּוֹלִין? לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita proves the Levite camp provided refuge even in the wilderness. The verse “I will appoint for you a place” (Exodus 21:13) indicates refuge was available even during Moses’ lifetime. “Your place” refers to Moses’ place — the Levite camp. Unintentional killers in the desert fled to the Levite camp for protection.
Segment 6
TYPE: הלכה
A Levite who kills — exiled within Levite cities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהָרַג – גּוֹלֶה מִפֶּלֶךְ לְפֶלֶךְ, וְאִם גָּלָה לְפִלְכּוֹ – פִּלְכּוֹ קוֹלְטוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages derive a practical halacha: since Levites already live in cities of refuge, what happens if a Levite kills unintentionally? He is exiled from one Levite city to another. If he’s already in a city of refuge when he kills again, he can relocate to a different section of the same city.
Key Terms:
- פֶּלֶךְ (pelech) = District/city — here referring to Levite cities
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
Scriptural source for a Levite’s internal exile
Hebrew/Aramatic:
מַאי קְרָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: ״כִּי בְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ יֵשֵׁב״ – עִיר שֶׁקְּלָטַתּוּ כְּבָר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Acha son of Rav Ika provides the scriptural source: “in his city of refuge he shall dwell” (Numbers 35:28). The phrase “his city” implies a city that already admitted him — he stays within the same city, just in a different section.
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
What was sacrificed on private altars in Gilgal — the three-way dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A major baraita presents a dispute about what could be sacrificed on private altars during the Gilgal period (when private altars were permitted). Rabbi Meir: vow and voluntary offerings were allowed, including meal offerings and nazirite offerings. The Rabbis: only burnt offerings and peace offerings were permitted on private altars.
Key Terms:
- נִידָּר וְנִידָּב (nidar ve-nidav) = Vow and voluntary offerings
- מִנְחָה (mincha) = Meal offering
- נְזִירוּת (nezirut) = Nazirite offerings
Segment 9
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yehuda’s position — comparing wilderness and Gilgal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda presents his view: the central altar (Tent of Meeting) in Gilgal accepted everything that the wilderness Tabernacle accepted. The only difference: in the wilderness, private altars were forbidden; in Gilgal, private altars were permitted. But even on permitted private altars, only burnt offerings and peace offerings were allowed.
Key Terms:
- בָּמָתוֹ שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ (bamato she-be-rosh gago) = His private altar on his roof — a personal altar
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת (המשך)
The Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon’s positions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis hold: the public could sacrifice at Gilgal’s central altar anything they sacrificed in the wilderness. Individuals, however, could only offer burnt offerings and peace offerings on any altar (central or private). Rabbi Shimon is even more restrictive: even the public only sacrificed Paschal offerings and time-bound communal obligations.
Amud Bet (117b)
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא (סיום)
Rabbi Shimon’s full position — only Paschal and time-bound offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon’s full statement: even the public at Gilgal’s central altar only sacrificed Paschal offerings and time-bound communal obligations (like daily offerings and musaf offerings). Non-time-bound public offerings weren’t sacrificed at Gilgal according to this view.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן (chovot she-kavua lahen zman) = Time-bound compulsory offerings — offerings with fixed times (daily, Shabbat, holidays)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Meir’s reasoning — from the verse “every man what is fitting”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים פֹּה הַיּוֹם״ –
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now analyzes the scriptural sources for each position. Rabbi Meir derives his view from Deuteronomy 12:8-9, which speaks about the transition from wilderness to land. The key phrase is “every man what is fitting (הַיָּשָׁר) in his own eyes.”
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה
Moses’ instruction — “fitting” offerings yes, compulsory no
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי עָיְילִיתוּ לָאָרֶץ ישראל – יְשָׁרוֹת תַּקְרִיבוּ, חוֹבוֹת לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ. מְנָחוֹת וּנְזִירוֹת – יְשָׁרוֹת נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Moses told Israel: upon entering the land (during the Gilgal period), on private altars you may offer “yesharot” (fitting/voluntary offerings) but not “chovot” (compulsory offerings). Rabbi Meir interprets meal offerings and nazirite offerings as “yesharot” since they’re voluntary.
Key Terms:
- יְשָׁרוֹת (yesharot) = Fitting offerings — voluntary, what one chooses to bring
- חוֹבוֹת (chovot) = Compulsory offerings — obligatory
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
The Rabbis’ reasoning — meal offerings not on bamot; nazirite offerings are compulsory
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן – אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה; נְזִירוֹת חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis disagree on two grounds: (1) Meal offerings are never sacrificed on private altars (this is a fundamental rule). (2) Nazirite offerings, while the vow is voluntary, become compulsory once the vow is made — so they’re classified as “chovot,” not “yesharot.”
Segment 15
TYPE: שמואל
Shmuel’s clarification — the dispute is about sin and guilt offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל בְּעוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יְשָׁרוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְקָרְבִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel limits the scope of the dispute: Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis only disagree about the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite. Everyone agrees the nazirite’s burnt offering and peace offering are “yesharot” (voluntary) and could be sacrificed on private altars.
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Rabba’s challenge from the breast, thigh, and terumah loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹתֵיב רַבָּה: חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק וּתְרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. וְאִילּוּ הַזְּרוֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה – שַׁיְּירַהּ;
English Translation:
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 terumah 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. 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba challenges Shmuel’s interpretation with a baraita about priestly portions. The breast, thigh, and terumah loaves apply only to the great altar, not private altars. But the nazirite’s cooked foreleg isn’t mentioned! This suggests the nazirite’s peace offering wasn’t sacrificed on private altars at all.
Key Terms:
- חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק (chazeh va-shok) = Breast and thigh — portions of peace offerings given to priests
- תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה (terumat lachmei todah) = Terumah of thanks-offering loaves
- זְרוֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה (zero’a beshelah) = Cooked foreleg — given to priests from nazirite’s ram
Segment 17
TYPE: בירור
Analyzing the omission of the nazirite’s foreleg
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים פְּלִיגִי, הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם פְּלִיגִי, הָא מַנִּי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba’s logic: If the dispute were only about sin and guilt offerings (as Shmuel said), and everyone agrees the nazirite’s peace offering was sacrificed on private altars, why doesn’t the baraita mention the nazirite’s foreleg? The baraita must follow the Rabbis who hold no nazirite offerings were on private altars — contradicting Shmuel!
Segment 18
TYPE: תיקון
Correcting Shmuel’s statement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר – אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּעוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אֲבָל בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חוֹבוֹת נִינְהוּ, וְלָא קָרְבִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara corrects Shmuel’s statement: the dispute is about the burnt offering and peace offering of the nazirite. Everyone agrees the sin offering and guilt offering are compulsory and weren’t sacrificed on private altars.
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא (ציטוט)
Returning to the Rabbis’ position in the baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מַקְרִיבִין בְּאֹהֶל וְכוּ׳.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to clarify the positions. Rabbi Yehuda: the central altar accepted all offerings; only private altars were limited. The Rabbis: even at the central altar, individuals could only offer burnt offerings and peace offerings — the public could offer everything.
Segment 20
TYPE: דרשה
The Rabbis’ scriptural source — “a man” vs. “the public”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״; אִישׁ – יְשָׁרוֹת הוּא דְּלִיקְרוּב, חוֹבוֹת לָא לִיקְרוּב; וְצִבּוּר – אֲפִילּוּ חוֹבוֹת לִיקְרוּב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis derive from “a man (אִישׁ) whatsoever is fitting” that only individuals are limited to “fitting” (voluntary) offerings. The public, not being “a man,” can sacrifice even compulsory offerings. This distinguishes between individual and communal sacrificial rights during the Gilgal period.